View Full Version : Finally, a Republican Sees the Light!
DrunkCajun
05-12-2005, 16:48
Comments?
Link. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/05/mccain_wont_concede_on_torture_ban/)
McCain won't concede on torture ban
Insists on language prohibiting cruel, inhumane treatment
By Jim Abrams, Associated Press | December 5, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Senator John McCain, a prisoner of war who was tortured in Vietnam, yesterday said he will refuse to yield on his demands that the White House agree with his proposed ban on the use of torture to extract information from suspected terrorists.
''I won't," he said on NBC's ''Meet the Press" when asked whether he would compromise with the Bush administration.
He is insisting on his language that no person in US custody should be subject to ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."
The Arizona Republican said he had met several times with the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, on the issue. Both McCain and Hadley said yesterday they were working toward an agreement.
Hadley, on ABC's ''This Week," repeated President Bush's assertion that the United States does not torture and follows international conventions on the treatment of prisoners.
He added, ''We're trying to find a way . . . where we can strike the balance between being aggressive to protect the country against the terrorists, and, at the same time, comply with the law."
''We're working it. We're not there yet," he said on ''Fox News Sunday."
McCain, while saying that he would not compromise on the torture language, said they were in discussions ''about other aspects of this to try to get an agreement." He did not elaborate.
McCain, a Navy flier who was captured by the North Vietnamese and tortured during the Vietnam War, sponsored an antitorture measure that has passed the Senate by a 90-to-9 vote.
But the White House said it could not accept restrictions that might prevent interrogators from gaining information vital to the nation's security and has threatened a presidential veto of any bill that contained the McCain language.
McCain noted that intelligence gained through torture can be unreliable and he said the practice hurts the US reputation abroad.
Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN's ''Late Edition" that McCain was on the right track.
''I'm hopeful that that position prevails," said Lugar, a Republican of Indiana.
The top Democrat on the committee, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, added that ''the way we've approached the whole issue of prisoners and treatment of them has caused us more problems than any information we could possibly have gotten."
Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, speaking on CBS's ''Face The Nation" said, ''We need a secretary of defense who thinks like John McCain."
Kerry said, ''I'm amazed Secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld is still there. I believe Secretary Rumsfeld has misconducted this war in the most extraordinary way, from the first decisions about when and how to go in through the last 2 1/2 years."
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-12-2005, 16:53
McCain's a Republican in name only. Much as Zell Miller was a Democrat in name only.
This thread is merely sour grapes. Please refrain from going insane in '06
SaroDarksbane
05-12-2005, 16:56
"It's not about who they are. It's about who we are." - John McCain
McCain, 2008! Woo! We need someone reasonable and sincere in office.
And laughably, apparently Kerry still thinks people care about his opinion. Face it, you lost to Bush for God's sake. You were so bad, in other words, the US public decided to vote for someone the majority of them hated just so you wouldn't get elected. Give up and go home already.
DrunkCajun
05-12-2005, 17:17
McCain's a Republican in name only. Much as Zell Miller was a Democrat in name only.
This thread is merely sour grapes. Please refrain from going insane in '06
Red herrings abound in the very first post! I love it! Classic Smeg!
Torture is good, right Smeg?
Did anyone really read all of that?
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-12-2005, 17:54
Torture is good, right Smeg?
Not it's not. But I don't want the last resort option to be taken from us.
Anyway, if torture didn't work, why did McCain insert a a "ticking timebomb" clause? Does that mean that it actually does work??? :eek: Of course it works. Anybody can be broken. Whether or not you get the information you're after is another thing but that's why we leave such things up to people trained to do interrogations.
But I guess that you'd rather not have that option open woudl you? Even if it could be that last half of a percent chance to stop a nuke from killing you and your family, you'd rather die feeling good that you saved one man to sacrifice millions :rolleyes:
DrunkCajun
05-12-2005, 18:01
Do some reading and you'll start to understand why I have reservations about giving one human being carte-blanche power over another human being with absolutely no repercussions.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB73/
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB73/761004dos.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB73/780531dos.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0299200442/qid=1133809265/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-5993918-8151243?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
And Abu Ghraib has shown we have a great record of being able to keep that power in check, right?
I need someone to define 'torture' for me. Where is the line drawn between making someone uncomfortable enough to give up information and torturing them?
Is blaring loud rock music all the time torture?
What about bright lights?
Sleep deprivation?
Women in bras and panties?
Using dogs?
Slapping them around?
Electrical shocks?
What is torture?
MithrandirX
05-12-2005, 18:19
This thread is torture.
DrunkCajun
05-12-2005, 18:20
Perhaps we should first have the government tell us why they need secret prisons scattered about the world in countries with no restrictions on torture. If sleep deprivation is all they're doing and it's not "cruel or unusual punishment" as defined by our constitution, why not do it here at home?
Perhaps we should first have the government tell us why they need secret prisons scattered about the world in countries with no restrictions on torture. If sleep deprivation is all they're doing and it's not "cruel or unusual punishment" as defined by our constitution, why not do it here at home?
We don't have them here at home because 49% of the people here are whining liberals (Democratic party/ACLU, etc).
SaroDarksbane
05-12-2005, 18:25
Even if it could be that last half of a percent chance to stop a nuke from killing you and your family, you'd rather die feeling good that you saved one man to sacrifice millions :rolleyes:
Andarcel and I duked it out on the WoW.net forums already over this one. At what point is it ethical to kill one man to save another? Kill one to save two? Kill one to save a dozen?
Of course, in this case, the point is moot, because we're not talking about even the strict utilitarianism of the aforementioned situation. In your world, it's okay to kill one person to possibly get some information that possibly might be credible, that possibly could be acted on to possibly save an undetermined amount of unknown people's lives.
And that's just scary. :cheesy:
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-12-2005, 18:31
Perhaps we should first have the government tell us why they need secret prisons scattered about the world in countries with no restrictions on torture. If sleep deprivation is all they're doing and it's not "cruel or unusual punishment" as defined by our constitution, why not do it here at home?
Could it be that we don't want a "Spineless, tree-hugging, welfare-state-supporting, terrorist sympathizer/liberal" doing everything possible to defeat this country by preventing us from prosecuting this war to the fullest extent? Something about we really don't want the ACLU and it's assorted anti-American ilk to insert their defeatism and surrender-monkey ideals into the mix where some pissant leftist judge can order us to cease and desist thereby ensuring that our hands are tied. Just like what happened in Vietnam.
DrunkCajun
05-12-2005, 18:34
We don't have them here at home because 49% of the people here are whining liberals (Democratic party/ACLU, etc).
No, I think it's more likely we don't have them at home because the government is doing things that it knows would be considered illegal and unconstitutional in this country.
As it is we have a prison system where anal rape is nearly a guarantee. You don't see the whole country up in arms about that fact, which leads me to believe they're not as liberal and crazy about it all as you might seem to think.
Perhaps you can comment on the regularity with which inmates can be exposed to rape and sexual assault in the US prison system, as I seem to recall that at some point you worked as a guard in a prison--could be mistaken there. If so, and I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, as I'm sure it's blown out of proportion in the media. Still, the fact that it happens at all and you don't see your 49% marching down Pennsylvania Avenue over it leads me to believe you're exaggerating to change the subject away from the fact that the government may be engaging in illegal activities.
DrunkCajun
05-12-2005, 18:38
Could it be that we don't want a "Spineless, tree-hugging, welfare-state-supporting, terrorist sympathizer/liberal" doing everything possible to defeat this country by preventing us from prosecuting this war to the fullest extent?
Don't you mean the fullest extent, regardless of the law, human rights, and the US Constitution? I know that's what you mean, but perhaps you should go ahead and say it.
Don't you find it ironic that in your bloodthirsty fight to "protect freedom, law, human rights, and the US Constitution" you are forced to disregard and destroy all of those in the process?
And Smeg, you should know that my "realm" is a sarcastic reference to a rant Bortaz unleashed on me a while back. And if you didn't, now you do.
Peregrine
05-12-2005, 18:38
Well, that's sure interesting, saying "we don't use torture, but we're going to veto any bill that bans it." Looks like someone's really got something to hide!
No, I think it's more likely we don't have them at home because the government is doing things that it knows would be considered illegal and unconstitutional in this country.
As it is we have a prison system where anal rape is nearly a guarantee. You don't see the whole country up in arms about that fact, which leads me to believe they're not as liberal and crazy about it all as you might seem to think.
Perhaps you can comment on the regularity with which inmates can be exposed to rape and sexual assault in the US prison system, as I seem to recall that at some point you worked as a guard in a prison--could be mistaken there. If so, and I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, as I'm sure it's blown out of proportion in the media. Still, the fact that it happens at all and you don't see your 49% marching down Pennsylvania Avenue over it leads me to believe you're exaggerating to change the subject away from the fact that the government may be engaging in illegal activities.
You are correct that I was a prison employee. While anal rape does occur, it's not as widespread as some would have you believe. Prisons are violent places, filled with the scum of society. Bad things happen there, but it's usually to bad people. I can only speak for the Texas prison system, which is the 2nd largest in the world, iirc.
As to people not having a liberal bias regarding convicted felons: Explain why so many people are trying to save the life of Tookie Williams, who killed at least 4 innocent people with a shotgun, and bragged about the gurgling sounds they made when they died. Not to mention the thousands of other people whose lives have been ruined by the Crips, which he started.
EDIT: Look up Willam Wayne Justice, and Ruiz v. Estelle (I think that's it), and you'll see what a liberal judge can do to a prison system. I lived through the changes caused by this lawsuit, and by this judge for 13 years. It made the lives of the convicted criminals better, and put the lives of every prison employee in texas in jeopardy on a daily basis.
DrunkCajun
05-12-2005, 19:07
We're talking about two different things, Bortaz.
You're talking about people protesting against the death penalty.
I'm talking about the government finding loopholes in the Constitution in order to be able to use torture.
Very different things. Are you perhaps suggesting that we should not only be putting inmates to death, but torturing them for information as well? :p (just pokin fun)
I figured it was blown out of proportion, but given how violent and nasty a place prisons are, I found it funny that the claims in here were that the US government couldn't possibly run a proper prison in the country because of the ALCU and the 49% liberal country that would stop them (and by the way, we're taking that 51% rule pretty seriously around here, huh? Keep in mind that for Constitutional issues we're talking about a 2/3 majority, not 51%).
So I ask again, why can the US government not detain and hold these prisoners on US soil?
But I guess that you'd rather not have that option open woudl you? Even if it could be that last half of a percent chance to stop a nuke from killing you and your family, you'd rather die feeling good that you saved one man to sacrifice millions
Maybe we feel that it's worth putting the lives of millions at risk to save the principles on which their country is founded, for which generations have devoted - and sometimes lost - their lives. But of course, the important thing is winning the fight. Who cares if we lose what we were fighting for in the process?
Just like what happened in Vietnam.
You lost in Vietnam because the hippies wouldn't let you commit enough atrocities? Listening to you is a learning experience.
Well, that's sure interesting, saying "we don't use torture, but we're going to veto any bill that bans it." Looks like someone's really got something to hide!
Just like they say "claims of us having secret foreign gulags are absurd. But we'll neither confirm nor deny". How stupid do they think the American public is? Well, stupid enough to vote for Bush a second time (sorry, I mean a first time).
FreezerBurn
05-12-2005, 19:51
Clearly McCain is biased. Just because he was tortured in Vietnam, he thinks it's a bad thing. Someone like Cheney on the other hand has a more objective point of view. Five Vietnam war draft exemptions allowed him to maintain a certain distance from the subject and develop a more balanced perspective.
And Smeg, you should know that my "realm" is a sarcastic reference to a rant Bortaz unleashed on me a while back. And if you didn't, now you do.
It wasn't a rant, it was a well-worded jab at you, pointing out how silly you were being by constantly using disparaging remarks to label all the conservatives on this board.
We're talking about two different things, Bortaz.
Actually, there's no difference. The same people that would protest against executing a worthless bag of pus like "Tookie" would certainly protest ANY treatment of suspected terrorists that went any farther than asking questions and saying "please".
Stevinator
06-12-2005, 04:11
It wasn't a rant, it was a well-worded jab at you, pointing out how silly you were being by constantly using disparaging remarks to label all the conservatives on this board.
Actually, there's no difference. The same people that would protest against executing a worthless bag of pus like "Tookie" would certainly protest ANY treatment of suspected terrorists that went any farther than asking questions and saying "please".
I gotta agree. I don't see a big difference between tookie/crips and OBL/AQ. Just because tookie felt bad about it later doesn't make him a nice guy. Sometimes society needs to remove unwanted elements that disrupt the freedoms we're supposed to be enjoying. That does not mean we should do it in secret though. torture, and capital punishment are heavy topics which although occasionally necessary, need to be weighed heavily by society. we cannot become non-chalant about these subjects or we'll become what we're trying to defend against.
this should not be a left right debate. many of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
aww shoot, i was going to make a snappy joke about not doing it here because we didn't like the noise from the blaring music, but i couldn't help but be serious. maybe next time.
peleluvs
06-12-2005, 06:30
Actually, there's no difference. The same people that would protest against executing a worthless bag of pus like "Tookie" would certainly protest ANY treatment of suspected terrorists that went any farther than asking questions and saying "please".
You just listed the difference yourself. Suspected is different than proved. There's no reason keep sidestepping US law. We should be holding ourselves to high standards in fighting terror, not acting like we can do whatever we want.
I would have voted for Mccain in a heartbeat, if he hadnt stood next to GW and said he would make a great president. Makes me think maybe he is just as big a tool as everyone else in public office.
I admire Senator McCain's stand and principles on this matter.
Today the papers were reporting Condola..whatver Rice's responses. Asked if they torture she said "we comply with international law". Asked if they ran secret prisons and transprted prisoners through European airports without the countries knowlege she said "We respect the soverign rights of nations". Hardly a flat out denial.
What I really dont get is:
If it "OK" for them to do what they do outside of America then it is OK for them to do it inside America, and i really do not see the need to transport people overseas when if they are doing nothing that would be considered wrong in america they could do it in america.
Unless what they are doing IS wronf in America, in which case it is STILL wrong outside America.
I think the supporters of torture really need to think of the implications of this. If their government is prepared to torture people without remorse then surely it is possible that one day they will come knocking on their own doors. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - but then again Identity theft is a pretty big business...
You just listed the difference yourself. Suspected is different than proved. There's no reason keep sidestepping US law. We should be holding ourselves to high standards in fighting terror, not acting like we can do whatever we want.
I would have voted for Mccain in a heartbeat, if he hadnt stood next to GW and said he would make a great president. Makes me think maybe he is just as big a tool as everyone else in public office.
Part of the reason that so many people are espousing "tookie" is because they have doubts about his being properly prosecuted. This puts him back into the "suspected" realm, unless he loses all his appeals for clemency.
Also, of course McCain's as big a tool as all the rest. It takes a certain type of person to be long-term successful in American politics. That type is not your average straight-laced good old boy.
The problem is, people look at the fact that he was a POW for a long time in 'nam, and they make the mistake of automatically assuming that makes him correct in the issues he responds to.
Same thing is happening with Murtha.
I think the supporters of torture really need to think of the implications of this. If their government is prepared to torture people without remorse then surely it is possible that one day they will come knocking on their own doors. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - but then again Identity theft is a pretty big business...
The only (open) supporter of outright torture that I've seen on these boards is Smeg.
I still haven't seen anyone define torture, so I can't say whether I think it's appropriate or not. I listed a few clarifying questions earlier in this thread, if anyone is willing/able to answer them for me. What is torture to me may not be, to you. Give examples. Where is the line drawn?
The only (open) supporter of outright torture that I've seen on these boards is Smeg.
I still haven't seen anyone define torture, so I can't say whether I think it's appropriate or not. I listed a few clarifying questions earlier in this thread, if anyone is willing/able to answer them for me. What is torture to me may not be, to you. Give examples. Where is the line drawn?
I think sometimes it is one of those things you know when you see it. Some are obvious - toothpicks under fingernails, beating, starvation, electrocution and so on are pretty obvious.
Others I think you have to look at more on a case by case basis. To me it seems that Rice's evasiveness on the specifics of the governments actions suggests that whatever they are doing would viewed by many as being unacceptable - if they thought people would readily agree with their methods then they would not hide them away. Also given they have to do whatever they do outside the US it seems logical that their actions would be viewed as illegal if done on US soil. Why go to the effort of covertly keeping people overseas when you could just as easily keep them at home, unless you are doign somethig you shouldn't.
I think sometimes it is one of those things you know when you see it. Some are obvious - toothpicks under fingernails, beating, starvation, electrocution and so on are pretty obvious.
Others I think you have to look at more on a case by case basis. To me it seems that Rice's evasiveness on the specifics of the governments actions suggests that whatever they are doing would viewed by many as being unacceptable - if they thought people would readily agree with their methods then they would not hide them away. Also given they have to do whatever they do outside the US it seems logical that their actions would be viewed as illegal if done on US soil. Why go to the effort of covertly keeping people overseas when you could just as easily keep them at home, unless you are doign somethig you shouldn't.
The US has publicly stated that it does not torture prisoners, though it does use "stress and duress". I still feel it'll come down to a matter of semantics.
The administration/military/CIA won't see what they are doing as torture, because they feel they are alleviating a threat.
The people opposed to the war in iraq/Bush/war on terror will see it as torture, because they don't want the people detained to begin with, because they think the threat will be removed by "playing nice" with the enemy.
-see previous post-
The language Rice used fell a long way short of saying "We don't torture".
I think that if what they are doing would be viewed as being legal in the US then they should damn well be doing it in the US. There should be no need to hide their actions away in countries that are either unaware of what is going on or are noted for allowing torture.
Can anybody give a good reason why the CIA cannot do what they are doing on US soil rather than overseas?
I don't know why they aren't doing it here. One thing I'd imagine would be a consideration is the fact that this type of thing would be a bit harder to keep secret in the US, than it would be in some of the Eastern European countries. We, without a doubt, have terrorist cells operating within the US, and I'm sure this sort of facility would be a prime target.
Also, the US has many, many different types of facilities around the world.
BTW, just because they were intended to be kept secret, does not automatically mean they were "torturing" people.
We don't have them here at home because 49% of the people here are whining liberals (Democratic party/ACLU, etc).
So in other words you don't want to do it where there might be someone around to point out that commiting war crimes, wholly immoral and cruel practices and punishment outside the law is contrary to not only your laws and constitution but the very principles of what your country was founded upon? Interesting.
And DC, don't even listend to Smeg. Are you really going to pay attention to someone who thinks destroying freedom is the best way to uphold it and that war is the carte blanche solution to all that nation's problems?
So in other words you don't want to do it where there might be someone around to point out that commiting war crimes, wholly immoral and cruel practices and punishment outside the law is contrary to not only your laws and constitution but the very principles of what your country was founded upon? Interesting.
You'll find no posts from me calling for torture. I don't know whether we do it or not. If I had to guess, I'd probably say that we just might do it. However, neither I nor anyone else here knows whether the US is torturing people or not.
You, however, assume that since the bases are secret, there is a certainty that torture is occuring. One would think, with your military background, that you wouldn't be so naive.
You'll find no posts from me calling for torture. I don't know whether we do it or not. If I had to guess, I'd probably say that we just might do it. However, neither I nor anyone else here knows whether the US is torturing people or not.
You, however, assume that since the bases are secret, there is a certainty that torture is occuring. One would think, with your military background, that you wouldn't be so naive.
You misunderstand me. I'm assuming nothing. I'm only going on the assumptions of others and the speculation of yourself to form my own under the pretenses presented. If I had to guess that there are secret bases I would say no, because I've seen no evidence of such. If I knew of such bases I could not say for certain that there would be torture occuring within their walls, but I would certainly question the need for their secrecy and their location outside of the continental U.S. where the law and constitution have no authority if what is going on inside their walls is completely on the up and up. That suspicion I think would be appropriate under those circumstances. If you look at my military background, however, my primary job is to question and follow up on suspicious circumstances of which this scenario would qualify for in spades. I don't make hasty decisions, but I do seriously question peoples motives when they're obviously operating in shadow for no apparent reason.
