It’s baaaaaack. The proposed brand new amendment that makes a mockery out of the First One:
“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
I mean, this concept should be elementary. This should be American Citizenship 101. The flag stands for a nation with freedoms, including the freedom to burn the flag in protest.
I’ve always said that I wasn’t a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest, because it’s such a (pardon the expression) incendiary visual that whatever other point you wanted to make is going to be obscured by that action. So I don’t think it’s terribly effective in terms of convincing others. But the Congress…you know, the ones who shall make no law interfering with freedom of expression?…apparently didn’t get the memo.
And hey…all those articles of clothing with the flag adorning it? Notebooks? Forget it. What about decals or bumper stickers, with the image of the American flag getting spattered by mud and dirt. Pull that SUV over, fella…you with that foul bumpersticker and your girlfriend with the stars and stripes bikini top! You’re under arrest courtesy of Congress!
You can’t burn the flag of the United States by burning a representation of it any more than you can burn the Declaration of Independence by burning a copy of it.
You can, however, incinerate the concept of freedom of speech in this country by making a constitutional amendment banning a form of expression for the worst possible reason: It upsets people. No other reason. No one’s reputation stands to be defamed, no money lost. No child’s delicate mind is going to be threatened from the sight. No panics from “fire” falsely cried in a crowded theater (indeed, nowadays the major challenge is finding a theater that’s crowded.) There’s no cover here. It’s naked censorship, a throttling of free expression by the very governmental body that’s sworn to protect it.
Plus the GOP’s gotta love it because liberals must either embrace the notion–which is antithetical to anyone who has a grasp of free speech, to say nothing of making them indistinguishable from conservatives–or else they must spend countless man hours explaining why they value free expression above cheap political opportunism…and lose the vote of every schmuck who can’t wrap his tiny mind around defending to the death one’s right to express an opinion that that same person may find personally repellant. Puts them in a nice position for the next election.
And, of course, anyone opposed to a flag burning amendment is deemed “out of touch” with the citizenry. You know what? I’d rather be out of touch with the citizenry than out of touch with the concept of free expression.
PAD
UPDATE:
‘Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center,’ said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. ‘Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.’
‘If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.’ said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center. –GH
• 
Michael Brunner: “So torturing innocent people is okay because the other guy is worse?”
We are not torturing people!
Michael Brunner: “Support the U.S. occupiers because we’re not as bad as the other guys, who wouldn’t be here if we hadn’t invaded & plunged your country into chaos.”
Yes! Support us because we are better than Sadaam, a man who murdered millions of his own people. And we’re plunging the country into such “chaos” that the duly-elected Iraqui government just invited us to stay another year.
Question: Is there ANYTHING you like about this wretched country of America we live in?
“When your government sanctions rendition, calls anti-torture agreements “quaint”, holds people for years on end without charges, what do you expect?”
Ummm…. I’d expect you to move, if it’s so awful here in Gestapo America. How do you STAND it here?
Well, it really was my intent to shut up … but I’ll keep this one short.
X-Ray: “When people lie and are traitorous, they should be called liars and traitors. What is your problem with that?”
No problem at all — if they really ARE liars and traitors. I haven’t seen anyone betray their country on this blog, and I don’t think you have either. But your method seems to be to apply those terms to anyone who disagrees with you.
Personally, I think the word “traitor” gets bandied about far too often, and has been ever since the early days of the country, when both major parties (the Republicans and the Federalists) routinely accused each other of selling the country down river to either the French (Repubs) or the British (Feders). The word loses its meaning when it’s applied to everyone you don’t like, and should probably be kept to legitimate traitors: people who arrange to sell out their country (or movement, or loved one) in exchange for power, like Benedict Arnold, or for money, as in several spy cases, and, of course, Judas Iscariot, the uber-traitor.
“Liar” should probably be reserved for people who have a proven intent to deceive. Just because somebody says something inaccurate doesn’t make them a liar — they may be mistaken. They may be stupid. Or they may be right and you may be wrong. You’ll notice I haven’t called you a liar.
I DO have a problem with you saying I hate America. Don’t remember doing that? REcently you posted something along the lines that anybody who opposes the flag-burning amendment does so for one reason: they hate America. And any reason they give is a lie, something they’re making up.
