Torture, the gift that keeps on giving...

[OCA]

Bully, no one else is speaking for me. What exactly do you define as torture? I mean we'd agree on 'the rack', but what is it you have in mind?

I didn't speak for you Kathianne, in fact I thought that was an excellent little tidbit. I'd just like to know what Bully thinks about it without all the crap.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'm guessing with Kathianne's link this will be the end of Bully's participation in this thread. Could be wrong but his track record suggests this will be so.

As usual, you are wrong. The intel cited in the article appears to have been gathered without the use of torture, but rather with conventional intterogation techniques with cross referencing of the data gathered both there and elsewhere.

I did have the pleasure of listening to an interview with Bob Barr yesterday, in which he came down foursquare against the administration's detention policies and it's blind eye towards the torture of detainees. I find it reassuring that there are conservatives for whom the voice of reason is strong and clear, rather than the muted whisper I so often hear from you, and other supporters of Dubbyuh and his merry band.

 

[Annie]

I didn't speak for you Kathianne, in fact I thought that was an excellent little tidbit. I'd just like to know what Bully thinks about it without all the crap.

I didn't say you did. Just wanted Bully to answer my straitforward question. Thanks.

 

[OCA]

As usual, you are wrong. The intel cited in the article appears to have been gathered without the use of torture, but rather with conventional intterogation techniques with cross referencing of the data gathered both there and elsewhere.

I did have the pleasure of listening to an interview with Bob Barr yesterday, in which he came down foursquare against the administration's detention policies and it's blind eye towards the torture of detainees. I find it reassuring that there are conservatives for whom the voice of reason is strong and clear, rather than the muted whisper I so often hear from you, and other supporters of Dubbyuh and his merry band.

In Kathianne's article? What do you think conventional interrogation techniques are? You cannot possibly be this dumb and able to function day to day.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, no one else is speaking for me. What exactly do you define as torture? I mean we'd agree on 'the rack', but what is it you have in mind?

<blockquote><center><b>Article 1</b></center>

1. For the purposes of this Convention, <b>torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person</b> 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. - UN Convention Against Torture</blockquote>

 

[Annie]

<blockquote><center><b>Article 1</b></center>

1. For the purposes of this Convention, <b>torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person</b> 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. - UN Convention Against Torture</blockquote>

So basically you are saying that if a person perceives the police, soldiers, whatever are 'threatening' that is torture?

 

[Shattered]

The moral issue was a big one for the Republicans in 2004. But hey, they were more concerned with keeping same-gender couples from getting married than from preventing some rag-head from being tortured. We gotta keep our priorities straight...Right?

Yes. Yes we do! Gotta love the USA. :kiss2:

 

[OCA]

<blockquote><center><b>Article 1</b></center>

1. For the purposes of this Convention, <b>torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person</b> 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. - UN Convention Against Torture</blockquote>

The Geneva convention is a dead horse and a hinderance and danger to our troops. This article has no bearing on us. Torture or in the case of Abu Ghraib humiliation is a viable and legitimate tool of war.

Bully instead of taking the easy road and quoting some paragraph from a long useless document step up and be a man and define torture in your own words.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Bully, please go eat a shit burrito supreme.

 

[OCA]

Bully, please go eat a shit burrito supreme.

:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

 

[Yurt]

You really don't get it...Do you? Torture produces little information beyond whatever the victim thinks will make the torture stop. It is essentially useless as a tool for intelligence gathering. It is a violation of US law...It is a violation of international law...It is an offense against human decency...Not that the Bush administration gives a damn about any of those things.

Torture is not about gathering intel, it is about instilling fear. And with that fear comes hatred. With these policies in place the Administration is sowing the seeds of a nightmare...And as you sow, so shall you reap, and we will surely reap the whirlwind.

No, I don't get how you side stepped my question with a fakes left, shoots right, question. Your post's main thrust was about "sending" people home to their country in which they might be tortured. It was not about whether torture works, stay focused man.

Awaiting your answer as to where you would send the people. Also, in one the attached, highly verbose, links, it mentioned that the difficulty with these people is that there is no distinction between civilian and military casualties. Does this bother you? Or are you "morally" ok with this? When a person does not distinguish himself nor his victims, that person falls under NO treaty, Morally, or legally.

 

[manu1959]

Bully You really don't get it...Do you? videotaped torture and beheadings of civilians produces little effect beyond whatever thrill the hooded killer gets. It is essentially a useless exercise. It is a violation of islamic law...It is a violation of international law...It is an offense against human decency...Not that the anyone seems give a damn about any of those things.

videotaped torture and beheadings is not about gathering intel or waging a war it is about instilling fear. And with that fear comes hatred. With these policies in place the "Administration" is sowing the seeds of a nightmare...And as you sow, so shall you reap, and they will surely reap the whirlwind.