Bortaz, as far as Ill is concerned, I wear a headsman's hood for jollies.
Perhaps we should first have the government tell us why they need secret prisons scattered about the world in countries with no restrictions on torture. If sleep deprivation is all they're doing and it's not "cruel or unusual punishment" as defined by our constitution, why not do it here at home?Drunk, the 49% comment is accurate. These aren't U.S. citizens, nor are many of them covered by international conventions. Yet the deliberate muddying of lines between the effective measures you mention and the ineffective ones that we should not use is constant and ongoing.
We definitely should have better guidelines and oversight of our prisons, so that we don't have another Abu Graib because of numbnuts like Karpinski. But the concept that we can use harsh language under all circumstances is illogical, to say nothing of dangerous. There's techniques that work and those that don't - and I'm not at all adverse to medical methods like Sodium Penothal or worse if we consider extreme measures in order (the "time bomb" analogy).
Also, whenever a lawyer talks about "cruel & unusual", I put my hand on my wallet. After all, what's cruel or unusual about beheadings in the Muslim world?[/sarcasm]
This thread is torture.Call Ramsey Clark. He'll fix it.
PatMaGroin
06-12-2005, 17:45
Those who cross the border illegally, break the law.
Module88
06-12-2005, 22:49
Just to spice things up...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/
O_O Take it as you will.
FreezerBurn
06-12-2005, 22:57
Poll finds broad approval of terrorist torture
Most Germans approved of exterminating ****. Did that make it right?
Module88
06-12-2005, 23:16
Most Germans approved of exterminating ****. Did that make it right?
“I don’t think we should go out and string everybody up by their thumbs until somebody talks. But if there is definitely a good reason to get an answer, we should do whatever it takes,” said Billy Adams, a retiree from Tomball, Texas.
In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way."
Edit: Oh, and in case anyone else read just the title and missed everything in it, here was the part I was talking about.
"In the poll, about two-thirds of the people living in Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Spain said they would oppose allowing U.S. officials to secretly interrogate terrorist suspects in their countries. Almost that many in Britain, France, Germany and Italy said they felt the same way. Almost two-thirds in the United States support such interrogations in the U.S. by their own government."
FreezerBurn
06-12-2005, 23:35
“I don’t think we should go out and string everybody up by their thumbs until somebody talks. But if there is definitely a good reason to get an answer, we should do whatever it takes,” said Billy Adams, a retiree from Tomball, Texas.
In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way."
Edit: Oh, and in case anyone else read just the title and missed everything in it, here was the part I was talking about.
"In the poll, about two-thirds of the people living in Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Spain said they would oppose allowing U.S. officials to secretly interrogate terrorist suspects in their countries. Almost that many in Britain, France, Germany and Italy said they felt the same way. Almost two-thirds in the United States support such interrogations in the U.S. by their own government."
And again, does the simple fact that a majority supports something make it right? A majority of Saudis believe it's ok to stone women to death. Are they right?
Stevinator
07-12-2005, 01:25
And again, does the simple fact that a majority supports something make it right? A majority of Saudis believe it's ok to stone women to death. Are they right?
No, but sometimes its tempting.
Module88
07-12-2005, 02:13
And again, does the simple fact that a majority supports something make it right? A majority of Saudis believe it's ok to stone women to death. Are they right?
Please tell me we're not going to get into a morality battle. Who decides what is right? Let's go back to the question asked earlier- at what point is it ok to sacrifice one life to save one? Two? More? Is it ever ok?
The fact is that our form of government is not one designed to do the right thing all of the time. It's a democracy. And in a democracy, what the majority wants the majority will usually get- regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong" EVEN if you could define those terms.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion- that's their opinion. Who are you to say that they are wrong? It's all subjective.
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 02:32
Please tell me we're not going to get into a morality battle. Who decides what is right? Let's go back to the question asked earlier- at what point is it ok to sacrifice one life to save one? Two? More? Is it ever ok?
The fact is that our form of government is not one designed to do the right thing all of the time. It's a democracy. And in a democracy, what the majority wants the majority will usually get- regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong" EVEN if you could define those terms.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion- that's their opinion. Who are you to say that they are wrong? It's all subjective.
Isn't that what this is? A question of morality? There are certain human truths that you intuitively know are right or wrong. They're often referred to as human rights. Any well-adjusted person shouldn't have to have them spelled out. Once you cross that line and begin to justify your actions, you will have lost all moral authority. Who are we to criticize China for human rights abuses when we're torturing individuals in violation of international law?
And to clarify, democracy is not mob rule. Our government is designed to protect the rights of minorities, as well as of the majority. Most Americans don't want people burning American flags in protest of the government. But the first amendment says they can. That's just one example. I'm sure you can think of more if you try.
BTW, just because they were intended to be kept secret, does not automatically mean they were "torturing" people.
No, but you have to admit that it looks pretty goddamn suspicious. Particularly at a time when a bipartisan (90/9 for Christ's sake) bill opposing the use of torture is threatened to be vetoed by the president, because it "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism" (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/06/senate.detainees/).
Not to mention the fact that the Administration is being cagey about the whole issue. "We won't dignify that with a response" - aka refusing to confirm and deny and so on. If these bases have a legitimate purpose then why don't they tell us all about it and make the allegations evaporate?
Also, whenever a lawyer talks about "cruel & unusual", I put my hand on my wallet. After all, what's cruel or unusual about beheadings in the Muslim world?[/sarcasm]
It's not about who they are, it's about who we are.
The fact is that our form of government is not one designed to do the right thing all of the time. It's a democracy. And in a democracy, what the majority wants the majority will usually get- regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong" EVEN if you could define those terms.
Democracy is the right of 51% of the population to take away the rights of the remaining 49.
Your founding fathers realised that and put many controls in the system. America is not and was never intended to be a pure democracy.
Not to mention the fact that the Administration is being cagey about the whole issue. "We won't dignify that with a response" - aka refusing to confirm and deny and so on.
One of the several gripes that I have with Shrub and Co. is that they (much like Freezer) refuse to come right out and address any issues. They fiddlefart around until they look like they are guilty of something, allowing everyone with or without an agenda to convince the public they are guilty, whether they did anything wrong or not. Oh, how I long for Ronald Reagan. :(
(The other gripes: Border security, spending money like a Democrat on speed, Harriet Meiers)
Module88
07-12-2005, 03:04
Isn't that what this is? A question of morality? There are certain human truths that you intuitively know are right or wrong. They're often referred to as human rights. Any well-adjusted person shouldn't have to have them spelled out. Once you cross that line and begin to justify your actions, you will have lost all moral authority. Who are we to criticize China for human rights abuses when we're torturing individuals in violation of international law?
And yet our "freedoms" have been kept in check to balance liberty with order. We know that some of these human truths, some of which are stated in the American DoI, aren't not total truths to be held literally. We have law and we have order because some of these "truths" are restricted so that chaos doesn't rule. Could the same rule apply? Could we say that if one guy is DEFINITELY a terrorist, and we KNOW he has information (say he's AQ's head military planner or something), is it ok to torture him to save thousands of lives?
The ultimate question is- is it ever ok to kill one to save many? Is it ever ok to torture one to save many? If so, when do we reach that point? Are you going to say that killing one person to save the planet is immoral because we are "killing to save?" Are you going to say that killing one person to save the planet is immoral because we would lose the principles we are fighting for (the right to live)?
And to clarify, democracy is not mob rule. Our government is designed to protect the rights of minorities, as well as of the majority. Most Americans don't want people burning American flags in protest of the government. But the first amendment says they can. That's just one example. I'm sure you can think of more if you try.
But this isn't just about our government, is it? It's about everyone.
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 03:27
And yet our "freedoms" have been kept in check to balance liberty with order. We know that some of these human truths, some of which are stated in the American DoI, aren't not total truths to be held literally. We have law and we have order because some of these "truths" are restricted so that chaos doesn't rule. Could the same rule apply? Could we say that if one guy is DEFINITELY a terrorist, and we KNOW he has information (say he's AQ's head military planner or something), is it ok to torture him to save thousands of lives?
As a general principle, a person's rights may not be deprived without due process of law. It's up to the courts to balance individual freedom over chaos. Even then, you will not find a single court in this country that would side with torture under any circumstances, as it's explicitly prohibited by law.
And the US is not torturing people they definitely know are terrorists to save thousands of lives. That's a hollow argument. they have tortured a Canadian citizen. Who as it turned out had no links to terrorism at all. And the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were not al qaida terrorists plotting to attack america. They were Iraqis who took up arms to fight an occupation. They were protected as such under the geneva convention. Which I'm sure you know, bans torture.
The ultimate question is- is it ever ok to kill one to save many? Is it ever ok to torture one to save many? If so, when do we reach that point? Are you going to say that killing one person to save the planet is immoral because we are "killing to save?" Are you going to say that killing one person to save the planet is immoral because we would lose the principles we are fighting for (the right to live)?
The irony is, you're using bin laden's justification almost verbatim. It's wrong to murder innocent civilians. But by killing a few americans, he's able to change US policy that kills hundreds of thousands of Muslims in his mind. Once you start thinking like your enemy, you're no better than him.
But this isn't just about our government, is it? It's about everyone.
Of course it is. No one should torture anyone. And anyone who does should be held responsible.
Module88
07-12-2005, 03:42
As a general principle, a person's rights may not be deprived without due process of law. It's up to the courts to balance individual freedom over chaos. Even then, you will not find a single court in this country that would side with torture under any circumstances, as it's explicitly prohibited by law.
We made up due process of law. It's not a universal law upheld everywhere. You are bringing Western ideas into this.
For the court part, it is prohibited by the Constitution, which only applies to Americans. If you're going to argue about human rights, go ahead. But foreigners are not protected under the Constitution. We should go back to a question asked earlier- what defines torture? If we can't even define that, everything else doesn't really matter. Where is the line between acceptable interrogation techniques and torture? What is torture for one could be considered by something acceptable by another. So where is that line? If you can't draw it, everything is moot.
And the US is not torturing people they definitely know are terrorists to save thousands of lives. That's a hollow argument. they have tortured a Canadian citizens. Who as it turned out had no links to terrorism at all. And the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were not al qaida terrorists plotting to attack america. They were Iraqis who took up arms to fight an occupation. They were protected as such under the geneva convention. Which I'm sure you know, bans torture.
You're arguing it's unacceptable to torture. I'm asking you if there are exceptions, and if there are, what they are. As for the GC, and combatants- not quite. (http://www.genevaconventions.org/)
Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)
In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
Read that closely. The line stops where it says, "clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war." They are NOT considered combatants under the GC as far as I'm concerned.
The irony is, you're using bin laden's justification almost verbatim. It's wrong to murder innocent civilians. But by killing a few americans, he's able to change US policy that kills hundreds of thousands of Muslims in his mind. Once you start thinking like your enemy, you're no better than him.
Whoa. When did we jump to innocent civilians? I never said I support him or his views. As a matter of fact, the only thing I really have said is that "right is subjective." And as far as I'm concerned, he believes he's doing the right thing. I'm not going to blame him for that.
Do I disagree with it? Yep. Do I believe innocent civilians should be killed to prove a point? Nope. But he believes he's right, and I'm not going to blame him for that.
After all, weren't we, at one point, the same? We tarred and feathered those who supported the British and used guerilla tactics (which was seen as wrong and ungentlemanly by the British) to win a war. How can we hold ourselves to such a high standard when our very existence was founded on the same principles (one group believes it is doing the right thing, the other group disagrees).
Of course it is. No one should torture anyone. And anyone who does should be held responsible.
It's just about our government? Feel free to believe that. But last time I checked, it's an international issue plaguinging Americans at home and others abroad.
Stevinator
07-12-2005, 04:11
And the US is not torturing people they definitely know are terrorists to save thousands of lives. That's a hollow argument. they have tortured a Canadian citizen. Who as it turned out had no links to terrorism at all. And the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were not al qaida terrorists plotting to attack america. They were Iraqis who took up arms to fight an occupation. They were protected as such under the geneva convention. Which I'm sure you know, bans torture.
I'm sorry, the US involvement in Iraq is hardly an occupation. We're trying to get them set up so we can get out--we ousted Saddam. Those choosing to fight instead of participate in the new government are Saddam's cronies. They ARE terrorists. If the geneva convention covers them then the document is obsolete and needs throwing out. Also, I don't recall them abiding by the Geneva Convention when they cut off people's heads and tied their body to a truck and drove around town. If they're not playing by the "rules" then i'm not playing by the rules.
Also, we're not talking about american citizens here. we're talking about people who sit around trying to think up ways to kill americans. Why should we grant them rights as though they were americans?
I agree we need controls to make sure we're not abusing the rights of innocents, but should we determine them a threat to America, we should not hesitate to kill. Torture, well...i'd save that for extreme circumstances.
I'm not blood thirsty, i don't want to kill a bunch of people--i'd rather they stopped shooting at us, but they don't have any qualms with killing us. we need to be able to respond in kind.
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 04:21
We made up due process of law. It's not a universal law upheld everywhere. You are bringing Western ideas into this.
For the court part, it is prohibited by the Constitution, which only applies to Americans. If you're going to argue about human rights, go ahead. But foreigners are not protected under the Constitution. We should go back to a question asked earlier- what defines torture? If we can't even define that, everything else doesn't really matter. Where is the line between acceptable interrogation techniques and torture? What is torture for one could be considered by something acceptable by another. So where is that line? If you can't draw it, everything is moot.
We're fighting a war of principles. You can't win that war by compromising your principles.
As for the courts, the constitution applies to everyone in america, whether they're american or not. But that's not really the point. US soldiers are subject to military law, which prohibits torture as well. And getting to the topic of this thread, John McCain, he pointed out that torture is clearly defined by the US army field manual. All he is saying is use that definition for torture and pass a law saying we won't do it. According to Bush, we're not torturing anyone, so that shouldn't be a problem.
You're arguing it's unacceptable to torture. I'm asking you if there are exceptions, and if there are, what they are. As for the GC, and combatants- not quite. (http://www.genevaconventions.org/)
Read that closely. The line stops where it says, "clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war." They are NOT considered combatants under the GC as far as I'm concerned.
No exceptions. And insurgents who follow the rules of war and only attack invading soldiers are protected by the geneva convention. Regardless, they're protected under other international agreements that the US is a party to. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Article 7). And Article 2 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
Whoa. When did we jump to innocent civilians? I never said I support him or his views. As a matter of fact, the only thing I really have said is that "right is subjective." And as far as I'm concerned, he believes he's doing the right thing. I'm not going to blame him for that.
Do I disagree with it? Yep. Do I believe innocent civilians should be killed to prove a point? Nope. But he believes he's right, and I'm not going to blame him for that.
After all, weren't we, at one point, the same? We tarred and feathered those who supported the British and used guerilla tactics (which was seen as wrong and ungentlemanly by the British) to win a war. How can we hold ourselves to such a high standard when our very existence was founded on the same principles (one group believes it is doing the right thing, the other group disagrees).
That puts you in direct opposition to your government. We are judging him for attacking innocent civilians. That's what started the "war on terrorism" in case you forgot.
It's just about our government? Feel free to believe that. But last time I checked, it's an international issue plaguinging Americans at home and others abroad.
Did I not just say no one should be tortured anywhere? How do you get, "it's just about our government from that?" I'd think that means something more along the lines of no government or organization anywhere in the world should torture anyone. But that's just logic talking there.
DurfBarian
07-12-2005, 04:31
One of the several gripes that I have with Shrub and Co. is that they (much like Freezer) refuse to come right out and address any issues. They fiddlefart around until they look like they are guilty of something, allowing everyone with or without an agenda to convince the public they are guilty, whether they did anything wrong or not. Oh, how I long for Ronald Reagan. :(
Reagan was guilty as hell of all kinds of things. But at least he was smooth about it. :) (Also he could pronounce three-syllable words.)
Reagan was guilty as hell of all kinds of things. But at least he was smooth about it. :) (Also he could pronounce three-syllable words.)
Exactly!910
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 04:39
Reagan was guilty as hell of all kinds of things. But at least he was smooth about it. :) (Also he could pronounce three-syllable words.)
I'm not so sure he was smooth. He probably just didn't remember all the **** he did. Alzheimer's will do that to you.
DurfBarian
07-12-2005, 04:45
I'm not so sure he was smooth. He probably just didn't remember all the **** he did. Alzheimer's will do that to you.
In the 1980s, especially in his first term, he was a sharp communicator indeed. The "pill lady" stuff didn't come until well after his time in the White House ended.
Don't you dare insult Che' Reagan, you gene-deficient egghead.
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 04:50
In the 1980s, especially in his first term, he was a sharp communicator indeed. The "pill lady" stuff didn't come until well after his time in the White House ended.
He could read a telepromter right up to the end. But once the speech writer went away, all we got was, "I don't recall" out of him.
DurfBarian
07-12-2005, 05:01
He could read a telepromter right up to the end. But once the speech writer went away, all we got was, "I don't recall" out of him.
You don't think that was scripted too? His legal counsel told him to say exactly that and no more. :p
I say that once you reach the point where you have to start thinking up reasons why the constitution, international law, war crimes prohibitions, moral limitations or whathaveyou do not apply to so-and-so you've officially lost the capacity to know what freedom is and therefore have no authority to press it. In doing so you only serve those who strive for anarchy and dictatorship by feeding them chaos.
The moral rules held by nations such as the U.S.A. hold that torture is not acceptable under any circumstances and that it is a barbaric, uncivilized act practiced only by the cowardly and those who retain power through horror. If you begin to look for loopholes in your own morality you have none left. Once compromised through the smallest violation there is no going back.
I'm sorry, the US involvement in Iraq is hardly an occupation.
Oh really?
A foreign nation invades a country; overthrows and disbands the existing government and its military and subsequently sets up a temporary viceroy/appointed council. The viceroy controls all oil revenues and consequently issues US favored edicts that cannot be easily overturned when he finally steps down. Our government then supports an appointed CIA-sponsered thug as PM. We create 14 semi-permanent military bases. Our military makes sweeps throughout the country (breaking into houses, arresting and imprisoning citizens (often innocent) for months without recourse. We set up our style of government. We covertly pay for and plant propaganda in their newspapers. Finally, our military, and our own mercenary guns-for-hire are not subject to any Iraqi law regardless of any crimes committed.
We have 160,000 US troops in Iraq. There are over 20,000 mercenaries.
You don't call that an occupation?
Good lord almighty ...
Those choosing to fight instead of participate in the new government are Saddam's cronies. They ARE terrorists.
Says who? You?
The Iraqis don't agree.
45% of the Iraqi people think it is OK to resist the occupation and attack American soldiers. Those that do are not considered "terrorists" by the existing Iraqi government.
Also, we're not talking about american citizens here. we're talking about people who sit around trying to think up ways to kill americans. Why should we grant them rights as though they were americans? I agree we need controls to make sure we're not abusing the rights of innocents, but should we determine them a threat to America, we should not hesitate to kill. Torture, well...i'd save that for extreme circumstances.
I'm not blood thirsty, i don't want to kill a bunch of people--i'd rather they stopped shooting at us, but they don't have any qualms with killing us. we need to be able to respond in kind.
All we have done is create a situation that is fubar. Our military is not designed for nation-building and this administration is grossly incompetent in said affairs.
Maybe it's time we got the hell out of there.
DrunkPotHead
07-12-2005, 08:12
No one should torture anyone. And anyone who does should be held responsible.
So how would Saddam be held responsible if we didn't go to war with Iraq (that you disagree with).