Well, I do oppose the amendment, for the same reason James Carter cited above: If we monkey with the First Amendment — if we allow exceptions to be made to it — it’s not going to stop. Today it’ll be flag-burning … tomorrow it may be religious expression in public. X-Ray, you and I agree that there is nothing wrong with religious expression in public (I do it myself — I believe I mentioned somewhere down the line that I’m an evangelical Christian) — and I don’t want to see that outlawed via a constitutional amendment. (And maybe the next year they’ll outlaw, oh, blogging.) And this flag amendment, if passed, could open the door to such a scenario, because it signals that the First Amendment is subject to exceptions. Is this scenario likely? Probably not. Is it possible? Sure. Do you really want to take that chance?
I’m curious as to what you think of my line of reasoning: Does it make any sense to you? Am I being paranoid? Am I mistaken? Or am I a liar?
Or am I “obtuse”? :=)
As for flag-burners: Hey, nobody pays any attention to them. By doing something so offensive, they make it certain that any point they have will be disregarded. They’re their own worst enemy. Just ignore ’em. Same thing with racists or anybody else offensive: They get off on attention, and they really get off on perceived “martyrhood.” Outlaw ’em, and you just make ’em into martyrs. Want to really him they where it counts? Walk right on by.
U.S. Government admits to torture
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html
Well, if you want to believe anything printed in that notoriously liberal, hippie rag, Forbes…
-Rex Hondo-
Forgot to acknowledge Joe Krolik: Thank you, sir.
And forgot to acknowledge Karen as well: Thanks for your concern — but it’s OK. I’m not beating my head against a wall or anything; life’s too short to get upset over these kinds of arguments … especially with strangers, online. You know, maybe something I say will make people think; maybe it won’t; and either way it’s OK. I always think that’s the best way to approach these kinds of forums.
On Sunday night, I went on-line and checked what I believe to be my schedule. Everything looks excellent, except I would like to take one more class. If it is still available I would like to take REL 100 Introduction to Biblical Literature, with Kandy M. Queen-Sutherland. The reason I want this class, with this teacher, is that it is available on Tuesdays and Thursdays, days one which I have few or no classes. Those are really the only days I can take classes at all, as all the others are very crowded. I am not sure that that is the correct teacher, but I am sure that is the correct class. If it is not available, could you please tell me so I can find something else to fill the space? I thank you very much for all your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Cary Bleasdale
Huh?
I never called anyone specific on this site a traitor. I called Peter David a liar, because he told a lie.
I backed up my charge with proof. In response, I was called the village idiot, and declared unworthy of further comment. (That resolve was almost immediately broken, but never the less.)
Strangely, Peter David has ranted and quoted, but he has yet to deny my charge! Nor has anyone else proven me wrong.
Why? Simple.
I’M RIGHT.
Also classic, and funny.
>>>>dramatic lightning flash
To Rex Hondo — hey, thanks a bunch for that torture link. The article has no details whatsoever, and doesn’t define what “tortures” they are talking about.
Would you mind if I wait for the actual report, not a leaked headline? Somehow, I doubt it will state we are cutting off heads, etc. But for now… that headline alone must have you all giddy like a schoolgirl!
So this is all about that whole “exponential” faux pas?
OK, here we go: You’re right about the definition of the word “exponential.” He used the word wrong. Sheesh. (Although there probably is more than one definition.)
How does that follow that he’s a liar? Does being wrong about something make one a liar? I don’t recall any of my old teachers calling me a liar if I got a question wrong on a test. (“You said six times six is fifty! That’s a LIE! ADMIT IT!!!”)
OK, you didn’t call anybody specific on the site a traitor. But you did say that anybody who’s against the flag amendment hates America. And hating one’s country seems pretty traitorous to me.
Did I misunderstand you? I’m told that I’m kind of obtuse, after all … 🙂
We are not torturing people
BZZZTTT!! WRONG!!
1) The U.S. Government has admitted to it. Read the Forbes article above
2) Bush authorized the torture:
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/?Page=Article&ID=2602
a man who murdered millions of his own people
When did it become millions? You claim that you’re here to present facts. Let’s see you do so for a change. Just making a statement does not make it true. Provide a reliable source.
Question: Is there ANYTHING you like about this wretched country of America we live in?
Show me where I said I didn’t like this country. Yes, I am very critical of the current administration , but at no point did I say I didn’t like this country.