 

[Bullypulpit]

In Kathianne's article? What do you think conventional interrogation techniques are? You cannot possibly be this dumb and able to function day to day.

They do not inflict pain "...that would ordinarily be associated with a sufficiently serious physical condition or injury such as death, oran failure or serious impairment of bodily functions..." (1.)

<blockquote>The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources. - FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, Chapter 1(2.)</blockquote>

You're still wrong...But too ignorant to realize it.

Citations:

(1.) <i>Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzalez, Counsel to the President, re:Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. - Sections 2340-2340A</i>, August 1, 2002, Section 1 B, para 2. Also found here:

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/doj/bybee80102mem.pdf

(2.)<i><b>FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation</b></i>, Chapter 1. Also found here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm

 

[Bullypulpit]

No, I don't get how you side stepped my question with a fakes left, shoots right, question. Your post's main thrust was about "sending" people home to their country in which they might be tortured. It was not about whether torture works, stay focused man.

Awaiting your answer as to where you would send the people. Also, in one the attached, highly verbose, links, it mentioned that the difficulty with these people is that there is no distinction between civilian and military casualties. Does this bother you? Or are you "morally" ok with this? When a person does not distinguish himself nor his victims, that person falls under NO treaty, Morally, or legally.

You don't "send" them anywhere dolt. You question them without torture on US bases or soil where the rule of US civil and military law should still reach. But, as Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elswhere have shown us, this administration is little concerned with the legalities.

 

[manu1959]

please read the chapter on who these 'protections" apply to ....

dudes with box cutters, beheaders, homocide bombers, and mass murders killing civilians are not a protected class....fuckem

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully You really don't get it...Do you? videotaped torture and beheadings of civilians produces little effect beyond whatever thrill the hooded killer gets. It is essentially a useless exercise. It is a violation of islamic law...It is a violation of international law...It is an offense against human decency...Not that the anyone seems give a damn about any of those things.

videotaped torture and beheadings is not about gathering intel or waging a war it is about instilling fear. And with that fear comes hatred. With these policies in place the "Administration" is sowing the seeds of a nightmare...And as you sow, so shall you reap, and they will surely reap the whirlwind.

Then you hunt them down, find them and bring them before the court...You do not torture countless others to get information of dubious value. You donnot become that which you seek to destroy, at risk of becoming something worse.

 

[Yurt]

You don't "send" them anywhere dolt. You question them without torture on US bases or soil where the rulle of US civil and military law should still reach. But, as Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elswhere have shown us, this administration is little concerned with the legalities.

Ok, asswipe, let me breakdown for you: when we are done with them, WHERE do we send them, sheesh, don't you think that we first get what we want and THEN send them off. what planet do you live on?

typical name caller lib, hey, i have shoe, want to throw it

 

[manu1959]

You don't "send" them anywhere dolt. You question them without torture on US bases or soil where the rulle of US civil and military law should still reach. But, as Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elswhere have shown us, this administration is little concerned with the legalities.

yea that seemed to work so well during the clinton years when nothing bad
ever happened ....

Q: did you blow up the cole?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

Q: did you blow up the us embasy?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

Q: was that in the snuff film where you cut that reporters head?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

Q: did you try and blow up the world trade center?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

Q: did you declare war on the US kill US soliders and drag them through the streets?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

Q: did you offer 25,000 per homocide bomber?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

Q: did you take a school hostage and kill children?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

Q: did you blow up a bus of civilians?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

Q: did you blow up a resort hotel?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

Q: did you blow up a pizza parlor?
A: nope
Q: oh well ok then be on your way

you know if these "freedom fighters" had some balls and took on the miltary instead of killing civilains and attacking soft targets i would say sure having sexy women act out frat party fantasies is "torture" but **** em behave like animals get treated like animals

 

[OCA]

Then you hunt them down, find them and bring them before the court...You do not torture countless others to get information of dubious value. You donnot become that which you seek to destroy, at risk of becoming something worse.

LAUGH MY ******* ASS OFF! (this was too ridiculous for LMFAO)

Another lib who believes that this is like a police problem, yes haul em into court, better yet the Hague, very effective court there.

People remember, libs loathe the military and anything to do with it, their objections are not based on principle but blind hatred towards the military and in a roundabout way America.

Hey the info is of dubious value, Bully said so.

 

[manu1959]

Then you hunt them down, find them and bring them before the court...You do not torture countless others to get information of dubious value. You donnot become that which you seek to destroy, at risk of becoming something worse.

what court....

the quality of the information aquired is not knowable by you

if the us soliders start, wearing hoods, beheading civilians, draging the boddies through the street, hanging bodies from bridges, making people beg for their life on tv then snuffing them then i will agree we have go to far and become them.....

but "sexy women" flirting with naked dudes stacked in a pile is a long way from becoming something worse