Playing the Devil's Advocate is fun :thumbsup:
"What defines torture" The UN delcaration of human rights defines torture as anything intended to cause someone physical or mental suffering (or something similar along those lines - was in the paper this morning but dont have it with me now). The UN deninition inclused practices such as sleep depravation.
A government that can find a moral excuse to torture someone can find a moral excuse to torture anyone.
What next? There's a serial killer on the loose - does the local police force round up everyone matching their description and torture the lot of 'em until the criminal cracks - after all, it will save an innocent life.
I do have a suspicion that the US public who do tolerate torture would have a lot harder time accepting it if the people being tortured were White and looked like your average American - after all the US government has until recently has terrorist leaders visit the white house as guests on 17th March for years - which I think would be unlikely if the IRA did not resemble Joe Public in white middle america. I think if the terrorists were Black then they would have a hard job passing it off in America as a video or photos of US soldiers torturing/mistreating a black prisioner would likely cause uproar. As it is the poeple being tortured are Arab, who represent a small group in the US that has in popular culture (movies and so on) generally been associated with evil against America.
The other gripes: Border security, spending money like a Democrat on speed, Harriet Meiers
Seriously, didn't any Republicans catch the wink with Meiers?
I'd ride you about Reagan, but I'm afraid I'm too young to remember anything about him...
For the court part, it is prohibited by the Constitution, which only applies to Americans. If you're going to argue about human rights, go ahead. But foreigners are not protected under the Constitution.
-and-
As for the GC, and combatants- not quite. (http://www.genevaconventions.org/)
Read that closely. The line stops where it says, "clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war." They are NOT considered combatants under the GC as far as I'm concerned.
Are spot on. The problem is that obviously people like Freezer and Ill are convinced otherwise, despite a lack of substantiation. That's why I go with the Shrubster on this one. The GC (and Hague) are international treaties, while these people are obviously operating outside of international agreement and law. That's why they're not covered.
I particularly like Freezer's view (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=3994356&postcount=51) that insurgents are following the "rules of war" (FM 27-10, I guess?) and operating within the strictures of the GC. That's bordering on two simultaneous oxymorons. :lol:
-see post above-
Does this mean that if one day the US government turned on it's people and people had to form milita to resist the government that the milita members would be classed as illegal combatants and would justifiably have no rights normally afforded to prisoners of war?
SaroDarksbane
07-12-2005, 11:46
No, but you have to admit that it looks pretty goddamn suspicious. Particularly at a time when a bipartisan (90/9 for Christ's sake) bill opposing the use of torture is threatened to be vetoed by the president, because it "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism" (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/06/senate.detainees/).
They can always override his veto if the bill has enough support.
Does this mean that if one day the US government turned on it's people and people had to form milita to resist the government that the milita members would be classed as illegal combatants and would justifiably have no rights normally afforded to prisoners of war?
I'm pretty sure this case has been made already - perhaps in the case of that worthless UPS, Johnnie Walker Lindh. My recollection of it is foggy, but it might have occurred during the regular liberal re-hash of the secret "Shadow Gov't" plans that were intended to prevent U.S. collapse in event of a nuclear war (I think these were roughly the same time).
Personally, I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. However, my oath of office includes the phrase "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The question certainly wouldn't fall under the international treaty qualifiers unless the insurgents were assisted by an outside organization.
Personally, I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. However, my oath of office includes the phrase "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The question certainly wouldn't fall under the international treaty qualifiers unless the insurgents were assisted by an outside organization.
I know the intepretation is a bit of a stretch, but it does seem that the US govt does like to play the definition game and 'find the loophole' (I note clinton played this with a very suspect intepretation of "sexual relations", as well as more serious (for the poeple involved) intepretation of rights and status of people and not-quite-transparent statements on US policy regarding torture). With this in mind i don't think it is too much of a stretch for a future administration to start defining domestic opposition as the enemy.
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 13:39
So how would Saddam be held responsible if we didn't go to war with Iraq (that you disagree with).
Playing the Devil's Advocate is fun :thumbsup:
He wasn't torturing Americans, was he? It was a domestic problem to be handled by Iraqis.
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 14:08
-
Are spot on. The problem is that obviously people like Freezer and Ill are convinced otherwise, despite a lack of substantiation. That's why I go with the Shrubster on this one. The GC (and Hague) are international treaties, while these people are obviously operating outside of international agreement and law. That's why they're not covered.
I particularly like Freezer's view (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=3994356&postcount=51) that insurgents are following the "rules of war" (FM 27-10, I guess?) and operating within the strictures of the GC. That's bordering on two simultaneous oxymorons. :lol:
Insurgents are not one homogenous group. Most would not be covered by the geneva convention. But those fighting in uniform (a black hood in some cases) who only attack american soldiers would be. And regardless if you agree with this, they are protected by other international agreements that you ignored. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Article 7). And Article 2 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
Insurgents are not one homogenous group. Most would not be covered by the geneva convention.Weren't you just claiming the opposite? Never mind...
But those fighting in uniform (a black hood in some cases) who only attack american soldiers would be.A balaclava doesn't really constitute a uniform, though I'm sure you'd argue otherwise; neither does a keffiyeh in and of itself. Perhaps if the leadership of the resistance made public claims along these lines, it could stand up in international court.
And regardless if you agree with this, they are protected by other international agreements that you ignored.I'm not ignoring the rest - treaties and U.N. declarations are a dime a dozen - so please stop trying your standard false characterization routine. I expressed a truthful and valid opinion on the Hague & Geneva conventions covering the illegal combatant subject, which ought to be evident from the very name, "illegal combatant". The insurgents in Iraq are still, so far as I know, considered illegal combatants, and the vermin siezed in Afghanistan definitely qualify. If Al Quaeda was openly allied to a nation that was a signatory to some of the treaties, it would change matters - but the treaties are agreements between nations, not some sort of magical law.
The bottom line is if a nation is a signatory to a treaty (cough - White Phosphorous - cough), and also what the Hague lawyers hash out in terms of definitions. As we can see with Milosevic's trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milosevic), these are hardly cut & dried matters.
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 15:01
Weren't you just claiming the opposite? Never mind...
No. But feel free to quote me if you can.
A balaclava doesn't really constitute a uniform, though I'm sure you'd argue otherwise; neither does a keffiyeh in and of itself. Perhaps if the leadership of the resistance made public claims along these lines, it could stand up in international court.
It doesn't have to constitute a uniform by whatever definition you chose to use. It only has to, "clearly distinguishable [them] from the civilian population."
I'm not ignoring the rest - treaties and U.N. declarations are a dime a dozen - so please stop trying your standard false characterization routine. I expressed a truthful and valid opinion on the Hague & Geneva conventions covering the illegal combatant subject, which ought to be evident from the very name, "illegal combatant". The insurgents in Iraq are still, so far as I know, considered illegal combatants, and the vermin siezed in Afghanistan definitely qualify. If Al Quaeda was openly allied to a nation that was a signatory to some of the treaties, it would change matters - but the treaties are agreements between nations, not some sort of magical law.
The bottom line is if a nation is a signatory to a treaty (cough - White Phosphorous - cough), and also what the Hague lawyers hash out in terms of definitions. As we can see with Milosevic's trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milosevic), these are hardly cut & dried matters.
These insurgents are not nationless individuals. They are for the most part Iraqi citizens. As such, they are afforded the protections of international agreements that we are a party to. Your callous dismissal of these moral obligations is why so many people see people like you and cheney as evil. You're really no better than terrorists when you lower yourself to their level.
SaroDarksbane
07-12-2005, 15:39
It doesn't have to constitute a uniform by whatever definition you chose to use. It only has to, "clearly distinguishable [them] from the civilian population."
So if a black hood makes them "clearly distinguishable from the civilian population." we should automatically shoot anyone in a black ski mask, yes?
Surely in a war of ideaology it would be better to show why your way of life has more to offer than the way of life you are trying to replace. And I really do not see how making up justifications for carrying out exactly the sort of activities you claim to be trying to replace can possibly do that.
Regarding the uniforms - what are the insurgents supposed to do? Mail order a bunch of t-shirts online and wear them around in an occupied city?
Jmerv - if your city was invaded by a superior force that you would have no hope of ever opposing would you put on a uniform and go into the street to fight a battle you could not win or would you covertly fight your attackers?
The "illegal combatant" seems to be created as a deterent to the only way a smaller, poorly trained, poorly armed and poorly equiped force can resist a larger, stronger, better trained and better armed force - which in all conflicts involving the US invading somewhere the other side will be forced to fight covertly as there is no way they could win a direct battle. Basically the message seem to be "Fight in the only way that can resist us and you will be punished".
As an aside, would the French Resistance in WW2 have been considered "Illegal Combatants"?
Garbad_the_Weak
07-12-2005, 15:41
As an aside, would the French Resistance in WW2 have been considered "Illegal Combatants"?No, because the FR didn't actually do anything. Ever.
Garbad
No, because the FR didn't actually do anything. Ever.
Garbad
Be fair. The 0.01% of the French population motivated to defend their country did what they could.
If only all the frenchmen of a certain age who claim to have been in the resistance actually were - it would have been one of the largest fighting forces in history...
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 15:59
So if a black hood makes them "clearly distinguishable from the civilian population." we should automatically shoot anyone in a black ski mask, yes?
If you happen to be in Iraq and you see someone wearing a black ski mask in 90 degree heat, carrying an AK-47, yes I'd say it'd be a good idea to shoot them.
Regarding the uniforms - what are the insurgents supposed to do? Mail order a bunch of t-shirts online and wear them around in an occupied city?
Jmerv - if your city was invaded by a superior force that you would have no hope of ever opposing would you put on a uniform and go into the street to fight a battle you could not win or would you covertly fight your attackers?That's why I think an offical sort of statement would support the concept, since it is supposed to be clearly understood by both sides. As to your "Red Dawn" concept, sure, insurgencies and resistance movements that don't stand a chance conventionally will go underground. However, as we're seeing in Iraq and as we've seen in Ireland, there's a difference between a resistance that attacks military targets (fair means or foul) for the purpose of making a conflict untenable, and one that attacks civilian targets for the purpose of terrorism.
As an aside, would the French Resistance in WW2 have been considered "Illegal Combatants"?The Germans certainly considered them so, but I don't know if there were ever any trials for the anti-partisan operations that they conducted. FYI, there were far more insurgents involved in WW2 than just the French.
No. But feel free to quote me if you can.
Then: "And insurgents who follow the rules of war and only attack invading soldiers are protected by the geneva convention. Regardless, they're protected under other international agreements that the US is a party to."
Now: "Insurgents are not one homogenous group. Most would not be covered by the geneva convention."
It doesn't have to constitute a uniform by whatever definition you chose to use. It only has to, "clearly distinguishable [them] from the civilian population."Correct - I believe one of the citations was some form of insurrection in Central America where the recognition was a red sash - that could constitute an armband, a bandanna, or whatever.
These insurgents are not nationless individuals. They are for the most part Iraqi citizens. As such, they are afforded the protections of international agreements that we are a party to.The extremely debatable belief that the insurgency is "for the most part Iraqi citizens" doesn't really matter, if you're trying to apply Geneva Conventions. They're illegal combatants unless they are somehow trying to make an official stand, which they're not. And the Al Quaeda types are hardly uniformed, so there's no way they qualify.
Your callous dismissal of these moral obligations is why so many people see people like you and cheney as evil. You're really no better than terrorists when you lower yourself to their level.Ah, so NOW we know the truth - I'm no better than someone beheading an innocent on camera, or trying to find groups of women and little kids to blow up, simply because I am unwilling to quibble over legalistic niceties regarding those who do. No wonder Cheney is such a monster... :rolleyes:
FreezerBurn
07-12-2005, 17:18
Then: "And insurgents who follow the rules of war and only attack invading soldiers are protected by the geneva convention. Regardless, they're protected under other international agreements that the US is a party to."
Now: "Insurgents are not one homogenous group. Most would not be covered by the geneva convention."
That's a good boy. You like playing fetch, don't you? Now tell me how those two statements are contradictory.
Correct - I believe one of the citations was some form of insurrection in Central America where the recognition was a red sash - that could constitute an armband, a bandanna, or whatever.
Damn it, merv. You're not supposed to agree with me. 99% of what you believe is wrong. So there's a good chance I'm wrong now.
The extremely debatable belief that the insurgency is "for the most part Iraqi citizens" doesn't really matter, if you're trying to apply Geneva Conventions. They're illegal combatants unless they are somehow trying to make an official stand, which they're not. And the Al Quaeda types are hardly uniformed, so there's no way they qualify.
Debatable by Rush Limbaugh maybe. But the CSIS, who is a bit more informed, estimates foreign fighters at 4-10%. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html) And for the sake of argument, I'm willing to say none of the insurgents are covered by the geneva convention. That still leaves The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There's no loopholes in there. Everyone on this planet is protected from torture at the hands of the US government. End of story.
Ah, so NOW we know the truth - I'm no better than someone beheading an innocent on camera, or trying to find groups of women and little kids to blow up, simply because I am unwilling to quibble over legalistic niceties regarding those who do. No wonder Cheney is such a monster... :rolleyes:
If you condone torture, you have little moral superiority over them.
Damn it, merv. You're not supposed to agree with me. 99% of what you believe is wrong. So there's a good chance I'm wrong now.Hey, I'm "intellectually honest" - when you make a valid statement (rare though that might be) I'll not pretend otherwise. And I won't bother showing you the contrary nature of your phrases regarding insurgent's legitimacy, since I'm hardly trying to argue with you on <yet another> subject.
Debatable by Rush Limbaugh maybe. But the CSIS, who is a bit more informed, estimates foreign fighters at 4-10%. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html) And for the sake of argument, I'm willing to say none of the insurgents are covered by the geneva convention.I doubt anyone is counting heads, particularly since their tactics have changed from attempting to fight U.S. troops to bombing Iraqi civilians.
That still leaves The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There's no loopholes in there. Everyone on this planet is protected from torture at the hands of the US government. End of story.I'll take your word for the content simply to end this portion of the argument. Going back to my original issue, the lawyers quibbling over the issue don't uniformly consider things like sleep deprivation, et. al. as fitting the definition of torture. Maybe too fine a point to debate for the umpteenth time on the OTF, but I think there's a difference between that (or slapping) and cutting off heads, bamboo slivers under fingernails, etc.
"Waterboarding" I also have some problems with, particularly since it not only caused the heart attack of one Baathist but it may have been used on individuals other than illegal combatants (I think it was said he was an Iraqi General, and should therefore have been provided Geneva Convention protection). There's drugs that can elicit the same sort of horrific reactions without accompanying dangers - give Al Zarqawi a bad trip to the tune of Eminem's "Slim Shady" (http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866), and I see nothing wrong with it. Sure, this stuff is pretty sickening in a "Clockwork Orange" fashion, but I'm not advocating it for use on the Iraqi criminal population, as may have happened in Abu Graib.
No, but you have to admit that it looks pretty goddamn suspicious. Particularly at a time when a bipartisan (90/9 for Christ's sake) bill opposing the use of torture is threatened to be vetoed by the president, because it "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism" (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/06/senate.detainees/).
Not to mention the fact that the Administration is being cagey about the whole issue. "We won't dignify that with a response" - aka refusing to confirm and deny and so on. If these bases have a legitimate purpose then why don't they tell us all about it and make the allegations evaporate?
Investigative journalist Sy Hersh published an article on a black-op operation known as "Copper Green" that peripherally addressed the usage of such bases in May 2004.
An excerpt is below:
... Rumsfeld reacted in his usual direct fashion: he authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate “high value” targets in the Bush Administration’s war on terror. A special-access program, or sap—subject to the Defense Department’s most stringent level of security—was set up, with an office in a secure area of the Pentagon. The program would recruit operatives and acquire the necessary equipment, including aircraft, and would keep its activities under wraps. America’s most successful intelligence operations during the Cold War had been saps, including the Navy’s submarine penetration of underwater cables used by the Soviet high command and construction of the Air Force’s stealth bomber. All the so-called “black” programs had one element in common: the Secretary of Defense, or his deputy, had to conclude that the normal military classification restraints did not provide enough security.
“Rumsfeld’s goal was to get a capability in place to take on a high-value target—a standup group to hit quickly,” a former high-level intelligence official told me. “He got all the agencies together—the C.I.A. and the N.S.A.—to get pre-approval in place. Just say the code word and go.” The operation had across-the-board approval from Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser. President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the former intelligence official said.
The people assigned to the program worked by the book, the former intelligence official told me. They created code words, and recruited, after careful screening, highly trained commandos and operatives from America’s élite forces—Navy seals, the Army’s Delta Force, and the C.I.A.’s paramilitary experts. They also asked some basic questions: “Do the people working the problem have to use aliases? Yes. Do we need dead drops for the mail? Yes. No traceability and no budget. And some special-access programs are never fully briefed to Congress.”
In theory, the operation enabled the Bush Administration to respond immediately to time-sensitive intelligence: commandos crossed borders without visas and could interrogate terrorism suspects deemed too important for transfer to the military’s facilities at Guantánamo, Cuba. They carried out instant interrogations—using force if necessary—at secret C.I.A. detention centers scattered around the world. The intelligence would be relayed to the sap command center in the Pentagon in real time, and sifted for those pieces of information critical to the “white,” or overt, world.
Fewer than two hundred operatives and officials, including Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were “completely read into the program,” the former intelligence official said. The goal was to keep the operation protected. “We’re not going to read more people than necessary into our heart of darkness,” he said. “The rules are ‘Grab whom you must. Do what you want.’ ”
The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact)
Of course, the Pentagon and administration categorically denied that any such operation existed.
Module88
07-12-2005, 22:24
No exceptions. And insurgents who follow the rules of war and only attack invading soldiers are protected by the geneva convention.
Ok. But they don't. So what's your point?
Regardless, they're protected under other international agreements that the US is a party to. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Article 7). And Article 2 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
Links? I have noticed you tend to take things out of context or often use outdated sources.
That puts you in direct opposition to your government. We are judging him for attacking innocent civilians. That's what started the "war on terrorism" in case you forgot.
No, I didn't.
Did I not just say no one should be tortured anywhere? How do you get, "it's just about our government from that?" I'd think that means something more along the lines of no government or organization anywhere in the world should torture anyone. But that's just logic talking there.
Oh, back to the logic talking thing? Let's go through your "logic."
But this isn't just about our government, is it?
Of course it is. No one should torture anyone.
(Kind of odd already)
It's just about our government? Feel free to believe that.
Kept it nice and simple to avoid any confusion. If that's logic, then I don't want any part of it.
He wasn't torturing Americans, was he? It was a domestic problem to be handled by Iraqis.
But he wasn't held responsible until America invaded, was he?
But those fighting in uniform (a black hood in some cases) who only attack american soldiers would be.
So we should shoot anyone with a black hood? Maybe some of those women while we're at it?
It doesn't have to constitute a uniform by whatever definition you chose to use. It only has to, "clearly distinguishable [them] from the civilian population."
And they aren't. American troops have constantly complained about this.
You're really no better than terrorists when you lower yourself to their level.
If you condone torture, you have little moral superiority over them.
Who are you to say you are morally superior? They do what's right by them, and we do what's right by us. It's ALL SUBJECTIVE. It's that simple. I'd be willing to bet they find themselves morally superior to YOU. Go figure.
If you happen to be in Iraq and you see someone wearing a black ski mask in 90 degree heat, carrying an AK-47, yes I'd say it'd be a good idea to shoot them.
Oh, you mean these guys? (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/january/images/iraqi_police2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/january/jan.asp&h=1461&w=1280&sz=185&tbnid=HPbvwqU3JNoJ:&tbnh=150&tbnw=131&hl=en&start=13&prev=/images%3Fq%3Diraqi%2Bpolice%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den %26lr%3D%26sa%3DN)
Oh wait! He's on OUR SIDE.