Once again, it is YOU who is making false claims. You know, lying. Not a good quality for someone who claims he’s here to provide the truth
Nor has anyone else proven me wrong.
In this country, the accuser has to prove his charge. The accusee doesn’t prove his innocence. You say he’s a liar, YOU provide the proof. You have yet to do so.
I never called anyone specific on this site a traitor.
No one specifically, but you have made it clear that you consider anyone who disagrees with you a liar and/or a traitor.
But then again, what can one expect from an uncreative troll?
Just out of curiousity, why does scale make the difference between acceptable and not acceptable?
What I find so alternately amusing and depressing is your assertion that it’s ok for us to do it, because they did it first. Sorry, jack, šhìŧ don’t work that way. There’s a reason that they (they, of course, being the terrorists) are called ‘extremists’. We (the ‘we’ in this case being the United States of America, citizenry and government) are not. Yet the policies advocated by people such as yourself and those currently in power most certainly are.
Here are two cold hard facts: chopping heads off of hostages on tv = bad. Government sanctioned torture (and yes, Virgina, it really did/does occur, just listen to the dulcet tones of the US AG Alberto ‘Dirty War’ Gonzales) whether you are a terrorist or not = bad. You are more than welcome to determine the scale between the two, but one does not justify the other.
Ever.
Now, the circle really is complete.
LDW…I already proved that PAD’s use of exponential was accurate. x-ray claims no one’s proven him wrong, but I did. He was too dense to understand how I proved him wrong, so he made some silly non-sense noise about my explanation, and continued his little tirade.
Now, I started out trying to ignore him, but it gives me more amusement now to view him like a court Fool…not a jester, but an actual Fool, dressed up in motely, spouting nonsense. And not in a Robin Hobb Fool sense, where the Fool was anything but. He would otherwise be annoying, but he’s so clueless about his true stature that you just have to tolerate him.
Some early morning fun for X-Ray:
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW05-04-05.jpg
The articles presented for proof of torture didn’t say what the torture was.
Things like sleep deprivation are considered “torture” but is okay in my book. I’d need a list of tortures to know if they were torture. Lack of air conditioning? Tough. French food instead of Italian? Tough.
You have to do a little better than “there was torture.” Do these guys have to listen to Rosie sing? That’s pretty cruel…
Robbnn, what about the increasing reports of Koran abuse? Granted, the administration is shrugging most of these off as SOP for Al Quaeda prisoners, which is mighty convienent. Or having naked women sit on a prisoner during interrogation?
I don’t think we need to put prisoners in 4 star hotels. But I’d consider sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, lack of clothing, forced disrobing, and exposure the religiously upsetting events such as seeing your holy book desacrated and being exposed to naked women (which to Muslims is very much a form of torture) all to be forms of torture.
All of which excludes the use of electro-shock on prisoners.
And to go one further, what of the Italian order for the arrest of US CIA agents for the kidnapping of individuals in Italy for the purpose of removing them to another state where they could be tortured?
Even if these are all the allegations of true terrorists, and they really are fabricated, our government has a duty to investigate and refute them. And in a more concrete manner than just posting the menu from Gitmo, which has to be the most laughable thing I’ve seen in a good long while.
But I’d consider sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, lack of clothing, forced disrobing, and exposure the religiously upsetting events such as seeing your holy book desacrated and being exposed to naked women (which to Muslims is very much a form of torture) all to be forms of torture.
Then I am glad that you are not leading any of our troops. I would hate to have such an easily upset namby pampy crybaby who feels these things are such atrocities get captured by the enemy!
The only thing that I would come close to agreeing with is the naked lady, and not because I think it is torture, but simply because I don’t see it as effective or proper.
Then I am glad that you are not leading any of our troops. I would hate to have such an easily upset namby pampy crybaby who feels these things are such atrocities get captured by the enemy!
So let’s flip the coin, shall we?
What if we sat down Pat Robertson, and had somebody piss on the Bible in front of him?
Maybe force him to watch a pørņ video or two?
Yes, alot of it is in the definition. But you have to wonder if there are better ways of getting information than specifically screwing with them based on their religious beliefs.
That one would seem to indicate a distinct lack of respect for the beliefs of others. It doesn’t surprise me that’d we do it, but if we’re trying to win a war of the hearts and minds, it won’t happen by trashing their beliefs.
