Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush

[zimv20]

link (http://nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08ABUS.html?hp)


WASHINGTON, June 7 -- A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.

The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign," the lawyers wrote in the 56-page confidential memorandum, the prohibition against torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority."

Senior Pentagon officials on Monday sought to minimize the significance of the March memo, one of several obtained by The New York Times, as an interim legal analysis that had no effect on revised interrogation procedures that Mr. Rumsfeld approved in April 2003 for the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.


The March memorandum, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Monday, is the latest internal legal study to be disclosed that shows that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the administration's lawyers were set to work to find legal arguments to avoid restrictions imposed by international and American law.

A Jan. 22, 2002, memorandum from the Justice Department that provided arguments to keep American officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated was used extensively as a basis for the March memorandum on avoiding proscriptions against torture.


Another memorandum obtained by The Times indicates that most of the administration's top lawyers, with the exception of those at the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved of the Justice Department's position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. In addition, that memorandum, dated Feb. 2, 2002, noted that lawyers for the Central Intelligence Agency had asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives.


more evidence that bush is a sociopath. he actually solicited for legal ground to torture people but be free of the consequences.

[Thanatoast]

okay, there's a couple standard responses:

first: protecting US citizens is more important than everything else (read: including rights[it's fun to throw that out there to the fundies to see them squirm])

second: they're despicable murderers who deserve no better

third: they did it first

fourth: did you see that beheading video?

any takers on how to respond to these comments? 47% of the country would read this news and say, "so?"

[takao]

okay, there's a couple standard responses:

first: protecting US citizens is more important than everything else (read: including rights[it's fun to throw that out there to the fundies to see them squirm])

second: they're despicable murderers who deserve no better

third: they did it first

fourth: did you see that beheading video?

any takers on how to respond to these comments? 47% of the country would read this news and say, "so?"

you should read that:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/hchr/docs/iraq.doc

and most important that:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

part 1 article 2:

" 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

[screener]

okay, there's a couple standard responses:

first: protecting US citizens is more important than everything else (read: including rights[it's fun to throw that out there to the fundies to see them squirm])

second: they're despicable murderers who deserve no better

third: they did it first

fourth: did you see that beheading video?

any takers on how to respond to these comments? 47% of the country would read this news and say, "so?"

1. Iraquis citizens have no rights in their own country?
Seems to me a lot of them were rounded up indescriminitly.
Good way to win hearts and minds.
2. Yeah. when you are sure. Punishing 10 to get 1 is cruel and
unusual punishment to the 9. See 1.
3. So you punish everyone rounded up? See 1.
4. Disgusting as this was, that is what terrorists do. By condoning your
own version of disgusting behavior goes against the image you are
trying to promote in the region. See 1.

This is were the notion of creating terrorists comes from. At the very least,
some of those released if not most will not find it in their interest to help
the "coalition"? Don't ya think?

[wwworry]

plus:

terrorism is up worldwide, more attacks, more deaths
there are more terrorists now than on 9/10/2001

Does that mean we are winning the war on terror or losing?

[dopefiend]

Does that mean we are winning the war on terror or losing?

It means stupid people continue to breed.

[screener]

It means stupid people continue to breed.

Fanatics continue to breed, you are what you are taught by zealots.
Muslim fanatics, Christian fanatics, brought up in a hate filled home,
then watch your so called freedom bringer resort to similar, though obviously not so extreme, although there are dead prisoners, what would you expect?
Stupid people breed as well, they can't help it, their just stupid.

[zimv20]

just saw on abcnews...

ashcroft was testifying in front of some members of congress today (not sure which committee, perhaps armed services) and refused to turn over this memo. he was told he may be in contempt of congress.

further, he flat out denied any direct causality between the contents of the memo and any illegal activities at abu ghrain. i can't say i believe him, nor can i say he appeared to believe it.

edit: yeah, i don't know which committee. joe biden and ted kennedy were both there, if that helps anyone figure it out

[screener]

I believe Lahey was there as well.
Biden was great, he tore Ashcroft a new one.

[blackfox]

FYI...I believe it was the Senate Judiciary Committee...(about 95% sure)...it contains Kennedy, Biden and Leahy...(among others)

[IJ Reilly]

FYI...I believe it was the Senate Judiciary Committee...(about 95% sure)...it contains Kennedy, Biden and Leahy...(among others)

You be right.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20040608/pl_nm/security_torture_ashcroft_dc

[Neserk]

Fanatics continue to breed, .