BUHRIZ, Iraq (Jan. 9, 2005) – A member of the Baqubah Iraqi Police Force keeps watch for anything suspicious at the outer perimeter of a gas station in Buhriz, Iraq, after a raid of the premises for known anti-coalition insurgents by Soldiers with Charlie Battery, 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Elizabeth Erste.
I hope you didn't forget some policemen wear masks to avoided being identified by insurgents to protect their families from retaliation.
"What defines torture" The UN delcaration of human rights defines torture as anything intended to cause someone physical or mental suffering (or something similar along those lines - was in the paper this morning but dont have it with me now). The UN deninition inclused practices such as sleep depravation.
The problem I have with that is that almost anything could be called torture. Hell, if that were the case, I'd sue my English teacher for torturing me. ><
Does this mean that if one day the US government turned on it's people and people had to form milita to resist the government that the milita members would be classed as illegal combatants and would justifiably have no rights normally afforded to prisoners of war?
Not if the militia complied with the above statements.
As an aside, would the French Resistance in WW2 have been considered "Illegal Combatants"?
I'm not sure, as I haven't been through the whole thing. However, the fact remains that they did NOT hit civilian targets, which is the opposite of what the insurgents are doing.
DrunkPotHead
08-12-2005, 07:26
He wasn't torturing Americans, was he? It was a domestic problem to be handled by Iraqis.
Like that was ever going to happen :rolleyes:
FreezerBurn
08-12-2005, 08:06
I doubt anyone is counting heads, particularly since their tactics have changed from attempting to fight U.S. troops to bombing Iraqi civilians.
It's not exactly rocket science. 95% captured iraqi insurgents = 95% iraqi insurgents. 5% captured foreign fighters = 5% foreign fighters.
I'll take your word for the content simply to end this portion of the argument. Going back to my original issue, the lawyers quibbling over the issue don't uniformly consider things like sleep deprivation, et. al. as fitting the definition of torture. Maybe too fine a point to debate for the umpteenth time on the OTF, but I think there's a difference between that (or slapping) and cutting off heads, bamboo slivers under fingernails, etc.
"Waterboarding" I also have some problems with, particularly since it not only caused the heart attack of one Baathist but it may have been used on individuals other than illegal combatants (I think it was said he was an Iraqi General, and should therefore have been provided Geneva Convention protection). There's drugs that can elicit the same sort of horrific reactions without accompanying dangers - give Al Zarqawi a bad trip to the tune of Eminem's "Slim Shady" (http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866), and I see nothing wrong with it. Sure, this stuff is pretty sickening in a "Clockwork Orange" fashion, but I'm not advocating it for use on the Iraqi criminal population, as may have happened in Abu Graib.
McCain proposed using the army field manual's definition of torture. I haven't read it myself. But I'm willing to accept whatever it defines as torture sight unseen.
FreezerBurn
08-12-2005, 08:41
Ok. But they don't. So what's your point?
I've already had this discussion, but to recap, insurgents are not a homogenous group. Most do not follow the rules of war. but some wear uniforms distinguishing them from civilians and only attack invading soldiers. they would be considered POWs under the geneva convention.
Links? I have noticed you tend to take things out of context or often use outdated sources.
link (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm) and link (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html)
No, I didn't.
good for you. you get a gold star for the day.
Oh, back to the logic talking thing? Let's go through your "logic."
(Kind of odd already)
Kept it nice and simple to avoid any confusion. If that's logic, then I don't want any part of it.
Nice selective quotation. Your full quote was "But this isn't just about our government, is it? It's about everyone."
To which I said, "Of course it is [about everyone]
You just lost your gold star. Now go sit in the corner.
But he wasn't held responsible until America invaded, was he?
Not our problem. Just like China, North Korea, the rest of the middle east and 90% of africa torturing people isn't our problem.
So we should shoot anyone with a black hood? Maybe some of those women while we're at it?
I believe they're wearing burkas. Not the same thing. And not terrible hard to distinguish between the two.
And they aren't. American troops have constantly complained about this.
Most of them aren't. Some are.
Who are you to say you are morally superior? They do what's right by them, and we do what's right by us. It's ALL SUBJECTIVE. It's that simple. I'd be willing to bet they find themselves morally superior to YOU. Go figure.
Except for the fact we as a society and as a nation have agreed to what is moral and what is not. Specifically, we have signed international agreements that torture is never justifiable. Go figure.
Oh, you mean these guys? (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/january/images/iraqi_police2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/january/jan.asp&h=1461&w=1280&sz=185&tbnid=HPbvwqU3JNoJ:&tbnh=150&tbnw=131&hl=en&start=13&prev=/images%3Fq%3Diraqi%2Bpolice%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den %26lr%3D%26sa%3DN)
Oh wait! He's on OUR SIDE.
Did you see anyone in a black ski mask carrying an ak-47 in that link? because i didn't. **** it. shoot 'em anyway.
Of course, the Pentagon and administration categorically denied that any such operation existed.As well they should. The lack of such "black ops" capabilities and your overly sensitized attitudes left from Vietnam is why we've got the "War on Terror"(TM) in the first place, remember? If we'd not been wringing our hands about dealing with nasty types, Osama would have been roadkill back in the Sudan, if not earlier.
It's not exactly rocket science. 95% captured iraqi insurgents = 95% iraqi insurgents. 5% captured foreign fighters = 5% foreign fighters.Well, the intricacies of said math seems to have escaped you. And I'm the one who sucks at math here, rocket science or no. Ever consider that the foreign fighters aren't the ones "on the ground"? Or that the captured insurgent numbers reflect what really is criminal elements, rather than true insurgents? You've really got to do something about that false causation problem of yours...
McCain proposed using the army field manual's definition of torture. I haven't read it myself. But I'm willing to accept whatever it defines as torture sight unseen.Be careful what you wish for. I've not seen it either, but what if it allows for more than just "waterboarding"? Striking a POW is commonplace when performing the initial search phases - not beating the carp out of them, but manhandling in a fashion that you lovely libbies would find abhorrent.
SaroDarksbane
08-12-2005, 12:35
Did you see anyone in a black ski mask carrying an ak-47 in that link?
Oh, so now insurgents use only AK's. I'm sure no insurgent has ever used the Soviet RPG pictured. :rolleyes:
I think you know as well as I do that he has a valid point.
As well they should. The lack of such "black ops" capabilities and your overly sensitized attitudes left from Vietnam is why we've got the "War on Terror"(TM) in the first place, remember? If we'd not been wringing our hands about dealing with nasty types, Osama would have been roadkill back in the Sudan, if not earlier.
Again ...
"It's not about who they are, it's about who we are".
FYI, the gist of Sy Hersh's article was this:
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focused on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.
According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.
Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story. He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.” The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can bull**** anyone.”
Get it now?
According to Hersh, the humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not the work of a few trailer-trash miscreants who were simply out of control. The fault did not stop with the incompetence of their commanding Brig General. The orders to use such actions stemmed all the way to the top of this administration.
If Hersh is to be believed (and his reputation as an investigative journalist is exceptional), then this administration condoned the use of such actions and humiliations ... and continues to lie to the American public and the world to this very day.
Rice says torture is off limits for US personnel (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10372899/from/RL.2/)
Is there any wonder why she is being questioned?
Complaints that U.S. condoned torture dogs secretary of state's Europe trip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10323501/)
PS: From your caustic comments, it seems apparent that you condone such actions and disdain the public's knowledge about it.
All I can say to you is: Welcome to Democracy.
According to Hersh, the humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not the work of a few trailer-trash miscreants who were simply out of control. The fault did not stop with the incompetence of their commanding Brig General. The orders to use such actions stemmed all the way to the top of this administration.
If Hersh is to be believed (and his reputation as an investigative journalist is exceptional), then this administration condoned the use of such actions and humiliations ... and continues to lie to the American public and the world to this very day.Hersh's rep is far more credible than your other favorite, and I don't think he even pretends not to be insanely partisan. However, I disagree with the analysis simply because I'm not insanely partisan, not because I have any definitive proof either way. My view is that while Rummy's decision was a bad one, he didn't ever plan to utilize these techniques on rank & file Iraqi prisoners (as was done). Your arguments often assign both fiendish intelligence and abysmal stupidity to the same (conservative) individuals, which I rarely accept.
Karpinski will say or do anything at this point (like going on The Daily Show to make her case). I'll easily grant that the issue is greater than out-of-control trailer-trash, but there's no way that said individuals simply decide on their own to take orders from contractors or individuals outside their chain of command. If the foil-hat conspiracies you & Sy favor have truth to them, it will certainly come out in court, one way or another.
PS: From your caustic comments, it seems apparent that you condone such actions and disdain the public's knowledge about it.I don't approve of sharing sensitive intel with congresscritters, and my views have been thoroughly substantiated over time. It's simple logic - the more people who know a secret, the less likely it is to be kept.
FreezerBurn
08-12-2005, 20:41
Well, the intricacies of said math seems to have escaped you. And I'm the one who sucks at math here, rocket science or no. Ever consider that the foreign fighters aren't the ones "on the ground"? Or that the captured insurgent numbers reflect what really is criminal elements, rather than true insurgents? You've really got to do something about that false causation problem of yours...
That's an oversimplification of course. I'm sure our intelligence agencies have more detailed methods. But if you really want to debate how many foreign fighters are in Iraq, you'd be better served to use a source rather than spout pure opinion.
Be careful what you wish for. I've not seen it either, but what if it allows for more than just "waterboarding"? Striking a POW is commonplace when performing the initial search phases - not beating the carp out of them, but manhandling in a fashion that you lovely libbies would find abhorrent.
If I remember right, it's based on the geneva convention. So i doubt that'll be a problem.
Module88
09-12-2005, 02:41
link (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm) and link (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html)
The treaty has yet to be ratified. It doesn't mean anything until it is. Kyoto ring a bell?
Nice selective quotation. Your full quote was "But this isn't just about our government, is it? It's about everyone."
To which I said, "Of course it is [about everyone]
You just lost your gold star. Now go sit in the corner.
Ah, what was the question again? What was your reponse? :thumbsup:
Let me bring that up again
But this isn't just about our government, is it?
One question, and ONLY one question. What was your response to my one question?
Of course it is
Stick that "everyone" in after if you'd like. Point remains that "logic" that only makes sense to you is hardly something the rest of us should aspire to emulate.
Not our problem. Just like China, North Korea, the rest of the middle east and 90% of africa torturing people isn't our problem.
Then what's the point of your statement?
"No one should torture anyone. And anyone who does should be held responsible."
Oh yeah, the people torturing others are sure going to hold themselves responsible and imprison themselves. :uhhuh:
I believe they're wearing burkas. Not the same thing. And not terrible hard to distinguish between the two.
Maybe we should starting shooting these guys? (http://tetovo1.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ghosts_block_street_18jan2002.jpg)
Most of them aren't. Some are.
I think you're using more of your opinion than actual evidence. In any case, even if some are, that hardly constitutes most of the insurgents who have been captured. So, your argument doesn't have much weight if it's only defending 1% of the population.
Except for the fact we as a society and as a nation have agreed to what is moral and what is not. Specifically, we have signed international agreements that torture is never justifiable. Go figure.
Signing doesn't mean anything unless it's ratified. Regardless of that, it doesn't make you any morally superior to them in any case, because everything is subjective.
Did you see anyone in a black ski mask carrying an ak-47 in that link? because i didn't. **** it. shoot 'em anyway.
:lol: Oh yes, an RPG is much less dangerous than an AK!
FreezerBurn
09-12-2005, 13:32
The treaty has yet to be ratified. It doesn't mean anything until it is. Kyoto ring a bell?
wrong (http://usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL32395.pdf)
In 1994, the United States ratified the United Nations Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
Ah, what was the question again? What was your reponse? :thumbsup:
Let me bring that up again
One question, and ONLY one question. What was your response to my one question?
Stick that "everyone" in after if you'd like. Point remains that "logic" that only makes sense to you is hardly something the rest of us should aspire to emulate.
Learn English, goofball. You asked a question and answered it yourself. I agreed with your answer. It's really not that complicated. But if you need any further help, go here. (http://www.adultreadingprogram.com/)
Then what's the point of your statement?
"No one should torture anyone. And anyone who does should be held responsible."
Oh yeah, the people torturing others are sure going to hold themselves responsible and imprison themselves. :uhhuh:
The point should be obvious. We're not the world's police. It's not our job to enforce human rights around the word. Nor would we have the credibility to do so if we wanted to. As long as they keep their actions within the borders of their country, it remains a domestic issue and does not justify a United States military response. If we disagree with those actions, we can impose economic sanctions. But we don't in most cases because we're hypocrites. Clear enough for you yet?
Maybe we should starting shooting these guys? (http://tetovo1.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ghosts_block_street_18jan2002.jpg)
Tripod logos? Ok, but I don't think they'll shoot back.
I think you're using more of your opinion than actual evidence. In any case, even if some are, that hardly constitutes most of the insurgents who have been captured. So, your argument doesn't have much weight if it's only defending 1% of the population.
Some doesn't constitute most? Gee, maybe that's why I already said, "most do not follow the rules of war." You're pretty damn perceptive today. I also said, even if the Geneva Convention didn't apply to anyone, they would still be covered by other international agreements. And if you've done your homework by now, you know that the United States is a party to those agreements.
Signing doesn't mean anything unless it's ratified. Regardless of that, it doesn't make you any morally superior to them in any case, because everything is subjective.
You really should do your homework before opening your mouth.
:lol: Oh yes, an RPG is much less dangerous than an AK!
he's clearly distinguished from a civilian. so if you can't tell what side he's on, feel free to shoot him.
:lol: Oh yes, an RPG is much less dangerous than an AK!
:clap: Well played, sir, well played.
And Freezer never even noticed. He's never going to live that down...
FreezerBurn
09-12-2005, 23:37
:clap: Well played, sir, well played.
And Freezer never even noticed. He's never going to live that down...
Rocket Propelled Grenade, dumbass. But reading comprehension was never your strong suit.
Rocket Propelled Grenade, dumbass. But reading comprehension was never your strong suit.
At least he didn't compress it.
Module88
10-12-2005, 04:08
wrong (http://usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL32395.pdf)
In 1994, the United States ratified the United Nations Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
My mistake- I was just using your site. (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html)
Learn English, goofball. You asked a question and answered it yourself. I agreed with your answer. It's really not that complicated. But if you need any further help, go here. (http://www.adultreadingprogram.com/)
:lol: You really are physically incapable of admitting you're wrong, huh?
I asked a question. You responded with:
"Of course it is."
Later, you realize that the statement was only clear in your own head. Sorry Freezer- I'm not a mind reader. What little powers I have are much weaker over the internet. Realizing that your "logic" only worked in your own head, you had to add "[about everyone]." If I ask you a question, and you answer, I can only assume you answered the question instead of going off on some tangent with vague responses.
The point should be obvious. We're not the world's police. It's not our job to enforce human rights around the word. Nor would we have the credibility to do so if we wanted to. As long as they keep their actions within the borders of their country, it remains a domestic issue and does not justify a United States military response. If we disagree with those actions, we can impose economic sanctions. But we don't in most cases because we're hypocrites. Clear enough for you yet?
Then who should they be held responsible by? The people who are getting killed when they speak one word against the government? If YOU claim they should be held responsible, then YOU need to back it up. If you agree that they will not be held responsible, then your point doesn't mean anything.
Tripod logos? Ok, but I don't think they'll shoot back.
:uhhuh: So you ignore the fact that some people actually do dress in a manner, that, in your book, would make them targets.
Some doesn't constitute most? Gee, maybe that's why I already said, "most do not follow the rules of war." You're pretty damn perceptive today. I also said, even if the Geneva Convention didn't apply to anyone, they would still be covered by other international agreements. And if you've done your homework by now, you know that the United States is a party to those agreements.
Fact is, you can't even prove there are "some." How many civilians have died in this war? How many bombs have killed innocent Iraqi's purposely? I have YET to hear ONE report or see ONE picture of a combatant obeying the rules of war. Those international agreements, as shown above, have not been ratified by the US Senate. I'm not going to go through the many pages of your link- be a little more specific.
You really should do your homework before opening your mouth.
You shouldn't open your mouth at all- the only things that come out are flames.
he's clearly distinguished from a civilian. so if you can't tell what side he's on, feel free to shoot him.
So I take it your answer is yes when saro asked "So if a black hood makes them "clearly distinguishable from the civilian population." we should automatically shoot anyone in a black ski mask, yes?"
The only response I have to that is: :rolleyes:
Rocket Propelled Grenade, dumbass. But reading comprehension was never your strong suit.
There's this neat thing you can do with words, Freezer, kind of 'playing' with them. In fact, I would venture that most here have even heard of a "play on words". But then again, it is kind of a complex idea, so it may be a bit beyond you. Ask your teacher. :lol:
Hey, since you love logic so much, would this be correlation or causation? ROFLMAO
EDIT - ever fired one? An RPG, that is? BWAHHAHHHAHHHHHAAHHHHAAAWWRR!
Rocket Propelled Grenade, dumbass. But reading comprehension was never your strong suit.
FreezerBurn,
Name calling and insults are not only childish, they are also not permitted in these forums.
Keep it civil or keep it to yourself.
FreezerBurn
10-12-2005, 14:56
My mistake- I was just using your site. (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html)
i never posted that list. and if you'd paid attention, you'd have seen it was 11 years old.
:lol: You really are physically incapable of admitting you're wrong, huh?
I asked a question. You responded with:
"Of course it is."
Later, you realize that the statement was only clear in your own head. Sorry Freezer- I'm not a mind reader. What little powers I have are much weaker over the internet. Realizing that your "logic" only worked in your own head, you had to add "[about everyone]." If I ask you a question, and you answer, I can only assume you answered the question instead of going off on some tangent with vague responses.
Seriously. Take a remedial English course. My reply was only confusing once you deleted the second half of your statement. You don't need to read minds. You need to learn how to read.
You: But this isn't just about our government, is it? It's about everyone.
Me: Of course it is. No one should torture anyone.
Then who should they be held responsible by? The people who are getting killed when they speak one word against the government? If YOU claim they should be held responsible, then YOU need to back it up. If you agree that they will not be held responsible, then your point doesn't mean anything.
I need to invade half the world? I'd love to help, but my aircraft carrier is in the shop. The citizens of any given nation are responsible for their government. If they don't like the way their government is run, it's up to them to change it by force or otherwise. It's not our place to unilaterally hold a sovereign nation responsible for their domestic policies through military force.
:uhhuh: So you ignore the fact that some people actually do dress in a manner, that, in your book, would make them targets.
you posted a link to a tripod image hosting logo. am i supposed to be impressed?
Fact is, you can't even prove there are "some." How many civilians have died in this war? How many bombs have killed innocent Iraqi's purposely? I have YET to hear ONE report or see ONE picture of a combatant obeying the rules of war. Those international agreements, as shown above, have not been ratified by the US Senate. I'm not going to go through the many pages of your link- be a little more specific.
Ok, the rainman routine is amusing. But not particularly compelling. You can keep claiming the united states definitely never ratified the agreements. definitely, definitely no agreements. but the facts speak otherwise. In 1994, the United States ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
You shouldn't open your mouth at all- the only things that come out are flames.
:yawn:
So I take it your answer is yes when saro asked "So if a black hood makes them "clearly distinguishable from the civilian population." we should automatically shoot anyone in a black ski mask, yes?"
The only response I have to that is: :rolleyes:
why not read my answer to him rather than invent one to suit your purposes?