What if we sat down Pat Robertson, and had somebody piss on the Bible in front of him?
I can’t speak for him, but as someone who strongly believes in the Bible, it would upset me for all of a second but I would just think it silly on the part of the idiot doing the pìššìņg. I think applying the misleading term, ‘torture’, to this action is really off the mark. Calling it mildly offensive to ludicrous would be more accurate. Anyone feeling tortured by such an action should never have become a combatant in the first place.
“I don’t think we need to put prisoners in 4 star hotels. But I’d consider sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, lack of clothing, forced disrobing, and exposure the religiously upsetting events such as seeing your holy book desacrated and being exposed to naked women (which to Muslims is very much a form of torture) all to be forms of torture.”
When you call things like nudity (of one’s self or of someone else) torture, your argument loses a LOT of power. I’m a fan of hyperbole myself, but I’ve found it’s rarely an effective debate tool. It usually gets people to my side in the short term, but when they’re underwhelmed by the reality, they tend to dismiss all my points.
To be honest, I’d like to think that we’d never stoop even to these sorts of things, but they’re a far cry from torture. On the other hand, there has to be a balance between what we consider “civilized” behavior and the safety of the American people (whether civilians or military).
I’m all for having a strict policy of regular reviews on Gitmo and similar installations, provided that the reviewers balance a desire to treat our prisoners with respect and the knowledge that we may sometimes be forced to do distasteful things to protect our people (civilians or military). The Democrats who’re calling for a review of these types of facilities would be much better received by those of us who’re right-leaning if they’d tone down the rhetoric a bit.
“We are not torturing people BZZZTTT!! WRONG!!”
As I said, the link provided has no details whatsoever, and doesn’t define what “tortures” they are talking about. Would you mind if I wait for the actual report, not a leaked headline? (Or, you could just ignore me and keep reposting a meaningless link.)
“A man who murdered millions of his own people. When did it become millions … Provide a reliable source.”
You are right! I should have said “destroyed the lives of millions,” and actually ENDED the lives of “only” a paltry few hundred thousand. Sorry, I realize now that only killing a few hundred thousand is perfectly OK.
“Show me where I said I didn’t like this country.”
OK — you linked to an “interesting article about “The Blasphemy Of Flag Worship,” and elsewhere say, “the flag is equally ‘just some cloth.’ ” The flag is the symbol of our country, by the way, the Koran is not.
‘I never called anyone specific on this site a traitor.’ No one specifically, but you have made it clear that you consider anyone who disagrees with you a liar and/or a traitor.”
Untrue! Show me where I did that.
But then again, what can one expect from an uncreative troll?
I’ll keep reading your posts to find out!
“x-ray claims no one’s proven him wrong, but I did.”
———
Only in your own mind! In fact, it is impossible to prove me wrong on this without totally redefining the word “exponential.” Many here have tried, but for some reason, the dictionary just does not seem to be responding!
To any serious individual, it should be obvious that a small, meaningless increase in a grade in NOT an “exponential” raise. No matter how you slice it, exponential DOES mean “a lot”! A VERY lot!
Case closed. Again.
>>>dramatic lightining flash!!!
I think applying the misleading term, ‘torture’, to this action is really off the mark.
Well, I never called *this* set of circumstances torture, although I still think we’re guilty of torture with actual methods (such as physical torture).
I mean, look at those pictures of Abu Ghraib. Does that constitute torture, no matter your religious or political beliefs?
To L. David Wheeler: You wrote:
” Same thing with racists or anybody else offensive: They get off on attention, and they really get off on perceived “martyrhood.” Outlaw ’em, and you just make ’em into martyrs. Want to really [annoy] him they where it counts? Walk right on by.”
That’s what I’m doing in future.
But thanks for the acknowledgment.
Incidentally, I wholeheartedly endorse your careful and reasoned presentation of interesting and meaningful points. Most enjoyable.
OK, so abusing something that hold deep intense meaning to a person in front of them is not torture.
How about a pet? Or a relative?
Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: ‘tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument
Anguish of body or MIND. Why do you think our “interrogation” techniques include things like this? Because we want to look stupid before the rest of the world? No, because we think they will be effective. And we think that because we know that many militant islamics are highly religous, and desecrating the Koran and violating their principles, such as seeing a naked female, will highly offend them. And we’re doing so to cause them anguish.
