Originally posted by smw6869
I thought that i made it clear that i don't agree with physical torture.
I know. I was just trying to determine whether you oppose it purely because you don't think it's useful, or whether you think we're bound by ethcial limits of interrogation that are independant of what's useful.
Anyway, if we're all opposed to torture I guess the only thing left to debate is what exactly constitutes torture.
Would you agree that maybe we should kill all enemy soldiers and Not take any prisoners?
I... no? Honestly I'm not sure where that question came from. At this point, in this conflict, we don't even have a good field definition of what constitutes an enemy soldier. And when we have the option of capturing vs. killing - that is, when killing does not serve any strategic or protective benefit over capturing - we should capture, because 1) we might actually learn something useful from them, and 2) as a civil society with respect for the rule of law and the value of human life, we have an obligation not to kill, even in a time of war, unless it serves some strategic purpose.
If he's guilty of war crimes, you can try him, and if he's convicted you can hang him. If he's NOT guilty of war crimes, he's a prisoner of war and entitled to certain protections.
You'll say that the terrorists would never afford us these basic human dignities, and that's only a good point if you think the terrorists are a model to which we should aspire.
Originally posted by MacSwaini think it's safe to say that anyone who is incarcerated must be accused if domething that the incarcerator deems to be unlawful. that just seems to be common sense--like habeas corpus...oh, wait. GW decided that the US no longer respects that either.
PF..Fill me in please. I missed the part in the thread where torture of 'criminals' was being discussed. Which police departments are accused of using torture? Thanks.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI guess that means all soldiers in Iraq are torturers right.?
To cause physical, mental or emotional harm to a human being.
& there can be only 2 reasons why Bush did not answer the question:
he was unable to do so (in which case, the argument that stupid people can't be president is shot all to hell), or
he was unwilling to do so (in which case he tacitly admits that his definition is likely different than most people's).
I haven't ruled out either.
Originally posted by PinkFloydNot really. The point I thought to make, is the great difference between individuals who steal your auto and individuals who meet on a field of battle to kill one another.
i think it's safe to say that anyone who is incarcerated must be accused if domething that the incarcerator deems to be unlawful. that just seems to be common sense--like habeas corpus...oh, wait. GW decided that the US no longer respects that either.
The first instance is criminal and civil court applies. In the second instance the 'criminal' designation does not apply. If what I just stated is untrue, then all soldiers who live through war must be charged with murder, attempted murder or accessory to murder before and after the fact. They aren't.
As a side thought on your habeas corpus comment...By doing so he falls into the company of your greatest presidents. Lincoln, Roosevelt come to mind. Do you think he ranks in that esteemed company?
Originally posted by gaychessplayerAnnouncing that a war is lost when it is quite the opposite is treason, especially when it's from a congressman. That's one, I can list others if you'd wish but you only asked for one.
Please give me a specific quote by either Mr. Reid or Ms. Pelosi where they "attack our country." Attacking our government's counter-productive and immoral occupation of Iraq is not "attacking our country."
Originally posted by PinkFloydIf the person being questioned knows nothing then you move on the the next one. If you don't want to be interrogated, then don't get caught as an enemy on the battlefield, it's that easy. They're not just plucking random people off the street and torturing them.
And what if the person being questioned/tortured happens to know NOTHING at all? Just what "actionable intel do you expect to get from such a person? If you torture JUST ONE person who turns out to be innocent of the crimes of which he is charged, you are sub-human amd should forfeit your right to breathe the air of decent civilized men. & those with a ...[text shortened]... at Tillman's brothers must have been a lot like Joseph's (see Genesis, OT, KJV)
Bush says we don't torture people. When you define torture as making naked human pyramids, sleep deprivation, and extreme tickling you lose the argument. Bush is right. No one is having their head cut off or limbs or other body parts removed as has happened with al quida. Hell Al Quida has been removing mens genitalia and licking them like pop sickles. No one is complaining about it. Many men in the democrat party do that every day except that they don't remove them.😀
Originally posted by hamltnbluetreason? come on... you guys are pretty wound up.
Announcing that a war is lost when it is quite the opposite is treason, especially when it's from a congressman. That's one, I can list others if you'd wish but you only asked for one.
what about announcing that a war is Won when it's "quite the opposite"? (I seem to recall Mr. Bush in a flight suit on an air craft carrier several years ago saying something to this effect.)