FreezerBurn
10-12-2005, 15:09
There's this neat thing you can do with words, Freezer, kind of 'playing' with them. In fact, I would venture that most here have even heard of a "play on words". But then again, it is kind of a complex idea, so it may be a bit beyond you. Ask your teacher. :lol:
Hey, since you love logic so much, would this be correlation or causation? ROFLMAO
EDIT - ever fired one? An RPG, that is? BWAHHAHHHAHHHHHAAHHHHAAAWWRR!
Does you lack of intelligence correlate to your poor understanding of the written word? Or does it cause you to constantly make an *** out of yourself? Good question. And I'll give you a lesson in the English language today, free of charge. The two are not mutually exclusive.
cor·re·la·tion P Pronunciation Key (kôr-lshn, kr-)
n.
A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities:
Key word in this case, "causal." Not only does your substandard intelligence correlate to your constant mistakes. It is in fact the root cause of this mistake. I realize 99% of this went right over your head. But you're special anyway. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Does you lack of intelligence correlate to your poor understanding of the written word? Or does it cause you to constantly make an *** out of yourself? Good question. And I'll give you a lesson in the English language today, free of charge. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Actually, yes, you've managed to actually grasp a truth here. Since I don't lack intelligence by any measurement used (current or historic), my understanding of both the written and spoken word is admirable. Of course, having a Mom whose got her Doctorate in English before she got a real job probably helped. And though I was going to assume that you were planning to clean up the potty mouth after Freet's warning, I'm wondering what constructive gems you'll come up with regarding my (76+ yr old) Mom...
As to "Does you lack of", Freezer, the day you can give me English lessons, or any other sort for that matter, will be a very cold day in a very hot place. No doubt this was somehow indicated by your choice of monikers. And as for making an arse of one's self, well, I think others can judge pretty well.
Key word in this case, "causal." Not only does your substandard intelligence correlate to your constant mistakes. It is in fact the root cause of this mistake. I realize 99% of this went right over your head. But you're special anyway. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.Ok, since I'm not planning on another urination contest, particularly given your place in the zoo, I'll spoil the joke you managed to miss by explaining it.
Module's comment was, "Oh yes, an RPG is much less dangerous than an AK!", referencing your picture. His choice of words was a perfect double entendre regarding your, shall we say, handicap? in picking relevant links and citations.
RPG = Role Playing Game and RPG = Rocket Propelled Grenade, but
Role Playing Game <> Rocket Propelled Grenade. Except, perhaps, to you... :thumbsup:
Have fun in your alternate universe!
FreezerBurn
11-12-2005, 18:14
Of course, having a Mom whose got her Doctorate in English before she got a real job probably helped.
Good to know. Ask her the difference between whose and who's :thumbsup:
As to "Does you lack of", Freezer, the day you can give me English lessons, or any other sort for that matter, will be a very cold day in a very hot place.
Hope you're wearing a jacket.
Module's comment was, "Oh yes, an RPG is much less dangerous than an AK!", referencing your picture. His choice of words was a perfect double entendre regarding your, shall we say, handicap?
Ask him if it was a double entendre. Looks to me like it's only in your head.
Good to know. Ask her the difference between whose and who's :thumbsup:Hardly any need. Anyone reasonable ought to be able to tell the difference. (http://smccd.net/accounts/sevas/esl/gramcheck/clauses-3.html) Though she would be appalled that I used "got" twice, and once needlessly.
And then again, one can check out the use of possessives (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000268.htm) on the Internet. Neat, huh? :lol:
Hope you're wearing a jacket.What, to keep your scat from sticking? As you proved above, there's hardly a need.
Ask him if it was a double entendre. Looks to me like it's only in your head.Well, at least this is a step up from your standard potty mouth and the "I know you are but what am I?". So since I'm not the one who's had his words put in his own orifices for the umpteenth time, I hardly need to ruin this particular joke any further.
FreezerBurn
11-12-2005, 18:49
Hardly any need. Anyone reasonable ought to be able to tell the difference. (http://smccd.net/accounts/sevas/esl/gramcheck/clauses-3.html) Though she would be appalled that I used "got" twice, and once needlessly.
And then again, one can check out the use of possessives (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000268.htm) on the Internet. Neat, huh? :lol:
That was poor English all around. But you would not use who as a possessive pronoun in that sentence. The proper use of a possessive pronoun would be, "I have a mom whose doctorate is in English." The way your sentence is structured, correct grammar would have been, "I have a mom who's received her doctorate in English." Don't believe me, ask your mom. Or ask dondrei, he usually has proper grammar.
What, to keep your scat from sticking? As you proved above, there's hardly a need.
Well, at least this is a step up from your standard potty mouth and the "I know you are but what am I?". So since I'm not the one who's had his words put in his own orifices for the umpteenth time, I hardly need to ruin this particular joke any further.
I can already see this is going to give me hours of amusement.
The way your sentence is structured, correct grammar would have been, "I have a mom who's received her doctorate in English.""I have a mom who is received her Doctorate in English" is far, far worse, sorry. Nice try though.
I can already see this is going to give me hours of amusement.Amuse yourself then, and remember to clean your keyboard afterward. You bored me to tears last week, and still didn't realize your faulty premises.
FreezerBurn
11-12-2005, 19:21
"I have a mom who is received her Doctorate in English" is far, far worse, sorry. Nice try though.
who has. feel free to look it up.
Amuse yourself then, and remember to clean your keyboard afterward. You bored me to tears last week, and still didn't realize your faulty premises.
that's two lessons. let me know if you need any more. or a thicker coat.
That was poor English all around. But you would not use who as a possessive pronoun in that sentence. The proper use of a possessive pronoun would be, "I have a mom whose doctorate is in English." The way your sentence is structured, correct grammar would have been, "I have a mom who's received her doctorate in English." Don't believe me, ask your mom. Or ask dondrei, he usually has proper grammar.
Ding ding, into the ring!
Of course, having a Mom whose got her Doctorate in English before she got a real job probably helped.
Well, since it's obviously a typo it's not the sort of thing I'd usually bother to point out. I only annoy people when I think they really don't know that what they're doing is incorrect. I'm sure we can all see that it should read:
Of course, having a Mom who got her Doctorate in English before she got a real job probably helped.
I don't know why you thought JM had gotten whose and who's confused, Freezer. It looks like either he started writing the sentence one way, changed his mind and forgot to change that word or it was a simple typo.
*EDIT*
Oh I see, you were thinking it was meant to be 'who has'. That's still not right though, since the original text had 'got' rather than 'received'. "...having a Mom who has got her Doctorate..." doesn't work, JM would also have had to change 'got' to 'gotten'.
I'm of the opinion that when the debate has reached the point that the last 4 or 5 posts have been snipes about spelling, the debaters have run out of **** to say and should shut up and let the thread die.
I don't know why you thought JM had gotten whose and who's confused, Freezer. It looks like either he started writing the sentence one way, changed his mind and forgot to change that word or it was a simple typo.Guilty as charged. Plus I use small type, and easily miss things in re-writes.
Oh I see, you were thinking it was meant to be 'who has'. That's still not right though, since the original text had 'got' rather than 'received'. "...having a Mom who has got her Doctorate..." doesn't work, JM would also have had to change 'got' to 'gotten'.And since that's even worse grammatically, I probably would have "got" my original mistype at that point.
However, rather than snipe about grammar as indicated, I'll let Freezer ramble on. Buh-bye.
FreezerBurn
11-12-2005, 23:36
I don't know why you thought JM had gotten whose and who's confused, Freezer. It looks like either he started writing the sentence one way, changed his mind and forgot to change that word or it was a simple typo.
If it had been a typo, he would have said so rather than insist whose was correct.
Oh I see, you were thinking it was meant to be 'who has'. That's still not right though, since the original text had 'got' rather than 'received'. "...having a Mom who has got her Doctorate..." doesn't work, JM would also have had to change 'got' to 'gotten'.
like i said, it was all around poor grammar. he could change whose to who to make it technically correct, though clumsy.
Module88
12-12-2005, 01:28
i never posted that list. and if you'd paid attention, you'd have seen it was 11 years old.
Was updated eight years ago, but I suppose things may have changed.
For the first part... do I need to do everything for you?
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Go to the very bottom and see who signed it. TADA.
Seriously. Take a remedial English course. My reply was only confusing once you deleted the second half of your statement. You don't need to read minds. You need to learn how to read.
You: But this isn't just about our government, is it? It's about everyone.
Me: Of course it is. No one should torture anyone.
Maybe you should be the one taking the courses. I ask a question, and I expect your response to be the answer to the question. How complicated is that? Unless YOU specify you aren't respond to the question (and you're just ignoring it go on a tangent), it's going to be confusing.
I need to invade half the world? I'd love to help, but my aircraft carrier is in the shop. The citizens of any given nation are responsible for their government. If they don't like the way their government is run, it's up to them to change it by force or otherwise. It's not our place to unilaterally hold a sovereign nation responsible for their domestic policies through military force.
Hmm. I'm trying to find creative ways to figure out how you came up with these statements, but as far as I can tell, they pop out of that imaginary reality in your head.
As for the second part, ok. So who should hold them responsible? The people who just get gassed and shot when they try to change things? (They don't even get to the force part, mind you. They just open their mouth)
you posted a link to a tripod image hosting logo. am i supposed to be impressed?
You don't have to be. You just have to acknowledge that some people may not dress the same way as everyone else. :rolleyes:
Ok, the rainman routine is amusing. But not particularly compelling. You can keep claiming the united states definitely never ratified the agreements. definitely, definitely no agreements. but the facts speak otherwise. In 1994, the United States ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
I'm not going back to double check this, but is that the one you linked? Because oddly enough, it says the US hasn't ratified it.
why not read my answer to him rather than invent one to suit your purposes?
Or I can just read your answer to me.
he's clearly distinguished from a civilian. so if you can't tell what side he's on, feel free to shoot him.
What did Saro ask?
"So if a black hood makes them "clearly distinguishable from the civilian population." we should automatically shoot anyone in a black ski mask, yes?"
Hmm. I think your answer is "yes." What's confusing about it? I mean hell, he has a black ski mask. You may as well shoot him. :rolleyes:
Module88
12-12-2005, 01:34
If it had been a typo, he would have said so rather than insist whose was correct.
He did.
Guilty as charged. Plus I use small type, and easily miss things in re-writes.
You however, have yet to admit that you're the last person who should be criticizing anyone concerning English when you think "who's" is a shortcut for "who has." Worse, you claimed that you taught Jm a lesson. At least he admitted he made a typo. You have yet to admit anything.
like i said, it was all around poor grammar. he could change whose to who to make it technically correct, though clumsy.
? The first sentence has grammar problems on its own. And then you write, essentially, "he could change that to make it technically correct, though clumsy." ? :confused:
You however, have yet to admit that you're the last person who should be criticizing anyone concerning English when you think "who's" is a shortcut for "who has."
Actually he's right about that. Consider the sentence "Alright, who's got my pants?".
FreezerBurn
12-12-2005, 01:56
Was updated eight years ago, but I suppose things may have changed.
For the first part... do I need to do everything for you?
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Go to the very bottom and see who signed it. TADA.
I already gave you a link stating the US ratified the agreement. Posting an outdated and/or inaccurate link isn't helping you.
Maybe you should be the one taking the courses. I ask a question, and I expect your response to be the answer to the question. How complicated is that? Unless YOU specify you aren't respond to the question (and you're just ignoring it go on a tangent), it's going to be confusing.
Like I said, you asked a question and answered it. I agreed with your answer. If you were confused, as i'm guessing often is the case with you, simple context should have clued you in.
Hmm. I'm trying to find creative ways to figure out how you came up with these statements, but as far as I can tell, they pop out of that imaginary reality in your head.
the people brought down communism in the soviet union. and they were up against a much greater military force.
As for the second part, ok. So who should hold them responsible? The people who just get gassed and shot when they try to change things? (They don't even get to the force part, mind you. They just open their mouth)
the people brought down communism in the soviet union. and they were up against a much greater military force.
You don't have to be. You just have to acknowledge that some people may not dress the same way as everyone else. :rolleyes:
i'm just waiting for you to post a picture of a man wearing a black hood in iraq that looks like a civilian.
I'm not going back to double check this, but is that the one you linked? Because oddly enough, it says the US hasn't ratified it.
god forbid you actually check your facts. like i said, i already gave you a link stating the united states ratified the agreement. if that's not enough, here's 1,060 more. (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22United+States+ratified+the+United+Nations+Con vention+Against+Torture%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
Or I can just read your answer to me.
What did Saro ask?
Hmm. I think your answer is "yes." What's confusing about it? I mean hell, he has a black ski mask. You may as well shoot him. :rolleyes:
it appears you're the only one who's confused. the man in that picture is clearly distinguished from a civilian. why? because he's wearing some sort of military uniform. so despite his intentions, saro actually proved my point rather than contradict it.
FreezerBurn
12-12-2005, 02:00
He did.
actually, he insisted whose was correct until dondrei told him it was not. then he tried to take dondrei's way out.
You however, have yet to admit that you're the last person who should be criticizing anyone concerning English when you think "who's" is a shortcut for "who has." Worse, you claimed that you taught Jm a lesson. At least he admitted he made a typo. You have yet to admit anything.
I was going to laugh at you, but dondrei beat me to it.
confused:
we should just leave it at that.
Module88
13-12-2005, 01:57
actually, he insisted whose was correct until dondrei told him it was not. then he tried to take dondrei's way out.
Oh?
"I have a mom who is received her Doctorate in English" is far, far worse, sorry. Nice try though.
He admitted he made a mistake, but that your "correction" wasn't much better- especially when you try to read it out loud. Don't start getting all riled up- you tend to get sloppier when that happens.
I was going to laugh at you, but dondrei beat me to it.
Why don't you try saying "'who's' earned the degree" out loud. In written language, it's already unusual. In spoken language, it's unheard of.
Let's try sounding it out now!
Hoose earned the degree.
As opposed to:
Who earned the degree.
Or who has earned the degree.
we should just leave it at that.
Instead of blaming others for your own inability to get your ideas across coherently, why don't you take some responsibility for yourself. :rolleyes:
I already gave you a link stating the US ratified the agreement. Posting an outdated and/or inaccurate link isn't helping you.
"The United States has not ratified Protocol I, but article 75 ... law." That's somewhere in your document. Why don't you go read the whole thing and get back to me.
Like I said, you asked a question and answered it. I agreed with your answer. If you were confused, as i'm guessing often is the case with you, simple context should have clued you in.
Unfortunately, you didn't make that clear. And you're too stubborn to admit it. But, we'll leave that for now. Next time you ask a question, I'll go on a tangent and then criticize you on your comprehension abilities. :uhhuh:
A tip for you. If your professors ever ask a question of you, try to answer the question instead of what they say after it. You might pass a class with this piece of advice, so write it down. :rolleyes:
the people brought down communism in the soviet union. and they were up against a much greater military force.
Only after it ran out of money because... TADA- the United States destroyed the Union economically. If the Soviet Union had not competed against the United States economically, do you really think it would have just collapsed?
i'm just waiting for you to post a picture of a man wearing a black hood in iraq that looks like a civilian.
Civilian? YOU are the one who advocated that we shoot anyone in a black ski mask with an AK-47. I gave you a picture of a guy in a black ski mask with an RPG. With your philosophy, we would have had a friendly fire incident. I thought you actually cared about killing the wrong people Freezer. :thumbsup:
god forbid you actually check your facts. like i said, i already gave you a link stating the united states ratified the agreement. if that's not enough, here's 1,060 more.
"take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture." Torture is defined in Article 1 of the treaty as "any act by which severe pain or suffering… is intentionally inflicted on a person… when such pain or suffering is inflicted by… a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
I used your link for my facts. It's not MY fault YOU posted an old link. As I said, why don't you try to be a man and own up to your mistakes? I was only using what YOU gave me.
(The first link on your google search)
Now, if you notice the bolded part above, are the soldiers acting in an official capacity? I can't judge the context, but as far as I can tell, those soldiers weren't acting in an official capacity. These "treaties" have loopholes. As bad as they are, some torture can slip right through. Anything else?
the man in that picture is clearly distinguished from a civilian. why? because he's wearing some sort of military uniform. so despite his intentions, saro actually proved my point rather than contradict it.
Saro asked you if we should shoot anyone... You said, if they are wearing a black ski mask and have an AK-47, yes, it would be a good idea.
Unfortunately for you, as mentioned, YOUR philosophy would have led to a friendly fire incident. That man was no civilian. But he was no insurgent. He was in the Iraqi Army working with US troops. Good job Freezer. Way to get innocent people killed- "just shoot them if they have a black mask and a rifle." Wonderful rules of engagement, wouldn't you say?
Actually he's right about that. Consider the sentence "Alright, who's got my pants?".
That's incorrect anyway. If anything, it would be who has my pants. Not, who has got my pants.
That's incorrect anyway. If anything, it would be who has my pants. Not, who has got my pants.
Well, it's a bit ugly but is definitely in widespread use. Would you prefer:
"Alright, who's taken my pants?"
Well, it's a bit ugly but is definitely in widespread use. Would you prefer:
"Alright, who's taken my pants?""Who is taken my pants?" Far worse than my extra "got", and "Whose got my pants?" doesn't work either. Give "has" a chance (don't contract it), or just save "took" -ie. :D
I've got to admit, Freezer really stumps me - this thread is another page longer than when I stopped arguing. He contests his embarrassing losses bitterly and long past any possible relevance is gone, he's thicker and more boring than lake-effect snow, and his credibility is less than nothing.
Wait a second - OMG - Freezer is ex-Veep Al Gore!! I never even suspected! :lol:
SaroDarksbane
13-12-2005, 11:39
Grammar Link (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000268.htm)
Grammar Link (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000268.htm)
Beatcha tuit (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=4004550&postcount=105) :D
Freezer don't need no stinking links, remember?
"Who is taken my pants?" Far worse than my extra "got", and "Whose got my pants?" doesn't work either. Give "has" a chance (don't contract it)
Who's is a legitimate contraction of who has.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=who%27s
Dictionary.com is shirty, you might have to hit the search button a couple of times to make it come up.
Freezer don't need no stinking links, remember?
If only someone would make a grammar-based RPG you could link to that (the Manual of Style gives you +3 to conjugation but requires 115 Reading Comprehension to equip, et cetera).
I really shouldn't beat a dead horse, but it's so much fun.
Who's is a legitimate contraction of who has.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=who%27s
Dictionary.com is shirty, you might have to hit the search button a couple of times to make it come up.'Course it is, but it wasn't what I was thinking of when I made said gaffe. I generally use contractions, but not that one.
If only someone would make a grammar-based RPG you could link to that (the Manual of Style gives you +3 to conjugation but requires 115 Reading Comprehension to equip, et cetera).
I really shouldn't beat a dead horse, but it's so much fun.ROFLMAO
Remember Vorpal blades? They just never followed up the rest of the poem...
FreezerBurn
13-12-2005, 14:56
Oh?
it would help if you could read (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=4004550&postcount=105)
He admitted he made a mistake, but that your "correction" wasn't much better- especially when you try to read it out loud. Don't start getting all riled up- you tend to get sloppier when that happens.
So your defense of his mistake is posting his second mistake? Brilliant. For the sake of improving literacy in this country, I'll now give you a free lesson. "Who's" in that sentence would be "who has." In other words:
I have a mom who has received her Doctorate in English.
They teach these sorts of things in second grade. Perhaps you should reenroll.
Why don't you try saying "'who's' earned the degree" out loud. In written language, it's already unusual. In spoken language, it's unheard of.
Let's try sounding it out now!
Hoose earned the degree.
As opposed to:
Who earned the degree.
Or who has earned the degree.
Well, to begin with, it would be, "who's earned their degree." Other than that, it sounds perfectly natural. And unlike merv's statement, is grammatically correct.
Instead of blaming others for your own inability to get your ideas across coherently, why don't you take some responsibility for yourself. :rolleyes:
You have the literacy skills of Koko the ape. Short of writing popup books, communicating with you isn't going to get any easier.