And even if you (HAM) disregard all of the above as forms of torture, what’s your view of using electro-shock on prisoners? Or is that something that only a “namby-pamby” would be upset by?
How about this: We capture YOU, HAM, and tie you up, naked, in a cell, deprive you of sleep, turn the temp up to 100, then down to 40, each hour, and finally, when we come to question you, we find your most prized possession in the world and destroy it before your eyes when you don’t tell us there are 5 lights? You want to call that just an interrogation, or is that torture?
Maybe you’re glad that I’m not out leading our troops (although something tells me I’d be far more effective than you are), but I’M glad that you’re not calling the shots in terms of how to treat prisoners. You think, just because the torture we ARE using isn’t as bad as racking someone, it’s OK. Which is like saying that only killing 10 people, instead of 100, is OK. Or only stealing a little is ok.
X-Ray…you appear to have learned well the Bush Administration trick of repeating something, regardless of whether it’s true or accurate, over and over, in the hopes that people will eventually come to believe you. You should take heed of Bush’s slipping approval rating…people will only fall for that trick once every so often, and eventually, they just stop listening.
Bobb,
No, I’m sorry, I don’t consider that torture. I wouldn’t condone it in a criminal prison, but in a terrorist/POW camp where the prisoner has information that can save lives, then yes, all of those things are acceptable.
For what it’s worth, as a Christian I have seen a Bible torn up and burned. It didn’t put me in anguish. I’ve seen pørņ and while I think it is wrong, I’d be fibbing if I said a certain amount of pleasure didn’t accompany it.
The naked woman I object to for her sake, not the prisoner’s.
Electro shock is wrong. Any physical harm is too UNLESS immediate knowledge is required to save lives immediately. The colonel who scared the living crap out of a combatant and fired a gun by his ear? No problems with that in the heat of war where any engagement can mean the death of our guys. That he was even reprimanded was ridiculous.
As for the AG pictures, ridicule and abuse for the fun of it is wrong. This was an aberation, not the norm.
Look, war is yucky, no question. You fight hard to end it as quickly as possible. Honor on a battlefield can be a slippery concept, and dainty rules of conduct can handcuff our guys.
Torture is electro shock, amputation, bodily abuse of irreversible nature, and death. We shouldn’t be involved with any of that, but making someone uncomfortable isn’t nice, but neither is war.
“Huh?”
sorry, Ham and everyone. Copy of an E-mail sent to me that I cut and pasted in the wrong box, most likely due to sleep deprivation.
Ok. Here is my issue. I may have posted this before, but I have been VERY sleep deprived, so I am not sure. (last minute stuff, you know) Anyway. If these people at Gitmo are NOT POW’s, then it seems that they must, legally, be classified as Civilians. Now, if I go to England and kill someone, I am tried there, likewise (I am almost sure) if an englishman kills ME while I am there. Thus, If these people are enemy civilians, (IE NON-pow’s, most likely accused of murder) then they should be tried in the country in which the crime took place. It seems to me that unless these people are classified as POW’s, and thus subject to the Geneva convention, that they are still Civilians, in a country I don’t think we have declared war on. Thus, you could almost make out a case for kidnapping. They should at least be held and tried in Iraq. perhaps one of the lawyers on here could comment? I gleaned this info second-hand, so it might be inaccurate. thanks!
Bah. X-Ray, everything you stand for dishonors America. Your perpetual name-calling and accusations of treason. Your repetition of meaningless slogans. Your defense of an administration that dishonors its own military and POINTS IT OUT.
Shame. And what’s worst: you KNOW that conservatives are on top. So why are you here, attacking “liberals?” To kick them when they’re down?
You’re bad news, man. This kind of trolling has been out of style since 1992. You’re about as current as the movie “Hackers.”
Good luck with your life, such as it is. Good luck with the PRIDE you have in an administration that revels in failure. Michael Savage is an idiot, by the way.
How about a pet? Or a relative?
And when, exactly, did we do either, and if not then how is it relevant?
And even if you (HAM) disregard all of the above as forms of torture, what’s your view of using electro-shock on prisoners? Or is that something that only a “namby-pamby” would be upset by?
To answer the first, it would is upsetting but not entirely wrong. To answer the second, mostly.