Originally posted by Darth SpongeTreason Definition. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
treason? come on... you guys are pretty wound up.
what about announcing that a war is Won when it's "quite the opposite"? (I seem to recall Mr. Bush in a flight suit on an air craft carrier several years ago saying something to this effect.)
Seems to fit the bill just nicely.
When bush announced years ago he announced Mission accomplished, which was 100% correct. The country was taken and the army was destroyed. The follow up occupation is what has taken awhile but not when compared to the follow up of WWII. The fact that the democrat party has undermined almost every thing that our military has done there has made us look weak to our enemies and kept them in it. Without the democrat assistance many soldiers may not have died.
Originally posted by hamltnblueI don't even know what to say to you "You're either with us (meaning Bush) or against us" crowd. you guys are out of it, seriously. Democrats, for all their numeous faults, are still American citizens- working jobs, paying taxes, buying groceries, saving for retirement, watching baseball... doing what they see as best for the country- not working against America- or working for Islamofacists... or even bringing them "comfort". Bush's war in Iraq is by far the best sales pitch to al Queda recruits. (This is the CIA's opinion, btw...)
Treason Definition. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Seems to fit the bill just nicely.
When bush announced years ago he announced Mission accomplished, which was 100% correct. The country was taken an ...[text shortened]... enemies and kept them in it. Without the democrat assistance many soldiers may not have died.
and you guys just demonize democrats- who weren't even in power up until last Nov... (not that they've used it for much, but)- and try to portray them as evil incarnate, working tirelessly against decent, law abinding Americans. check yourself, before you go completely off the deep end.
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainLincoln and Roosevelt are hardly my greatest presidents--those would be Jefferson Davis and Ben Harrisson-& of course, Harry the Great 🙂
As a side thought on your habeas corpus comment...By doing so he falls into the company of your greatest presidents. Lincoln, Roosevelt come to mind. Do you think he ranks in that esteemed company?[/b]
Originally posted by hamltnblueAre you for real? Are you actually comparing this clusterf@#k in Iraq to WW2 ?🙄
[b]Treason Definition. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Seems to fit the bill just nicely.
When bush announced years ago he announced Mission accomplished, which was 100% correct. The country was taken an ...[text shortened]... The follow up occupation is what has taken awhile but not when compared to the follow up of WWII.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeAl Queda's best recruitment pitch is that the democrats are on their side. Hell, they even suggested that they'd prefer a democrat in office. Your statement about democrats is correct for most that aren't in office. The party has been taken over by hard core socialists. And yes they are pretty much marching to the Al Queda drum beat. Defeat America. When was the last time you heard a democrat official say anything good about the US? I haven't in quite awhile. Just yesterday on one liberal news show the opening line was that there wasn't any news out of Iraq because there hadn't been any bombings. Duh, that's news and since it's good they saw it as no news.
I don't even know what to say to you "You're either with us (meaning Bush) or against us" crowd. you guys are out of it, seriously. Democrats, for all their numeous faults, are still American citizens- working jobs, paying taxes, buying groceries, saving for retirement, watching baseball... doing what they see as best for the country- not working aga ...[text shortened]... t, law abinding Americans. check yourself, before you go completely off the deep end.
You're right that the democrats weren't in power up until January, but they were bashing the US military and the rest of the country well before that. The only reason that they won the elections is because the republicans sat home in a protest vote about illegal immigration and over spending by the republican congress.
2 edits
Originally posted by Darth SpongeAmen. The only person who ever spoke those words with any true authority was Jesus Christ. Just who does Bush thnk he is?
[b]I don't even know what to say to you "You're either with us (meaning Bush) or against us" crowd. you guys are out of it, seriously.
Oh/oy vay----never mind. 😀
2 edits
Originally posted by PinkFloydHistorians have already marked both gulf wars as significant in having the fewest casualties.
Are you for real? Are you actually comparing this clusterf@#k in Iraq to WW2 ?🙄
In 4 years there have been about 3800 deaths in a war zone. On 911 that happened in 90 minutes. In WWII there were very few battles where those numbers didn't occur in 90 days and in some cases in a single day. I see someone went to public school and learned how to wear condoms instead of history.
Here's a couple of links of single battles. Maybe you should catch up and hopefully learn that the US military along with it's Allies have kicked some major ass and are winning in Iraq.
http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/getty4.asp