"The United States has not ratified Protocol I, but article 75 ... law." That's somewhere in your document. Why don't you go read the whole thing and get back to me.
I know I've been getting on you about your reading skills, but serious, do I have to spoon-feed you everything you read?
Article 75 (“Fundamental Guarantees”) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which is recognized as restating customary international law, provides that “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental” against “persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favorable treatment under the [Geneva] Conventions,” shall “remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or military agents.”
Now, at the risk of redundancy, I'll explain this to you in the most simple terms possible. What Article 75 says is that torture is prohibited, even when the person in question does not qualify as a POW under the Geneva Convention.
Unfortunately, you didn't make that clear. And you're too stubborn to admit it. But, we'll leave that for now. Next time you ask a question, I'll go on a tangent and then criticize you on your comprehension abilities. :uhhuh:
A tip for you. If your professors ever ask a question of you, try to answer the question instead of what they say after it. You might pass a class with this piece of advice, so write it down. :rolleyes:
Ok, Koko.
Only after it ran out of money because... TADA- the United States destroyed the Union economically. If the Soviet Union had not competed against the United States economically, do you really think it would have just collapsed?
Oh, so things like economic sanctions can bring about change without military force. Interesting.
Civilian? YOU are the one who advocated that we shoot anyone in a black ski mask with an AK-47. I gave you a picture of a guy in a black ski mask with an RPG. With your philosophy, we would have had a friendly fire incident. I thought you actually cared about killing the wrong people Freezer. :thumbsup:
That's funny. I remember saying, "shoot him if you can't tell what side he's on." Thanks for posting that though. It did help demonstrate that a black hood is a legitimate military uniform.
"take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture." Torture is defined in Article 1 of the treaty as "any act by which severe pain or suffering… is intentionally inflicted on a person… when such pain or suffering is inflicted by… a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
I used your link for my facts. It's not MY fault YOU posted an old link. As I said, why don't you try to be a man and own up to your mistakes? I was only using what YOU gave me.
(The first link on your google search)
Now, if you notice the bolded part above, are the soldiers acting in an official capacity? I can't judge the context, but as far as I can tell, those soldiers weren't acting in an official capacity. These "treaties" have loopholes. As bad as they are, some torture can slip right through. Anything else?
Yes. Soldiers and CIA officers who are interrogating prisoners are acting in an official capacity. Any other questions, Koko?
Saro asked you if we should shoot anyone... You said, if they are wearing a black ski mask and have an AK-47, yes, it would be a good idea.
Unfortunately for you, as mentioned, YOUR philosophy would have led to a friendly fire incident. That man was no civilian. But he was no insurgent. He was in the Iraqi Army working with US troops. Good job Freezer. Way to get innocent people killed- "just shoot them if they have a black mask and a rifle." Wonderful rules of engagement, wouldn't you say?
I thought I cleared this up four days ago. (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=3999733&postcount=94) The gorillas are the largest of the apes. But apparently not the brightest.
he's clearly distinguished from a civilian. so if you can't tell what side he's on, feel free to shoot him.
DrunkCajun
13-12-2005, 15:01
I'm amazed at how I can start a political thread that's a mild troll on someone else's political thread, leave for a few days, and come back to a dozen pages of rambling arguments. I love the OTF. :D
FreezerBurn
13-12-2005, 15:05
"Who is taken my pants?" Far worse than my extra "got", and "Whose got my pants?" doesn't work either. Give "has" a chance (don't contract it), or just save "took" -ie. :D
I've got to admit, Freezer really stumps me - this thread is another page longer than when I stopped arguing. He contests his embarrassing losses bitterly and long past any possible relevance is gone, he's thicker and more boring than lake-effect snow, and his credibility is less than nothing.
Wait a second - OMG - Freezer is ex-Veep Al Gore!! I never even suspected! :lol:
Right. You make not one, but two grammatical errors in the context of proclaiming your superior grasp on English. And I'm the one who lost the argument? That's some funny ****. But I guess that's what happens when the nuts are running the nut house.
Of course, having a Mom whose got her Doctorate in English before she got a real job probably helped.
"I have a mom who is received her Doctorate in English"
Module88
14-12-2005, 22:05
it would help if you could read (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=4004550&postcount=105)
So your defense of his mistake is posting his second mistake? Brilliant. For the sake of improving literacy in this country, I'll now give you a free lesson. "Who's" in that sentence would be "who has." In other words:
I have a mom who has received her Doctorate in English.
They teach these sorts of things in second grade. Perhaps you should reenroll.
Mistake? I hardly think interpreting "who's" as "who is" is any kind of grammatical mistake on his part. Last time I checked, it's also a contraction of "who is." Considering that I have NEVER seen it used as "who has," in speech or writing, I can hardly blame him for that. And, since you're probably the only person who has used it, you shouldn't either.
Well, to begin with, it would be, "who's earned their degree." Other than that, it sounds perfectly natural. And unlike merv's statement, is grammatically correct.
As I said, you're the last person who should be criticizing anyone. Read more closely, and maybe you'll see what I mean. Fact is, your English isn't perfect, and neither is mine. You're hardly qualified to criticize others when you have your own problems, especially with your superiority complex.
I know I've been getting on you about your reading skills, but serious, do I have to spoon-feed you everything you read?
Article 75 (“Fundamental Guarantees”) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which is recognized as restating customary international law, provides that “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental” against “persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favorable treatment under the [Geneva] Conventions,” shall “remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or military agents.”
:lol: Too bad I didn't read it. That's why I told YOU to read it. I wasn't interested in going through the very large document. It sure as hell wasn't worth my time then, and it's not worth my time now. But, since you took the time to find it, I suppose I should address it.
Ok. Works for me I guess, although I didn't exactly read much in that link.
Now, at the risk of redundancy, I'll explain this to you in the most simple terms possible. What Article 75 says is that torture is prohibited, even when the person in question does not qualify as a POW under the Geneva Convention.
No risk at all, because... I never read it. :thumbsup:
Oh, so things like economic sanctions can bring about change without military force. Interesting.
Now where the hell did you come up with that. We outspent them, plain and simple.
As for the sentence as a whole, maybe you should read up about "Cuba." :thumbsup:
That's funny. I remember saying, "shoot him if you can't tell what side he's on." Thanks for posting that though. It did help demonstrate that a black hood is a legitimate military uniform.
I thought I cleared this up four days ago. (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=3999733&postcount=94) The gorillas are the largest of the apes. But apparently not the brightest.
he's clearly distinguished from a civilian. so if you can't tell what side he's on, feel free to shoot him.
Once again, you're the last person who should be criticizing anyone about comprehension.
If you read anything at all and attempted to interpret it, you would have realized that I'm criticizing your method, which tends to lead to horrible tragedies such as... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35717-2004Dec4.html)
Tillman died unnecessarily after botched communications, a mistaken decision to split his platoon over the objections of its leader, and negligent shooting by pumped-up young Rangers -- some in their first firefight -- who failed to identify their targets as they blasted their way out of a frightening ambush.
I'm glad the military doesn't take your advice. In other news, statistics have sown that more Americans are dying to American fire than roadside bombs. Things do not look well. :uhhuh:
Yes. Soldiers and CIA officers who are interrogating prisoners are acting in an official capacity. Any other questions, Koko?
Yeah, actually, I have one more. If these soldiers were interrogating prisoners, why then, did they put them in odd sexual positions and take pictures of them? Seemed to me like they were having "fun," with their smiles and all.
FreezerBurn
20-12-2005, 02:38
Mistake? I hardly think interpreting "who's" as "who is" is any kind of grammatical mistake on his part. Last time I checked, it's also a contraction of "who is." Considering that I have NEVER seen it used as "who has," in speech or writing, I can hardly blame him for that. And, since you're probably the only person who has used it, you shouldn't either.
What's this? Koko's giving English lessons? Good one. But you might want to actually learn the language before you go giving advice.
As I said, you're the last person who should be criticizing anyone. Read more closely, and maybe you'll see what I mean. Fact is, your English isn't perfect, and neither is mine. You're hardly qualified to criticize others when you have your own problems, especially with your superiority complex.
He made a grammatical error in the very sentence he proclaimed his superior English skills. I don't think anyone is going to let that go without commenting on it. Not unless they're too stupid to catch it.
Too bad I didn't read it. That's why I told YOU to read it. I wasn't interested in going through the very large document. It sure as hell wasn't worth my time then, and it's not worth my time now. But, since you took the time to find it, I suppose I should address it.
Ok. Works for me I guess, although I didn't exactly read much in that link.
No risk at all, because... I never read it.
So you're not stupid, you're just ignorant? Ok, if you say so.
Now where the hell did you come up with that. We outspent them, plain and simple.
As for the sentence as a whole, maybe you should read up about "Cuba."
I have no more faith in your knowledge of economics than in your knowledge of your native language. But the reason we were able to outspend the Soviets militarily is because their economy was extremely inefficient. This was due in large part to their lack of trade partners and the need to produce everything domestically.
As for cuba, the sanctions include US trade only. They trade freely with europe, canada, mexico, central america and south america. Not to mention the fact that their economy is propped up by dirt cheap oil from venezuela.
Once again, you're the last person who should be criticizing anyone about comprehension.
If you read anything at all and attempted to interpret it, you would have realized that I'm criticizing your method, which tends to lead to horrible tragedies such as... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35717-2004Dec4.html)
No. The last person who should criticize anyone about anything is you. The question was, does a black hood distinguish someone from the civilian population. The answer is yes. It's pretty simple. But so are contractions. And we all know how much luck you're having with those.:thumbsup:
I'm glad the military doesn't take your advice. In other news, statistics have sown that more Americans are dying to American fire than roadside bombs. Things do not look well.
It's good, not well. Learn English. Or keep your comments on the subject to yourself.
Yeah, actually, I have one more. If these soldiers were interrogating prisoners, why then, did they put them in odd sexual positions and take pictures of them? Seemed to me like they were having "fun," with their smiles and all.
So that's your idea of fun? I'll remember to keep my distance on Friday nights. As for the torture, the soldiers in question humiliated the prisoners to "prep" them for their interrogations. You see, that's why it's called torture. You do something extremely unpleasant, then ask a bunch of questions. The idea is that they'll tell you what you want to know to avoid the unpleasant treatment. It's a fairly simple concept. But you're quickly proving "simple" is a relative term.
Module88
20-12-2005, 04:15
What's this? Koko's giving English lessons? Good one. But you might want to actually learn the language before you go giving advice.
It's good, not well. Learn English. Or keep your comments on the subject to yourself.
"Good" is an adjective whereas "well" is an adverb. What does "well" modify? Look. You might want to actually learn the language before you go giving advice. Learn English. Or keep your comments on the subject to yourself.
He made a grammatical error in the very sentence he proclaimed his superior English skills. I don't think anyone is going to let that go without commenting on it. Not unless they're too stupid to catch it.
Ever heard of beating a dead horse?
So you're not stupid, you're just ignorant? Ok, if you say so.
That I don't mind, because everyone is ignorant. At least the rest of us aren't stupid enough to waste our lives away reading that ridiculously long document. What a waste.
I have no more faith in your knowledge of economics than in your knowledge of your native language. But the reason we were able to outspend the Soviets militarily is because their economy was extremely inefficient. This was due in large part to their lack of trade partners and the need to produce everything domestically.
Inefficient? It's a very efficient system if you look at it the right way. But the reason they couldn't keep up is similar to the same reasons socialism doesn't work today- people are selfish.
As for cuba, the sanctions include US trade only. They trade freely with europe, canada, mexico, central america and south america. Not to mention the fact that their economy is propped up by dirt cheap oil from venezuela.
Got any links? I'm not going to look up current trade relations. NK?
No. The last person who should criticize anyone about anything is you. The question was, does a black hood distinguish someone from the civilian population. The answer is yes. It's pretty simple. But so are contractions. And we all know how much luck you're having with those.:thumbsup:
Your answer to "should we should people without identifying them first" is also yes. It's pretty simple. Maybe you need to experience "friendly fire" before you figure out why it should be avoided. :thumbsup:
So that's your idea of fun?
Maybe you should learn how to read English with "context" before you criticize anyone. :Rolleyes: The quotation marks have left the building! Wait. The quotations marks haven't left the building- your comprehension skills have. My bad.
As for the torture, the soldiers in question humiliated the prisoners to "prep" them for their interrogations. You see, that's why it's called torture. You do something extremely unpleasant, then ask a bunch of questions. The idea is that they'll tell you what you want to know to avoid the unpleasant treatment. It's a fairly simple concept. But you're quickly proving "simple" is a relative term.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/04/Worldandnation/Witness__Inmates_abus.shtml
:Rolleyes:
FreezerBurn
20-12-2005, 04:40
"Good" is an adjective whereas "well" is an adverb. What does "well" modify? Look. You might want to actually learn the language before you go giving advice.
Pay attention, Koko. In that sentence, you would use "good" as an adjective (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000218.htm) to describe the pronoun "things."
Ever heard of beating a dead horse?
If that's your way of finally admitting he ****ed up, so be it.
That, I don't mind, because everyone is ignorant. At least the rest of us aren't stupid enough to waste our lives away reading that ridiculously long document. What a waste.
Here's a clue. Command F, "ratified." It takes all of two seconds. But some people are slower than others, I guess.
Inefficient? It's a very efficient system if you look at it the right way. But the reason they couldn't keep up is similar to the same reasons socialism doesn't work today- people are selfish.
And you're a very intelligent person if you look at it the right way. Bass ackwards. But seriously, I'm having a hard enough time teaching you basic English. I'm not going to get into Econ 101.
Got any links? I'm not going to look up current trade relations. NK?
Your education isn't my responsibility.
Your answer to "should we should people without identifying them first" is also yes. It's pretty simple. Maybe you need to experience "friendly fire" before you figure out why it should be avoided. :thumbsup:
I'm pretty sure I never said that. But that's only because I'm not an idiot. Please learn to speak correctly. I'm begging you.
Maybe you should learn how to read English with "context" before you criticize anyone. :Rolleyes: The quotation marks have left the building! Wait. The quotations marks haven't left the building- your comprehension skills have. My bad.
I read it in context. In the context of Deliverance being your favorite movie for all the wrong reasons.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/04/Worldandnation/Witness__Inmates_abus.shtml
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/251005Karpinski.htm
Module88
20-12-2005, 05:23
Pay attention, Koko. In that sentence, you would use "good" as an adjective (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000218.htm) to describe the pronoun "things."
"Well" isn't modifying things, if you read the sentence. It's modifying look. Do would be the verb. You should really learn the language before you start criticizing other people on your high horse. :thumbsup:
If that's your way of finally admitting he ****ed up, so be it.
Funny, I recall saying he screwed up and later admitted to doing so. Odd. Very odd.
Here's a clue. Command F, "ratified." It takes all of two seconds. But some people are slower than others, I guess.
So you're admitting you're ignorant of the subject AND context because you didn't read the whole thing? Well, if this is your way of admitting you're actually ignorant of the subject you claim to know very well, so be it.
And you're a very intelligent person if you look at it the right way. Bass ackwards. But seriously, I'm having a hard enough time teaching you basic English. I'm not going to get into Econ 101.
I guess I have to be more clear. Socialism doesn't work because people are selfish. If people were selfless, informed, and relatively unbiased, it would be the perfect system. Understand?
Your education isn't my responsibility.
Then I'll disregard what you said. I remember a while back you and Don were arguing the difference between a theory and a law. If my education isn't your responsibility, why were you using links to prove him wrong? After all, it's not your responsibility to teach him the difference, right? :uhhuh:
I'm pretty sure I never said that. But that's only because I'm not an idiot. Please learn to speak correctly. I'm begging you.
You're pretty sure you didn't say that? Maybe you're the idiot in denial.
"if you can't tell what side he's on, feel free to shoot him."
Do you know who said that? Take a wild guess.
As for the typo, wow. I made a typo. Luckily for you, I'm not a prick about people making mistakes. After all, not everyone is perfect like you Freezer. :uhhuh: You know exactly what I meant, and your attempt to make a fuss about a typo only proves your unwillingness to accept the stupidity of your remark. If you didn't know what I meant, then, well, we're back to square one.
I read it in context. In the context of Deliverance being your favorite movie for all the wrong reasons.
Back to those tangents eh? Never saw the movie. But a quick look revealed it came out in 72. I didn't know so many people were older than dirt around here. :P
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/251005Karpinski.htm
What's your point? She already said: "She also stated that even though innocent detainees had been deemed of no further Intel use and were recommended to be released by their interrogators, the higher uppers read the riot act and started a pattern whereby no one was to be released and innocent people were kept locked up without trial or charges."
Don't tell me you're ignorant about the very article you posted.
FreezerBurn
20-12-2005, 06:20
"Well" isn't modifying things, if you read the sentence. It's modifying look. Do would be the verb. You should really learn the language before you start criticizing other people on your high horse.
You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. The subject of the sentence is "things." If you still don't get it. Call your local elementary school to further your education.
Funny, I recall saying he screwed up and later admitted to doing so. Odd. Very odd.
Funny, your memory and reality are drastically out of sync. I hardly think interpreting "who's" as "who is" is any kind of grammatical mistake on his part. Odd. Very Odd :uhhuh:
So you're admitting you're ignorant of the subject AND context because you didn't read the whole thing? Well, if this is your way of admitting you're actually ignorant of the subject you claim to know very well, so be it.
Let's see. You claimed the US never ratified the document in question. And you were undeniably wrong. And I'm the one who's ignorant? Please remove your head from that bodily orifice.
I guess I have to be more clear. Socialism doesn't work because people are selfish. If people were selfless, informed, and relatively unbiased, it would be the perfect system. Understand?
The soviet economy did not collapse for philosophical reasons. It collapsed because they were trying to match US military spending dollar for dollar, despite the fact their economy was a fraction the size of ours. While US corporations made billions in overseas trade, greatly increasing our tax base, the Soviet's international trade was designed more to prop up government than to make a profit. As a result, they didn't have the funds to maintain their military complex, resulting in the complete collapse of their economy and political system as a whole. Understand? Didn't think so.
Then I'll disregard what you said. I remember a while back you and Don were arguing the difference between a theory and a law. If my education isn't your responsibility, why were you using links to prove him wrong? After all, it's not your responsibility to teach him the difference, right?
You're arguing a tangent of a tangent. At this rate, I'll end up holding your hand the rest of the way through grade school. So like I said, your education is not my responsibility.
You're pretty sure you didn't say that? Maybe you're the idiot in denial.
No, I'm the idiot who knows how to type :uhhuh:
"if you can't tell what side he's on, feel free to shoot him."
Do you know who said that? Take a wild guess.
And guess what? Neither you nor he would have broken any international laws. Why? Because he's clearly distinguished himself from civilians. That was the question. And it has been answered redundantly. If you still don't get it, I'm sorry but I don't have the patience to be a special ed teacher.
As for the typo, wow. I made a typo. Luckily for you, I'm not a prick about people making mistakes. After all, not everyone is perfect like you Freezer. :uhhuh: You know exactly what I meant, and your attempt to make a fuss about a typo only proves your unwillingness to accept the stupidity of your remark. If you didn't know what I meant, then, well, we're back to square one.
Seriously, look at the stupidity of your argument. The question was, would an insurgent fighting in a black hood be distinguished from a civilian. the answer is yes. But rather than admit that, you spew an endless stream of bull****. This goes well beyond ignorance. You're posting from a position of pure stupidity.
Back to those tangents eh? Never saw the movie. But a quick look revealed it came out in 72. I didn't know so many people were older than dirt around here. :P
I'm not surprised you haven't seen it. You and your kind were the butt of the joke. (Pun not intended.)