How about this: We capture YOU, HAM, and tie you up, naked, in a cell, deprive you of sleep, turn the temp up to 100, then down to 40, each hour, and finally, when we come to question you, we find your most prized possession in the world and destroy it before your eyes when you don’t tell us there are 5 lights? You want to call that just an interrogation, or is that torture?
See, I have never been a terrorist militant, and my days of serving the military are long past, so really there would be nothing to gain from interrogation or torturing me.
But, yes, I have no problems with anything you suggest being done to gain information, especially when by all reports some aspects of your description are exaggerated and by the fact that the destruction of an material object does not in any way constitute torture except to those who lack common sense. These prisoners chose to be terrorists, combatants, insergents, what-have-you and they should be treated as such.
(although something tells me I’d be far more effective than you are)
Based on what exactly? A couple of responses, as opposed to your several responses that one can easily surmise your leadership and military skills.
You think, just because the torture we ARE using isn’t as bad as racking someone, it’s OK
Your words, not mine.
What exactly constitutes fair treatment of enemy combatants who do not fall under the Geneva Convention? What would be acceptable to you? Seems to me, the only thing that you would find acceptable is maid service and a mint on the pillow.
James Carter:
“It seems to me that unless these people are classified as POW’s, and thus subject to the Geneva convention, that they are still Civilians, in a country I don’t think we have declared war on.”
Actually, there is a third term that differentiates them from “civilians” and “POWs”: “Illegal Combatants.” They’re considered to be soldiers who violated the standard “rules” of war (which is why Geneva no longer applies to them). I’d recommend that you read Bill Whittle’s Sanctuary (if links don’t work here, the address is http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html). I never really got why the out-of-uniform combatants were such a problem until reading that.
Wow, Ham, I guess I underestimated your ability to see into the hearts of men. I mean, to be able to size up a person based on a few comments they post…I have to admit, I’d follow you into combat…
Which, based on your leap of my abilities based on an extrememly small amount of information, would undoubtedly lead to my, and the entire company’s, death. You exhibit the same mentality that has entrenched us in what will likely be a never-ending struggle against Iraqi insurgents. Just like Rumsfeld stating that he would be surprised if the Iraqi action lasted more than 6 months, you would leap to an assumption based on information that is meaningless in value to your actual mission.
But, it’ll be ok. When you get captured, don’t worry, your keepers will only do silly and abusive things to you. You won’t be tortured.
Robbnn, there’s no reason to apologize. Whatever we call it, I do respect the opinion that agrees to the practice. I don’t agree, of course, but I can’t argue with the way you present your reasons, unlike some here.
And where is the trial proving they deserve the classification “Ilegal Combatants”?
Also, it IS torture! Besides, who says any of them know anything? Especially having been there so long? Our troops are torturing with no proof that they have any answers to give.
And let’s be honest with ourselves… if the victims don’t tell their torturers exactly what they want to hear, do you think this administration is going to listen? NO, they’ll just claim that the victims are resisting the “interrogation” techniques and say they need to do more. Which is really convenient for the torturers to keep on doing it with no end in sight… it’s not like the uncovicted prisoners at Gitmo HAVE any information that the administration wants, or at least wants to hear an/or admit to the American people…
Wow, Ham, I guess I underestimated your ability to see into the hearts of men. I mean, to be able to size up a person based on a few comments they post
Wow, back at you, I responded the way I did because you were the one that tried to size me up based on one post.
Wow is right, you sure can spin things!
Way to avoid answering any questions!
But please keep presenting hyperbole, strawmen, and slippery slope examples as facts and ignoring anything else.
And where is the trial proving they deserve the classification “Ilegal Combatants”
The mere fact that they are violating the standard rules of war set by the Geneva Convention is proof enough. There is no reason for a trial to prove the are illegal combatants, they are by definition alone. There can be a trial for war crimes, but it doesn’t have to happen to detain these illegal combatants. Are we supposed to offer bail and let them go? Name me one war where the trials for war crimes happened while the war was still being waged.
I wouldn’t condone it in a criminal prison, but in a terrorist/POW camp where the prisoner has information that can save lives, then yes, all of those things are acceptable.
And what kind of information do these guys have when they’ve been locked up for years?
I’d venture this answer: not much.
