FEOS is happy to bend any rule, treaty, convention or law to allow the US govt to do whatever it feels like - but everyone else has to follow the letter of the law. Its called bigotry, or maybe cultural arrogance.But then I've already seen that you don't care much for literary definitions and would prefer to make up your own. So international, legal and expert definitions are unlikely to be of any interest to you either.
The Taliban aren't Arabs. And even if it is their custom, they seriously considered giving him up or at least making him leave...and then decided against it.Dilbert_X wrote:
As is the Arab custom and has been for thousands of years.The Taliban were given a chance to give up Bin Laden and they refused.
If the Taliban had actually executed military ops against AQ in their country the way Pakistan is doing and has been doing for years, we likely would have let them keep doing that.Dilbert_X wrote:
In the same way Pakistan's sanctuary for AQ is not a threat to US interests?Their sanctuary of AQ's leadership after 9/11 was deemed a threat to the US's national interests.
Why not bomb Pakistan until they give up Bin Laden?
Funny that AQ were herded into Pakistan and the attention turned swiftly to Iraq.
Yet another claim (and personal attack) with nothing to back it up.Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS is happy to bend any rule, treaty, convention or law to allow the US govt to do whatever it feels like - but everyone else has to follow the letter of the law. Its called bigotry, or maybe cultural arrogance.
Consistently applying double standards makes one a bigot.Since when does not agreeing with your hyperbolic, conspiracy-laden opinion make one bigoted or culturally arrogant? Get over yourself.
Anything we do to them is fine.define torture methods. see we disagree on what is torture and what is not.
Their methods usual involve removing parts of your body, namely your head.Dilbert_X wrote:
Anything we do to them is fine.define torture methods. see we disagree on what is torture and what is not.
Anything they do to us is out of order.
That's not torture, that's execution.M.O.A.B wrote:
Their methods usual involve removing parts of your body, namely your head.Dilbert_X wrote:
Anything we do to them is fine.define torture methods. see we disagree on what is torture and what is not.
Anything they do to us is out of order.
What about feet and hands?Uzique wrote:
That's not torture, that's execution.M.O.A.B wrote:
Their methods usual involve removing parts of your body, namely your head.Dilbert_X wrote:
Anything we do to them is fine.
Anything they do to us is out of order.
You don't generally tend to extract much information from a hostage/prisoner when you cut his head off .
I did read the context of the reply.FEOS wrote:
The post I was responding to.Berster7 wrote:
Who's talking about US citizens?
Read the context of the reply before you get your panties all bunched up.
Above is the post you responded to. The only person mentioned or referred to is Gerry Conlon, who is Irish. Perhaps you misunderstood the context. It could loosely be taken to mean anyone, but is by no means exclusively referring to US citizens.Spearhead wrote:
It actually happens all the time.Braddock wrote:
Don't they? That's funny because Gerry Conlon spent 15 years in prison for nothing at all. Or did I just imagine that?usmarine wrote:
sux to be you then. most people just dont get picked up for going grocery shopping you know?
Just that lazy ass conservatives who don't want to be "soft" on prisoners are fucking up the system of due process.
Yes there is. It's called the Geneva convention, which the US has ratified and so is essentially a part of US law. Which does require that anyone detained under the terms of the convention be given a trial in "a regularly constituted court", not a military tribunal, a civil trial - which is the same thing essentially - apart from provisions regarding internment, which of course are not especially relevant to the debate since the convention also requires that prisoners be "in all circumstances be treated humanely" and not be subject to "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment". So for all intents and purposes regarding torture - from a legal perspective, being a US citizen or not, no matter the circumstances, should make no difference whatsoever.FEOS wrote:
The relevance, in terms of US citizens, is that US citizens have rights under US law that non-citizens do not. Additionally, the capture of a US citizen by US authorities (civil or military) requires that they be remanded to US law enforcement. There is no equivalent requirement for capture of non-US citizens during a conflict.Berster7 wrote:
In any case, what is the relevance of them being US citizens? Why should nationality make any difference whatsoever? They are people.