What's your point? She already said: "She also stated that even though innocent detainees had been deemed of no further Intel use and were recommended to be released by their interrogators, the higher uppers read the riot act and started a pattern whereby no one was to be released and innocent people were kept locked up without trial or charges."
Don't tell me you're ignorant about the very article you posted.
The point wasn't all that hard to find. Unless you're ignorant of intelligence. We can trace back now, through documents that were released through court order, back to the original document, the one that Alberto Gonzales reviewed and discussed with the President of the United States, a departure from the Geneva Convention. These are not prisoners, these are terrorists and these techniques will be more effective." She said.
"And then Secretary Rumsfeld putting his signature on a document authorizing more aggressive and harsher techniques during interrogation. That document goes over to Guantanamo Bay and over to Afghanistan, and it's used first in smaller groups and then it's used at Guantanamo Bay as a standard practice."
The General also agreed that private contractors were brought in to over see the interrogations. The orders to use torture techniques can be traced back to the criminals in Government.
"The orders came right from the top, filtered down from the secretary of defense, with the endorsement of the President, the Vice President, whatever advisors are surrounding them, filtered down through the Commanders in the field, these practices were not only endorsed, but were in use at Guantanamo bay and in locations in Afghanistan. And when General Miller visited Iraq he brought those techniques with him. And then he sent contract interrogators who had 'performed well' at Guantanamo Bay to Iraq as well."
The General agreed that in effect torture seminars were taking place as Miller would teach how to make techniques of torture more effective.
Module88
20-12-2005, 06:37
You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. The subject of the sentence is "things." If you still don't get it. Call your local elementary school to further your education.
I'm glad I didn't have to explain that one to you. I thought that was obvious and didn't mention it. But I did notice that you ignored everything you "responded" to.
Funny, your memory and reality are drastically out of sync. I hardly think interpreting "who's" as "who is" is any kind of grammatical mistake on his part. Odd. Very Odd :uhhuh:
It's not, because that's how it's most commonly used. Not ONCE have I EVER seen it used as who has, obviously excluding the time you used it. Find some famous authors or whatnot that use it as "who has" and I'll concede that point. But until you can show me that it's been used enough to make it something that the common person would know, your argument is squat.
Let's see. You claimed the US never ratified the document in question. And you were undeniably wrong. And I'm the one who's ignorant? Please remove your head from that bodily orifice.
I'm not going to look back, but I think there was a section they did NOT ratify. In any case, I brought it up and had you research it for me because quite frankly, I didn't feel like reading through the whole thing. If YOU did NOT read the whole thing, then how can you take it in context? You ARE ignorant about the subject if that's the case. I'm ignorant about it because, well, I didn't read it. Get off your high horse Freezer- you don't know everything, and I'm a bit surprised I even had to say that.
The soviet economy did not collapse for philosophical reasons. It collapsed because they were trying to match US military spending dollar for dollar
Exactly. I don't even need to address the rest of it because you agreed with me. Had you taken what I said in context, you would have realized this is exactly what I said.
You have two people working under a socialist system.
You have two people working under a capitalist system.
Who is inclined to work harder and make more money? What does this lead to? Connect the dots.
You're arguing a tangent of a tangent. At this rate, I'll end up holding your hand the rest of the way through grade school. So like I said, your education is not my responsibility.
You brought it up- all I'm doing is asking you a question. Nothing more. But I can see that you have no answer to my question, so we'll just leave it at that.
No, I'm the idiot who knows how to type :uhhuh:
I know how to type. But I also know I'm human and I make mistakes. Apparently you think you're God. Get off your high horse, Freezer. You're no God, and you are FAR from perfect.
And guess what? Neither you nor he would have broken any international laws. Why? Because he's clearly distinguished himself from civilians. That was the question. And it has been answered redundantly. If you still don't get it, I'm sorry but I don't have the patience to be a special ed teacher.
He fulfills every category. He's in the open with a weapon, etc etc. But not everyone with a black hood is a terrorist. I don't have the patience to explain that to you. If you only see things in black and white, you should reconsider your argument. Things aren't black and white- unless you're a dog, of course.
Seriously, look at the stupidity of your argument. The question was, would an insurgent fighting in a black hood be distinguished from a civilian. the answer is yes. But rather than admit that, you spew an endless stream of bull****. This goes well beyond ignorance. You're posting from a position of pure stupidity.
That wasn't the question, and it never was. The question was, "is a black hood enough to be considered a military uniform"? Sometimes, it is. Sometimes it's not.
Then, you decided to go on and say, "well, if he has a black hood and has an AK-47, feel free to shoot him." Being a stupid statement, I pointed out the minor flaw in your argument. That flaw, which you still don't seem to understand, is apparent if you have ever heard of "friendly fire." You brought it up, and I addressed it. Now you're trying to run away from it. :Sigh:
I'm not surprised you haven't seen it. You and your kind were the butt of the joke. (Pun not intended.)
My kind, eh?
The point wasn't all that hard to find. Unless you're ignorant of intelligence. We can trace back now, through documents that were released through court order, back to the original document, the one that Alberto Gonzales reviewed and discussed with the President of the United States, a departure from the Geneva Convention. These are not prisoners, these are terrorists and these techniques will be more effective." She said.
"And then Secretary Rumsfeld putting his signature on a document authorizing more aggressive and harsher techniques during interrogation. That document goes over to Guantanamo Bay and over to Afghanistan, and it's used first in smaller groups and then it's used at Guantanamo Bay as a standard practice."
The General also agreed that private contractors were brought in to over see the interrogations. The orders to use torture techniques can be traced back to the criminals in Government.
"The orders came right from the top, filtered down from the secretary of defense, with the endorsement of the President, the Vice President, whatever advisors are surrounding them, filtered down through the Commanders in the field, these practices were not only endorsed, but were in use at Guantanamo bay and in locations in Afghanistan. And when General Miller visited Iraq he brought those techniques with him. And then he sent contract interrogators who had 'performed well' at Guantanamo Bay to Iraq as well."
The General agreed that in effect torture seminars were taking place as Miller would teach how to make techniques of torture more effective.
What the people at the top said is irrelevant to this particular discussion. I said that they weren't always torturing for intelligence purposes. You disagreed, and your own link proved you wrong.
Oh, and drop the condescending attitude. You can never seem to keep things civil, and I'm sick of it. At least other people I disagree with can do that and keep things lively.
FreezerBurn
20-12-2005, 07:28
I'm glad I didn't have to explain that one to you. I thought that was obvious and didn't mention it. But I did notice that you ignored everything you "responded" to.
Read thelink. (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000218.htm) It's not that complicated. Then again, I'm talking to a guy who didn't know who's is an abbreviation for who has.
It's not, because that's how it's most commonly used. Not ONCE have I EVER seen it used as who has, obviously excluding the time you used it. Find some famous authors or whatnot that use it as "who has" and I'll concede that point. But until you can show me that it's been used enough to make it something that the common person would know, your argument is squat.
It's a sad day when you realize even OJ Simpson speaks better English than you.
Anybody who's ever gone through a hard time - any outsider's perception, no matter how much information they're given, they have no idea what the person's life is like.
Amy Grant
Nobody who's gone grocery shopping could avoid the trials and travails of Kathie Lee!
Kathie Lee Gifford
Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life.
Charles de Gaulle
Here's a girl who's gone through some upstate college, majored in boyfriends, had the obligatory abortion in her teenage years and came out with a minimal degree in social work with a C-minus average.
David Eddings
Who's not sat tense before his own heart's curtain.
James Russell Lowell
Here is a guy who's had a stake driven through his heart. I mean, really nailed to the bottom of the coffin with a wooden stake, and a silver bullet through the forehead for good measure-and yet he keeps coming back.
Ted Koppel
Anybody who's been around me for any length of time in the media, they will confirm that everywhere you go, people love you, especially when I leave the country.
O. J. Simpson
I'm not going to look back, but I think there was a section they did NOT ratify. In any case, I brought it up and had you research it for me because quite frankly, I didn't feel like reading through the whole thing. If YOU did NOT read the whole thing, then how can you take it in context? You ARE ignorant about the subject if that's the case. I'm ignorant about it because, well, I didn't read it. Get off your high horse Freezer- you don't know everything, and I'm a bit surprised I even had to say that.
You can't both ratify a document and not ratify a document. The fact that I've posted word for word, "The United States ratified the document," from multiple links should make it abundantly clear you were wrong.
Exactly. I don't even need to address the rest of it because you agreed with me. Had you taken what I said in context, you would have realized this is exactly what I said.
You have two people working under a socialist system.
You have two people working under a capitalist system.
Who is inclined to work harder and make more money? What does this lead to? Connect the dots.
And yet the Soviet economy was one of the largest in the world. But international trade made the US economy vastly more efficient, allowing it to grow faster and more easily sustain enormous military spending.
You brought it up- all I'm doing is asking you a question. Nothing more. But I can see that you have no answer to my question, so we'll just leave it at that.
You really need a link that Venezuela gives cuba cheap oil? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba) You just need to pay even a little attention to the news.
I know how to type. But I also know I'm human and I make mistakes. Apparently you think you're God. Get off your high horse, Freezer. You're no God, and you are FAR from perfect.
I'm not God in the capitalized sense of the word. I'm just a minor god. I have a trident and your bruised ego to prove it :uhhuh:
He fulfills every category. He's in the open with a weapon, etc etc. But not everyone with a black hood is a terrorist. I don't have the patience to explain that to you. If you only see things in black and white, you should reconsider your argument. Things aren't black and white- unless you're a dog, of course.
I never said everyone in a black hood was a terrorist. In fact, I implied the opposite. "If you can't tell which side he's on..." But that was never the question. The question was whether or not he distinguished himself from a civilian. Clearly he did. And by the way, dogs don't see in black and white. (http://www.puplife.com/dogcaretips/howdogsseecolors.html) Don't try to be clever. It's not your thing.
That wasn't the question, and it never was. The question was, "is a black hood enough to be considered a military uniform"? Sometimes, it is. Sometimes it's not.
Wrong. The Geneva Convention does not say, "military uniform." It says, "clearly distinguished from civilians." Even merv figured this out 6 pages ago. Your parents should be ashamed.
Then, you decided to go on and say, "well, if he has a black hood and has an AK-47, feel free to shoot him." Being a stupid statement, I pointed out the minor flaw in your argument. That flaw, which you still don't seem to understand, is apparent if you have ever heard of "friendly fire." You brought it up, and I addressed it. Now you're trying to run away from it. :Sigh:
Again, feel free to shoot him. You won't be breaking any international laws. Which was the topic in case you forgot.
My kind, eh?
Watch the movie. It'll bring back childhood memories.
What the people at the top said is irrelevant to this particular discussion. I said that they weren't always torturing for intelligence purposes. You disagreed, and your own link proved you wrong.
The question was whether or not they were acting in an official capacity. If the orders to torture detainees came from the top, they most certainly were.
Oh, and drop the condescending attitude. You can never seem to keep things civil, and I'm sick of it. At least other people I disagree with can do that and keep things lively.
I can only take so much ignorance and maintain a civil tone. Say something smart and I'll be nicer to you.
Module88
20-12-2005, 07:58
Read thelink. (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000218.htm) It's not that complicated. Then again, I'm talking to a guy who didn't know who's is an abbreviation for who has.
Before I start reading the link for a second time, you should read the post for the first time. Things isn't being modified by "well." Well is modifying "look." Go ask your English teacher for clarification. Be sure to use the sentence- don't spin it.
It's a sad day when you realize even OJ Simpson speaks better English than you.
What, are you racist? I'm curious now. Why is OJ Simpson stupid or illiterate? That's what you're trying to imply, right?
I haven't heard one of those quotes (because I don't randomly look them up), but I've never heard it in speech. Still, I'll concede the point. I suppose people have used it before.
You can't both ratify a document and not ratify a document. The fact that I've posted word for word, "The United States ratified the document," from multiple links should make it abundantly clear you were wrong.
Don't forget to mention some of those links were, what, 11 years old? I found a section that said something contrary to what you said. I had you research it. It's not that hard.
And yet the Soviet economy was one of the largest in the world. But international trade made the US economy vastly more efficient, allowing it to grow faster and more easily sustain enormous military spending.
But not very stable. Fact is, such an economic system won't work if people don't believe in it. The mentality is, why should I work harder if I get paid the same wages? On the other side, whoever works harder earns more. There's an incentive to work harder. Which system do you think will beat the other one in the modern world?
You really need a link that Venezuela gives cuba cheap oil? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba) You just need to pay even a little attention to the news.
I like how you say Cuba trades with everyone but the United States and only bring up one point. As for trading...
"In the mid 1990s tourism surpassed sugar, long the mainstay of the Cuban economy, as the primary source of foreign exchange. Tourism figures prominently in the Cuban Government's plans for development, and a top official cast it as the "heart of the economy".
I'm not God in the capitalized sense of the word. I'm just a minor god. I have a trident and your bruised ego to prove it
Oh, now it's all clear. You're not condescending because you're superior- you're condescending because it's the only way to boost your self-confidence. Check.
I never said everyone in a black hood was a terrorist. In fact, I implied the opposite. "If you can't tell which side he's on..." But that was never the question. The question was whether or not he distinguished himself from a civilian. Clearly he did. And by the way, dogs don't see in black and white. (http://www.puplife.com/dogcaretips/howdogsseecolors.html) Don't try to be clever. It's not your thing.
He did because he was also carrying a weapon in a military vehicle.
Hmm, looks like I fell for something "many people seem to believe." Oh well. I'm human. But hey- I'm willing to admit it, right?
Wrong. The Geneva Convention does not say, "military uniform." It says, "clearly distinguished from civilians." Even merv figured this out 6 pages ago. Your parents should be ashamed.
"Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war."
And. According to the GC, they must fall under every category. If they don't obey the laws of war, the GC does not specifically protect them.
Again, feel free to shoot him. You won't be breaking any international laws. Which was the topic in case you forgot.
Was the topic, until you said that and I pointed out the stupidity of that statement for something I already mentioned- friendly fire.
Watch the movie. It'll bring back childhood memories.
If I'm going to spend time watching a movie, it's not going be a movie made in the 70's. Give me a brief summary. It's faster.
The question was whether or not they were acting in an official capacity. If the orders to torture detainees came from the top, they most certainly were.
Where do you come up with these things? We really don't talk about the questions, we pick a topic and go.
But the "question" was why they tortured detainees. You defined it and said it was for interrogation purposes. I said that not all of them were necessarily for that purpose, and some were designed for "fun." Your link proved you wrong. End of story.
I can only take so much ignorance and maintain a civil tone. Say something smart and I'll be nicer to you.
I'm sorry you're not tolerant. But then, a lot of people aren't.
FreezerBurn
20-12-2005, 08:48
Before I start reading the link for a second time, you should read the post for the first time. Things isn't being modified by "well." Well is modifying "look." Go ask your English teacher for clarification. Be sure to use the sentence- don't spin it.
Seriously, I'm not sure if you being willfully ignorant. Or just plain stupid. But at this point, I really don't care.
What, are you racist? I'm curious now. Why is OJ Simpson stupid or illiterate? That's what you're trying to imply, right?
What, are you stupid? Rhetorical question. No need to answer. OJ is an ex-jock and is generally considered to be an idiot. But he's far from alone in that.
I haven't heard one of those quotes (because I don't randomly look them up), but I've never heard it in speech. Still, I'll concede the point. I suppose people have used it before.
It's a start. Maybe next you'll concede the grass is green and the sky is blue. Not holding my breath.
Don't forget to mention some of those links were, what, 11 years old? I found a section that said something contrary to what you said. I had you research it. It's not that hard.
That wasn't my link.
But not very stable. Fact is, such an economic system won't work if people don't believe in it. The mentality is, why should I work harder if I get paid the same wages? On the other side, whoever works harder earns more. There's an incentive to work harder. Which system do you think will beat the other one in the modern world?
There's more than one way to motivate people. Their economy didn't grow as large as it did because they were overly lazy.
I like how you say Cuba trades with everyone but the United States and only bring up one point. As for trading...
"In the mid 1990s tourism surpassed sugar, long the mainstay of the Cuban economy, as the primary source of foreign exchange. Tourism figures prominently in the Cuban Government's plans for development, and a top official cast it as the "heart of the economy".
So you were proven wrong on two more points, cheap oil and trade partners. And now you're going to go off on yet another tangent of a tangent of a tangent. Typical.
Oh, now it's all clear. You're not condescending because you're superior- you're condescending because it's the only way to boost your self-confidence. Check.
Actually, you bore me terribly. The only way I'm going to get anything out of this is to entertain myself.
He did because he was also carrying a weapon in a military vehicle.
So once he gets out of the vehicle, he's a terrorist. Nice argument. you're really getting somewhere now :uhhuh:
Hmm, looks like I fell for something "many people seem to believe." Oh well. I'm human. But hey- I'm willing to admit it, right?
Many people aren't that bright. It happens.
"Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war."
And. According to the GC, they must fall under every category. If they don't obey the laws of war, the GC does not specifically protect them.
Hey, you made some progress. Amazing. Not all insurgents are breaking the rules of war. Some only attack US soldiers. As long as they're not attacking civilians, they would be protected by the Geneva Convention. Not that it matters, considering they're protected under other agreements already.
Was the topic, until you said that and I pointed out the stupidity of that statement for something I already mentioned- friendly fire.
You've missed the point completely. Friendly fire is 100% irrelevant to international law.
If I'm going to spend time watching a movie, it's not going be a movie made in the 70's. Give me a brief summary. It's faster.
Not for me.
Where do you come up with these things? We really don't talk about the questions, we pick a topic and go.
you're the one who asked the question, genius. are the soldiers acting in an official capacity? "
But the "question" was why they tortured detainees. You defined it and said it was for interrogation purposes. I said that not all of them were necessarily for that purpose, and some were designed for "fun." Your link proved you wrong. End of story.
The soldiers were acting in their official capacity as prison guards. Aside from that, soldiers are public officials to begin with. So you were wrong yet again more more than one reason. End of story.
I'm sorry you're not tolerant. But then, a lot of people aren't.
I'm tolerant of most things. Ignorance and stupidity are not among them.
Keep it down in here, some of us are trying to sleep. :xmas10:
Things do not look well.
"Good" is an adjective whereas "well" is an adverb. What does "well" modify? Look.
I'm afraid Freezer's right this time, Mod. The trouble is that 'look' is not an action performed by the 'things'. Example:
Things are not going well.
This works because the 'things' are 'going', and how are they going? Well. Well is an adverb describing the verb 'going'.
Things do not look well.
This doesn't work because the 'things' are not 'looking'. You're not describing the quality of the things' sight, but the quality of the thing itself. 'Well' describes the nature of the 'things', and that's a noun so you can't use an adverb. Consider another example:
The horse does not look quickly.
That's clearly wrong (unless you're trying to say that its eyes are slow). It should be:
The horse does not look quick.
The difference? Quick is an adjective, quickly is an adverb.
Module88 and FreezerBurn,
Don't make me stop this car! Cause I will you know! I'll turn this thing around and head it strait back to the house! Then neither of you will get to see Mickey Mouse!
Oops, sorry. A little flash back there.
You two start acting civil and quit trying to push each others buttons.
Thanks.
Module88
22-12-2005, 05:33
I'm afraid Freezer's right this time, Mod. The trouble is that 'look' is not an action performed by the 'things'. Example:
Things are not going well.
This works because the 'things' are 'going', and how are they going? Well. Well is an adverb describing the verb 'going'.
Things do not look well.
This doesn't work because the 'things' are not 'looking'. You're not describing the quality of the things' sight, but the quality of the thing itself. 'Well' describes the nature of the 'things', and that's a noun so you can't use an adverb. Consider another example:
The reason I said that particular sentence is because it depended entirely on the context.
Inanimate things cannot actually "go" on their own (with the toy robots and cars being the exceptions). But it's, I suppose, a figure of speech, in a way, because they aren't actually going anywhere. Likewise, things do not actually look at objects.