Thanks Robin, I see the mans point. I still disagree with Gitmo, but there is a definate point to be made for the idea of Illegal Combatants. However, what is going on at Gitmo, whether it is really torture, is a step too close to it for comfort. I refer you to Zimbardo’s famous prison experiment, more on which can be found here:http://www.prisonexp.org/
If that is the result caused by only a few days of imprisonment, with NO encouragement to do anything even remotely close to torture, then what could happen in an enviorment where torture, or near-torture, or a step close to torture (depending on your point of view) is encouraged? Especially when you already have a good reason to hate the prisoners? And you can pass of any torture under the guise of “getting information?” Just a thought.
And all of this hair-splitting as to what should or should not be considered “torture” neatly bypasses one of the main reasons no professional interrogator would use it: Torture tends to produce unreliable information. Often, the victim will say whatever he thinks will make his captors stop. For instance, check the Grand Inquisition, when a “heretic” put to the question would eventually happily agree that he had been serving barbecued babies to Satan, if it’d stop the Inquisitors from pulling out any more fingernails…
Actually, Jonathon, I already tried that tack in one of my prior posts…torture/abuse/stress situations…whatever you want to call it, the information you get as a result is unreliable. The only way to get reliable information is to offer some incentive/reward to the prisoner. Consider this: most of these people are willing to die for their cause…what good is it going to do to torture them? The only thing that would possibly work is to use drugs to alter their state of mind, and that is even less effective than conventional torture.
“The mere fact that they are violating the standard rules of war set by the Geneva Convention is proof enough.”
Who says they violated anything?
Sorry, there has to be proof they did somethimg wrong jsut to detain them, I don’t buy this “Oh, we think they’re terrorists so they get no trials to prove they’re “Illegal Combatants” or anything”-bûllšhìŧ.
America preaches that it’s better than that, but we seem to use the same dictatorship tactics when it suits us, and Gitmo is just another example…
Why does the rest of the world hate America so much? Because we don’t practice a word of what we preach…”Do as we say…not as we do.”
Let’s see, Ham’s questions: I actually did explain why my leadership and military skills are most likely more effective than yours…or at least leadership. Military skills cover such wide gamut, and have no bearing on the ability to type and hit “post.”
Speaking of not answering a question…
“How about a pet? Or a relative?
And when, exactly, did we do either, and if not then how is it relevant?”
I had thought the relevance was apparant…the point being, how far is too far? If it’s not too much to threaten or destroy objects, what about other such property like pets or livestock? And if that’s ok, why not people? Can we threaten a detainee’s family? Take their land? How far is too far, and when do you start asking questions of your administration to prevent them from going too far? I prefer to not start down that road at all, rather than not ask questions at first, only to find that you’re halfway to Hëll before you decide to speak up.
“What exactly constitutes fair treatment of enemy combatants who do not fall under the Geneva Convention? What would be acceptable to you? Seems to me, the only thing that you would find acceptable is maid service and a mint on the pillow.”
Well, this is a loaded question. Fair treatment? I’d say the same treatment as afforded in the Geneve Conventions. They are supposed to reflect a higher moral standard of civilized nations and the equitible treatment of prisoners and cilvilians during times of war. Why don’t they have anything for enemy combatants? Because, in my opinion, when the GC were written, most sane people considered what we call “enemy combatants” to be criminals…and thus subject to the regular rights and protections all criminals are afforded.
Today, of course, our administration has created a new status, and of course we’ve destroyed and replaced the governments that might have spoken for these enemy combatants.
As to maid service and such, I did explicitly state that I didn’t expect 4 star hotel service. But to be totally clear, I think the same treatment we afford our criminal suspects and convictees is what we should apply to the detainees.
Our country is supposed to founded on the ideals that all men (people) are created equal, and that all people have inherant rights and freedoms imbued within them by their creator. Our abuse, even if it doesn’t reach the level of torture, of detainees is an act of wanton destruction of the core beliefs this country was founded on.
hey bobb,
i don’t condone torture of prisoners by the US. We’re better then that, but in regard to your statement: “most of these people are willing to die for their cause…what good is it going to do to torture them”.
my guess that a suicide bomber blowing himself up is relatively quick & painless & are probably dead in a second. torture however, can cause pain. conviction can only carry a person so much before they spill their intell.
let’s say, as an example that you are ready to die for marvel comics. now lets say dc comes along and captures you. now they ask you questions and you refuse. then they pluck you fingernails, cut fingers, remove an ear. how long b4 you say MAKE MINE DC. ideals only go so much vs pain.
people are willing to die so long as they expect it to be quick. no one wants to deal w/ pain.
joe v.