Forgive me for taking the opinions of people who are recognised as experts in the field over you, with no relevant psychological training or experience.FEOS wrote:
And psychologists (those experts you reference) also theorize that incorrect potty training can lead one to become a serial killer. Excuse me for having some skepticism. Having gone through sleep deprivation myself, under similar circumstances, I can tell you that it's not torture.Berster7 wrote:
So it doesn't count as torture under the international definition straight off. In any case, ignoring sleep deprivation as a form of torture flies in the face of the opinion of experts on these matters and so could quite justifiably be considered to be taking an extremely foolish viewpoint.
I suppose that, according to you, anything other than tea and crumpets and asking "pretty please" is torture. Thank God you're not in a position to act on that absurdly naive viewpoint.
In the legal sense, no, that is not torture. Because I've been using purely legal definitions throughout this debate.FEOS wrote:
So if some guy decides to randomly strap you down and peel your skin off with a scalpel, you're not being tortured? He's not trying to get information from you or anyone else, he's not attempting to intimidate or coerce you, and he's not acting in an official capacity. According to your definition above, you're not getting tortured.Berster7 wrote:
No. The first reason being that she was not doing it for: "such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
But you get wrapped around the "definitions" axle, so I guess not. Have fun with that.
Of course we should only really be concerned about legal definitions in this debate - which is why those are what I have provided.FEOS wrote:
Why should any of us care about "literary definitions"? Shouldn't we be more concerned about "legal definitions" in this debate?Berster7 wrote:
But then I've already seen that you don't care much for literary definitions and would prefer to make up your own. So international, legal and expert definitions are unlikely to be of any interest to you either.
OK.Lotta_Drool wrote:
bert,
People will actually read this post because it is short.
doesn't matter if it is pointless.
Tickling someone until they cry and pee their pants is torture by most definitions. Sure I have done it AND been a victim of it, but I am here to say to you that I support tickling to gain information.Bertster7 wrote:
OK.Lotta_Drool wrote:
bert,
People will actually read this post because it is short.
doesn't matter if it is pointless.
Here's a short one for people saying loads of things don't count as torture - READ THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF WHAT TORTURE IS!
You might be very surprised how wrong you all are.
You've pissed your pants as a result of someone tickling you?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Tickling someone until they cry and pee their pants is torture by most definitions. Sure I have done it AND been a victim of it, but I am here to say to you that I support tickling to gain information.Bertster7 wrote:
OK.Lotta_Drool wrote:
bert,
People will actually read this post because it is short.
doesn't matter if it is pointless.
Here's a short one for people saying loads of things don't count as torture - READ THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF WHAT TORTURE IS!
You might be very surprised how wrong you all are.
Doesn't fit with any definitions I've ever read. Might be classed as humiliating and degrading treatment (and so would be prohibited under the Geneva Convention), but not torture.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Tickling someone until they cry and pee their pants is torture by most definitions. Sure I have done it AND been a victim of it, but I am here to say to you that I support tickling to gain information.Bertster7 wrote:
OK.Lotta_Drool wrote:
bert,
People will actually read this post because it is short.
doesn't matter if it is pointless.
Here's a short one for people saying loads of things don't count as torture - READ THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF WHAT TORTURE IS!
You might be very surprised how wrong you all are.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-09-03 11:53:29)
Actually, that's not at all what makes one a bigot. But both your definition and the actual definition do describe you to a tee.Dilbert_X wrote:
Consistently applying double standards makes one a bigot.Since when does not agreeing with your hyperbolic, conspiracy-laden opinion make one bigoted or culturally arrogant? Get over yourself.
you do that constantlyDilbert_X wrote:
Insulting and ridiculing anyone who dares disagree fits too.
Last edited by GateKeeper{NL} (2008-09-05 06:46:54)
You accusing someone of approaching any subject with prejudice is laughable. That's worse that the pot calling the kettle black. That's the kettle calling another kettle a pot.Dilbert_X wrote:
Not really, approaching any subject with the prejudice and agenda handed to you by your govt. and refusing to consider any counter evidence however wide and detailed pretty much fits.
See my first comment above.Dilbert_X wrote:
Insulting and ridiculing anyone who dares disagree fits too.