The horse does not look quickly.
That's clearly wrong (unless you're trying to say that its eyes are slow). It should be:
Context. :) Have to love it.
OJ is an ex-jock and is generally considered to be an idiot. But he's far from alone in that.
Yay, let's make generalizations!
Maybe next you'll concede the grass is green and the sky is blue. Not holding my breath.
Colors are "subjective." Maybe you'll concede to that? I'd hope so.
That wasn't my link.
Funny. I could have sworn you posted this (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html) in your post. (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=3996972&postcount=86)
And, if you actually take some time to read the thing, or just scroll to the bottom of the page, you could have noticed the signature section (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html) which says that the United States falls under the category of "States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture."
Yeah, I said they didn't ratify the thing. But it's not MY fault you posted a link that said it didn't while you were trying to prove it did.
There's more than one way to motivate people. Their economy didn't grow as large as it did because they were overly lazy.
You can get short term results out of anything. But the long term stability of a system is more important. Eventually, the people are going to wonder why they are working harder for the same amount of money. And when they dod, the system crumbles.
So you were proven wrong on two more points, cheap oil and trade partners. And now you're going to go off on yet another tangent of a tangent of a tangent. Typical.
You argued that Cuba didn't collapse because of it's strong trade. Well, Freezer, apparently, it's trade does not affect its economy more than tourism, which was said to be the "heart of the economy." I guess trade for Cuba isn't as important as you claim it is.
So once he gets out of the vehicle, he's a terrorist. Nice argument. you're really getting somewhere now
Hello? I have been trying to prove this from the beginning- that just because someone has a gun and a mask doesn't mean he's a terrorist. You argue otherwise and feel that we should shoot anyone in a black hood with an AK-47. Don't try to flip the situation around. You're the one who thinks anyone outside, and even inside a military vehicle is a terrorist and that we should shoot them all. I'm the one who proposes we actually identify our targets, but you won't have any of that.
Many people aren't that bright. It happens.
I'm surprised you don't know the difference between stupidty and ignorance.
Some only attack US soldiers. As long as they're not attacking civilians, they would be protected by the Geneva Convention. Not that it matters, considering they're protected under other agreements already.
Uh, there are a few more provisions they have to follow if they are to be protected by the GC, if you've read portions of it. Other agreements aren't exactly an issue. I'm not going to check back on the dates, but that website you first posted (and claimed you didn't post) was updated in 1997. I'm not sure when that other source you gave me was updated, but if they conflict, I'm not going to make anything of it.
You've missed the point completely. Friendly fire is 100% irrelevant to international law.
We were on the subject until you made that comment about shooting anyone with a black hood and a weapon. After that, I went on to argue how stupid that statement was.
Not for me.
Isn't it also easier for me to just click links instead of find them? Why do you look for links if it's not as easy for you as it is for me?
you're the one who asked the question, genius. are the soldiers acting in an official capacity? "
In the context of what I said in the rest of that post. The intelligenceo officers said they would be of no further use. Also, they're guards. Intelligence officers might act in their official capacity to interrogate prisoners, but guards don't- at least, officially.
The soldiers were acting in their official capacity as prison guards. Aside from that, soldiers are public officials to begin with. So you were wrong yet again more more than one reason. End of story.
Are they? Public servants, maybe, but I'm not sure they're public officials. In any case, guarding someone is far different from torturing them. If you think torturing falls under "acting in their official capacity as prison guards," I have nothing more to say.
FreezerBurn
22-12-2005, 06:55
The reason I said that particular sentence is because it depended entirely on the context.
Inanimate things cannot actually "go" on their own (with the toy robots and cars being the exceptions). But it's, I suppose, a figure of speech, in a way, because they aren't actually going anywhere. Likewise, things do not actually look at objects.
Context. :) Have to love it.
This is where you're supposed to admit you were wrong. You've officially crossed the line from ignorance to stupidity.
Yay, let's make generalizations!
Yes, let's. Anyone who kills their ex-wife out of jealousy is an idiot. I've got a long list of people I consider to be idiots. Poor grammar may have even made the list.
Colors are "subjective." Maybe you'll concede to that? I'd hope so.
Actually, they're not. They're scientifically quantifiable. Only your perception of them is subjective.
Funny. I could have sworn you posted this (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html) in your post. (http://forums.diabloii.net/showpost.php?p=3996972&postcount=86)
And, if you actually take some time to read the thing, or just scroll to the bottom of the page, you could have noticed the signature section (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html) which says that the United States falls under the category of "States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture."
Yeah, I said they didn't ratify the thing. But it's not MY fault you posted a link that said it didn't while you were trying to prove it did.
I posted the text only from that site. And posted multiple links stating that the US had ratified the convention.
You can get short term results out of anything. But the long term stability of a system is more important. Eventually, the people are going to wonder why they are working harder for the same amount of money. And when they dod, the system crumbles.
The primary long-term effect their economy suffered from was a lack of international trade. Here's a good explanation of why a closed economy is doomed to collapse. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/volk-o27.shtml)
You argued that Cuba didn't collapse because of it's strong trade. Well, Freezer, apparently, it's trade does not affect its economy more than tourism, which was said to be the "heart of the economy." I guess trade for Cuba isn't as important as you claim it is.
Tourism is a form of international trade. Talking to you is like talking to my six-year-old nephew. Except he's smart enough to know he doesn't know much. And asks questions rather than making ignorant statements and stubbornly sticking by them.
Hello? I have been trying to prove this from the beginning- that just because someone has a gun and a mask doesn't mean he's a terrorist. You argue otherwise and feel that we should shoot anyone in a black hood with an AK-47. Don't try to flip the situation around. You're the one who thinks anyone outside, and even inside a military vehicle is a terrorist and that we should shoot them all. I'm the one who proposes we actually identify our targets, but you won't have any of that.
Looks like we're back to your reading comprehension skills. Or the lack thereof. I said insurgents who only attack US soldiers while wearing masks that distinguishes them from civilians are not terrorists. Just one of many points they flew clean over your head.
I'm surprised you don't know the difference between stupidty and ignorance.
What gave you the idea that I don't? Ignorance? Stupidity? A bit of both?
Uh, there are a few more provisions they have to follow if they are to be protected by the GC, if you've read portions of it. Other agreements aren't exactly an issue. I'm not going to check back on the dates, but that website you first posted (and claimed you didn't post) was updated in 1997. I'm not sure when that other source you gave me was updated, but if they conflict, I'm not going to make anything of it.
Regarding the Geneva Convention, the relevant provisions were in that section - following the rules of war, clearly distinguished from civilians, a clear chain of command, etc. As for the convention against torture, there are no provisions. No US personnel can torture anyone. Period.
We were on the subject until you made that comment about shooting anyone with a black hood and a weapon. After that, I went on to argue how stupid that statement was.
It's not the statement that's stupid. It's the mind that failed to comprehend it.
Isn't it also easier for me to just click links instead of find them? Why do you look for links if it's not as easy for you as it is for me?
It's more fun to laugh at you. But if it makes you feel any better, google, "squeal like a pig."
In the context of what I said in the rest of that post. The intelligenceo officers said they would be of no further use. Also, they're guards. Intelligence officers might act in their official capacity to interrogate prisoners, but guards don't- at least, officially.
Soldiers are public officials. so any actions they take in the line of their work are by definition official. Even more so if they were orders from superior officers. Given the public statement of Rumsfeld and others, combined with Cheney's adamant opposition to congress banning torture, it's hard to believe they were not given such orders.
Are they? Public servants, maybe, but I'm not sure they're public officials. In any case, guarding someone is far different from torturing them. If you think torturing falls under "acting in their official capacity as prison guards," I have nothing more to say.
I'm really getting bored teaching you fundamental principles. (http://epress.anu.edu.au/mdap/mobile_devices/ch01s02.html)
Under the conditions of pluralistic democracy, the relations between the armed forces and civilians are, at least theoretically, quite straightforward. Soldiers are public officials. They are not the embodiment of any particular set of values. They are not the chosen defenders of any specific social or political institution. They hold public office on the assumption that they will provide society with a specific set of services whenever society considers itself in the need of having such services performed.
The reason I said that particular sentence is because it depended entirely on the context.
Inanimate things cannot actually "go" on their own (with the toy robots and cars being the exceptions). But it's, I suppose, a figure of speech, in a way, because they aren't actually going anywhere. Likewise, things do not actually look at objects.
Context. :) Have to love it.
I have no idea what you're saying. Do you accept that what you wrote was bad grammar or not?
Module88
28-12-2005, 17:56
This is where you're supposed to admit you were wrong. You've officially crossed the line from ignorance to stupidity.
Is "The horse looks quickly" grammatically incorrect?
Yes, let's. Anyone who kills their ex-wife out of jealousy is an idiot. I've got a long list of people I consider to be idiots. Poor grammar may have even made the list.
I'm not someone that cares about grammar all that much unless I fail to understand it. But since you consider yourself a grammar king, I thought I'd point out that "poor grammar" isn't exactly a person (as far as I know).
Actually, they're not. They're scientifically quantifiable. Only your perception of them is subjective.
I posted the text only from that site. And posted multiple links stating that the US had ratified the convention.
Is this a joke? Yeah, you posted text from that site. Why don't you take responsibility for yourself and say, "yes, I posted a link that contradicts what I tried to prove and the other links I gave you"? Should I ignore what's on the website because you want me to?
If I made up a website and at the very bottom posted a link that lead to another site that said "I totally made up the stuff on the other webpage," would you ignore that? No. I have every right to analyze WHAT that site says. And if they don't stick it on one page, it's up to YOU to make sure you understand the context of everything. Don't blame me because you failed to read the part (of one of your pieces of evidence) that says the United States has not ratified that particular agreement.
The primary long-term effect their economy suffered from was a lack of international trade. Here's a good explanation of why a closed economy is doomed to collapse. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/volk-o27.shtml)
I probably don't even need to post a link to tell you that if everyone decides to slack off all of a sudden, an economy will also collapse. But don't take my word for it- just go to a school and take a look at the slackers and tell me how productive they are.
Tourism is a form of international trade. Talking to you is like talking to my six-year-old nephew. Except he's smart enough to know he doesn't know much. And asks questions rather than making ignorant statements and stubbornly sticking by them.
I see you didn't read Freet's post. Might want to take a look at that.
Sorry Freezer, I don't consider people as something we trade. Where else would you put tourism? Most countries don't have enough of it to make it a separate category anyway. I hardly think the people who put the amount of people going in and out of a country under "international trade" intended people to be considered trade items.
Looks like we're back to your reading comprehension skills. Or the lack thereof. I said insurgents who only attack US soldiers while wearing masks that distinguishes them from civilians are not terrorists. Just one of many points they flew clean over your head.
Actually, you said anyone with a black mask should basically be shot. A few pages back, we left that topic and jumped on to "that statement is stupid" because I couldn't help but notice that, well, the statement was stupid. Why? Because friendly fire gets people killed.
In order to be protected by the GC, a person must follow the rules of war. Not the rule of war- the RULES of war. A black mask alone does not fulfill that requirement. Instead of agreeing, you jumped to other treaties and agreements that say we can't torture people. But that wasn't the topic at hand. The topic was the Geneva Convention and whether or not a mask alone was sufficient ground to call someone a combatant and give said person GC rights and protections.
What gave you the idea that I don't? Ignorance? Stupidity? A bit of both?
The fact that you constantly interchange the two in an attempt to cover for your mistakes. Yeah, I made mistakes. But I admitted them. Shouldn't you do the same?
It's not the statement that's stupid. It's the mind that failed to comprehend it.
It's more fun to laugh at you. But if it makes you feel any better, google, "squeal like a pig."
Go back and read Freet's post.
Soldiers are public officials. so any actions they take in the line of their work are by definition official. Even more so if they were orders from superior officers. Given the public statement of Rumsfeld and others, combined with Cheney's adamant opposition to congress banning torture, it's hard to believe they were not given such orders.
It's not the job of an MP to torture people. Period. Arguably, it's not the job, or at least, it shouldn't be the job, for anyone. When you overstep your authority, you are no longer acting in an official capacity.
I'm really getting bored teaching you fundamental principles. (http://epress.anu.edu.au/mdap/mobile_devices/ch01s02.html)
Under the conditions of pluralistic democracy, the relations between the armed forces and civilians are, at least theoretically, quite straightforward. Soldiers are public officials. They are not the embodiment of any particular set of values. They are not the chosen defenders of any specific social or political institution. They hold public office on the assumption that they will provide society with a specific set of services whenever society considers itself in the need of having such services performed.
Is "The horse looks quickly" grammatically incorrect?
If you're trying to describe the speed of the horse rather than the speed of its looking then yes. I'm beginning to suspect that you're being deliberately obtuse.
FreezerBurn
28-12-2005, 21:46
Is "The horse looks quickly" grammatically incorrect?
That's not a complete sentence. But if you were to say, "The horse looks quickly to his left," it would be correct.
I'm not someone that cares about grammar all that much unless I fail to understand it. But since you consider yourself a grammar king, I thought I'd point out that "poor grammar" isn't exactly a person (as far as I know).
And yet people with poor grammar are people. Go figure.
Is this a joke? Yeah, you posted text from that site. Why don't you take responsibility for yourself and say, "yes, I posted a link that contradicts what I tried to prove and the other links I gave you"? Should I ignore what's on the website because you want me to?
If I made up a website and at the very bottom posted a link that lead to another site that said "I totally made up the stuff on the other webpage," would you ignore that? No. I have every right to analyze WHAT that site says. And if they don't stick it on one page, it's up to YOU to make sure you understand the context of everything. Don't blame me because you failed to read the part (of one of your pieces of evidence) that says the United States has not ratified that particular agreement.
The link on that page did not contradict the other 4,000 sites I gave you. It was outdated. It's rather amusing though that you've gone from arguing whether or not you're wrong. To blaming others for your being wrong. I think it's enough that you've finally realized you were wrong. So I'll leave it at that.
I probably don't even need to post a link to tell you that if everyone decides to slack off all of a sudden, an economy will also collapse. But don't take my word for it- just go to a school and take a look at the slackers and tell me how productive they are.
There was nothing sudden about the Soviet collapse. It was a long downward spiral predicted decades in advance. Read the link if you actually want to understand what happened.
I see you didn't read Freet's post. Might want to take a look at that.
Sorry Freezer, I don't consider people as something we trade. Where else would you put tourism? Most countries don't have enough of it to make it a separate category anyway. I hardly think the people who put the amount of people going in and out of a country under "international trade" intended people to be considered trade items.
Hmm, does Cuba keep the people who travel there? No? Gee, guess we're not trading people then, are we? Tourism is the trade of money for goods and services. There's a reason why tourism is factored into the trade deficit.
Actually, you said anyone with a black mask should basically be shot. A few pages back, we left that topic and jumped on to "that statement is stupid" because I couldn't help but notice that, well, the statement was stupid. Why? Because friendly fire gets people killed.
I said if you can't tell what side they're on, feel free to shoot them. Why? Because we're talking about international law. And whether or not he was on our side is irrelevant to the discussion. One way or another, he's distinguished himself from the civilian population, making himself a legal combatant in the eyes of international law. And thus a legitimate target. Not to mention the fact that he would be covered by the geneva convention as a POW if he were captured. Sorry for getting back to the point. Care to admit you were wrong yet? Or do you want to keep blabbering about your stupid tangent?
In order to be protected by the GC, a person must follow the rules of war. Not the rule of war- the RULES of war. A black mask alone does not fulfill that requirement. Instead of agreeing, you jumped to other treaties and agreements that say we can't torture people. But that wasn't the topic at hand. The topic was the Geneva Convention and whether or not a mask alone was sufficient ground to call someone a combatant and give said person GC rights and protections.
The mask was specifically in reference to "must be clearly distinguished from civilians." If you had even the most basic reading comprehension skills, you would have understood that.
The fact that you constantly interchange the two in an attempt to cover for your mistakes. Yeah, I made mistakes. But I admitted them. Shouldn't you do the same?
I haven't interchanged them. I've used both in reference to you. But that's only because I believe both apply.
Go back and read Freet's post.
And what a lovely post it was.
It's not the job of an MP to torture people. Period. Arguably, it's not the job, or at least, it shouldn't be the job, for anyone. When you overstep your authority, you are no longer acting in an official capacity.
When a soldier does anything on duty, he or she is acting in an official capacity. The US government is ultimately responsible for their actions. But your argument now has become nothing short of moronic. You were trying to argue that it's legal to torture captured insurgents. Now you've backpedaled to some harebrained idea that it's legal if the soldiers were breaking the rules when doing it? Sorry folks. Elvis has left the building. He took logic and reason right along with him.
FreezerBurn
28-12-2005, 21:51
If you're trying to describe the speed of the horse rather than the speed of its looking then yes.
You got that backwards actually. The speed of the horse would be, "The horse looks quick." The speed of his looking would be, "The horse looks quickly to his left."
You got that backwards actually. The speed of the horse would be, "The horse looks quick." The speed of his looking would be, "The horse looks quickly to his left."
Well it's awkward (which is why I originally used it as my example), but it's still okay. Looks is the verb and quickly the adverb, according to Mod. Consider the sentence with the verb replaced by a different one:
The horse runs quickly.
The horse turns quickly.
The horse looks quickly.
But who would ever say it that way? And in any case Mod was trying to use the 'well' in "things do not look well" to describe the things, not the looking. I can't believe how dense he's being.
Stevinator
29-12-2005, 01:52
So grammar notwithstanding, have we decided to fight the terrorists, or kiss and make up?
FreezerBurn
29-12-2005, 02:44
Well it's awkward (which is why I originally used it as my example), but it's still okay. Looks is the verb and quickly the adverb, according to Mod. Consider the sentence with the verb replaced by a different one:
The horse runs quickly.
The horse turns quickly.
The horse looks quickly.
But who would ever say it that way? And in any case Mod was trying to use the 'well' in "things do not look well" to describe the things, not the looking. I can't believe how dense he's being.
In the case of "looks," you'd be using quick as an adjective. When you say, "The horse looks quick," quick modifies horse, as in the quick horse. If you were to use quick as an adverb, quickly would modify looks, describing how fast the horse looks at something. Not how fast the horse can run.
FreezerBurn
29-12-2005, 02:47
So grammar notwithstanding, have we decided to fight the terrorists, or kiss and make up?
I think we've decided it's ok to kill terrorists. And it's ok to arrest terrorists. But it's not ok to arrest terrorists and torture them. at least not under international law. Now Mod's just trying to figure out how to blame someone else for his being wrong.
In the case of "looks," you'd be using quick as an adjective. When you say, "The horse looks quick," quick modifies horse, as in the quick horse. If you were to use quick as an adverb, quickly would modify looks, describing how fast the horse looks at something. Not how fast the horse can run.
That's exactly what I was saying, remember?
FreezerBurn
29-12-2005, 05:25
edit: nevermind. i read mod's "incorrect" as "correct." damn vodka tonic.
Module88
01-01-2006, 02:56
That's exactly what I was saying, remember?
Right. What you're trying to say dictates whether the sentence is correct or not.
I think we've decided it's ok to kill terrorists. And it's ok to arrest terrorists. But it's not ok to arrest terrorists and torture them. at least not under international law. Now Mod's just trying to figure out how to blame someone else for his being wrong.
My being wrong? The only thing I referred to was the GC. With that, they must obey the rules of war in order to recieve its protections. Other international treaties were brought up by you. So where exactly was I wrong about the issue? The only thing I said was, "according to the GC, they must obey the rules of war in order to recieve its protections." If I'm wrong about that, ok. But the other stuff, you brought that up.
Right. What you're trying to say dictates whether the sentence is correct or not.
You're as inscrutable as you are implacable.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.