“No, I’m sorry, I don’t consider that torture. I wouldn’t condone it in a criminal prison, but in a terrorist/POW camp where the prisoner has information that can save lives, then yes, all of those things are acceptable.”
Torture doesn’t get you solid intell. Torture doesn’t get somebody to say anything you can take at even 70% face value. Torture intel doesn’t save lives or make us safer because of that. Anybody who knows their intel game and knows the tricks of the trade will tell you the same thing. Therefore, the only reason to support torture is if you want to show how sick and twisted you can be or how uninformed you are about the subject.
There is no reason we should have a government that is redefining the meanings of torture to use it or smiling upon its use. So many on the right like to say that we’re the good guys. Explain to me how these same people seem to believe that the good guys can torture people just because they can get away with it and still be good guys. Me, I think that we are the good guys but are stuck with people in charge aren’t and who will be looked at decades from now in the history books as a stain on this country and what it stands for. I can’t wait for America to wake up and sweep them out of their offices so that we can start being the good guys again.
Craig,
If we have no reason to believe they have information, then no “torture” is necessary. I am well aware of the depravity of all human beings that allows individuals to take pleasure in abusing people for the fun of it; it’s my expectation that officers are trained to prevent this kind of thing.
Bobb, when speaking of giving them the same accords as criminal prisoners, you run into the problem of their lawyer being able to carry information out of the holding facility. If these people are dangerous, then I direct you to the running of the mafia from behind prison bars by using the lawyers as mouthpieces as a case history of why allowing this would be dangerous. The only way to prevent that is to wait until the war is over and whatever cells they may lead or serve are powerless.
Not a big fan of torture, myself. Throw me in with the we’re-better-than-that and it-doesn’t-work groups, but this whole thread brings up an interesting point. What do we mean when we say torture? Or ethics? OR, for that matter, glory? That’s the problem with using these words, or with burning a flag. They mean different things to different people. Force some people to eat a nice juicy burger and according to their society, it’s torture. Of the person and the cow. Me, it’s just a nice lunch.
Flag burning falls into the same category. Get three colors of fabric, where if they were anywhere else they’d be a t-shirt, make them into a flag, they become a symbol. A representation of something. If you harm a representation, you do no harm to what it represents. We should be more concerned with solving the problems with what’s being represented than worrying so much about the representative.
Hendrix: “Good luck with the PRIDE you have in an administration that revels in failure.”
————-
When did I ever say I had pride in the Carter administration?
“When did I ever say I had pride in the Carter administration?”
How about the Grant through McKinley, and the Harding, Coolidge, Jhonson, Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr administrations? What did those Republicans accomplish? and I am just going by the ones who are the MODERN ones, and not the ones who had the politics, but not the name. I never saw such a bunch o’dunces in my life! Wars, corruption, lying, screwing over the people. Hëll, at least Carter is a great MAN if a bad president. Who is your greatest leader in my list? Nixon? Yeah, I bet. It seems to be quite the Republican trait to lie when they are wrong. Or Harding? Widely considered to be the second most corrupt president after Nixon? He was never president of course, but maybe you, like Ann Coulter, admire the late “Uncle” Joe McCarthy?
Do enlighten us to his many virtues. Please. I didn’t know it was possible to find virtue in jingoistic, Constitution shredding schmucks myself, but, whatever floats your boat, Pal. Oh, and name one thing Captain Shrub has done right.
X-ray, I’m pleased to see that you didn’t bother to deny the rest.
Address James Carter. His points are valid.
Address James Carter. His points are valid.
Well, they are valid if you are ignorant of history and also believe that Johnson was a Republican.
To dismiss Nixon’s accomplishments due to mistakes he made out of paranoia and not corruption, shows a complete lack of understanding of history and demonstrates a close-minded bias.
You are right, I missed that part.
Nixon was in an ugly position and did his best. Vietnam wasn’t his idea; he might have ended it sooner, but certainly it wasn’t a Republican president who started the war. Some sympathy is in order for the man; who wouldn’t get a little paranoid?
I actually think there’s merit to the idea of Carter as a man too moral for the office of the president. That’s just a bummer. And if that helicopter had gotten off the ground so it could fly to Iran, history would remember Carter in an entirely different way.