Fanatics aren't breed they are created. In these cases from people who are oppressed. Psychologically, it makes sense.

[Thanatoast]

you should read that:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/hchr/docs/iraq.doc

and most important that:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

part 1 article 2:

" 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."In that case there are two responses. First, what we did wasn't really torture. Ooh! We put women's underwear on their head! Gasp! They must have been just devastated! And two, has the US signed and ratified those treaties? If not, we're not bound by them, even under international law, even though they may be a good idea.

edit: just read the story on yahoo. what an ass. ashcroft "(said) the international rules governing treatment of detainees did not apply to groups like al Qaeda since only countries are signatories to the treaty." except that the treaty doesn't mention responsibilities of the torturees, but the torturers. *we* signed the treaty, therefore we are bound by it. i don't think ashcroft or anyone in the administration really understands what happens when you toss out the rules for the sake of "convenience". that beheading was in direct response to our ****ing up. if we had held to our convictions, maybe that guy would still be attached to his head. :wishes they had captured ashcroft instead - then we'd see how he feels about "bending" the rules:

[screener]

Fanatics aren't breed they are created. In these cases from people who are oppressed. Psychologically, it makes sense.

Isn't breeding done to create versions of the original? As in new and improved sometimes? better fanatic?
Christian fanatics are oppressed in the U.S.ofA.?
How is called be catered (Republicans of course) to the same as being oppressed?
Not being able to place a monument in front of a courthouse is a long way from being truly oppressed.

[Neserk]

Originally Posted by Neserk
Fanatics aren't breed they are created. In these cases from people who are oppressed. Psychologically, it makes sense.


Christian fanatics are oppressed in the U.S.ofA.?
How is called be catered (Republicans of course) to the same as being oppressed?
Not being able to place a monument in front of a courthouse is a long way from being truly oppressed.


That is why I changed what I was originally going to post to "in these cases." :D Because the Christian fanatics I know are only oppressed by their own belief system.

[takao]

In that case there are two responses. First, what we did wasn't really torture. Ooh! We put women's underwear on their head! Gasp! They must have been just devastated! And two, has the US signed and ratified those treaties? If not, we're not bound by them, even under international law, even though they may be a good idea.

edit: just read the story on yahoo. what an ass. ashcroft "(said) the international rules governing treatment of detainees did not apply to groups like al Qaeda since only countries are signatories to the treaty." except that the treaty doesn't mention responsibilities of the torturees, but the torturers. *we* signed the treaty, therefore we are bound by it. i don't think ashcroft or anyone in the administration really understands what happens when you toss out the rules for the sake of "convenience". that beheading was in direct response to our ****ing up. if we had held to our convictions, maybe that guy would still be attached to his head. :wishes they had captured ashcroft instead - then we'd see how he feels about "bending" the rules:

answer to response 1:
"1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

answer to response 2:
United States of America signed: 18 Apr 1988 ratificated:21 Oct 1994


ohh and that paragraph is also interesting:
"1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. "

[Voltron]

THE "TORTURE" MEMO

The biggest boogeyman in the Bush administration to the liberals has to be Attorney General John Ashcroft. He testified yesterday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee about a leaked 2002 policy memo on the degree of pain and suffering legally permitted during enemy interrogations. He won't release it or any other memos. This, of course, upsets Democrats who are looking for more blood.

They're just following the template...anything to get Bush. Anything that could be perceived as being bad news for the president, they are going to jump right on it and try and tear down the president. Such is their hatred for the man that they will stop at nothing to ensure his defeat for re-election. They'll try anything.

In his testimony, Ashcroft said he knows of no presidential order that would allow Al-Qaeda suspects to be tortured by U.S. personnel. (That's a shame, actually). Senate Democrats said that wasn't enough...they want the Justice Department to release the original documents. Ashcroft said no, and it was all down hill from there.

The 50-page memo, portions of which were leaked in the press, says that inflicting physical or psychological pain might be justified in the war on terrorism to prevent further attacks. Know what? I don't really have a problem with that. The memo was addressed to White House counsel from the Justice Department, the kind of thing that goes on all the time. Well .. here's a dose or reality. You could also probably find a memo somewhere in the White House about using nuclear weapons against North Korea or Iran. You don't necessarily implement every idea that gets considered .. and releasing those memos only gives more fuel to the media to hammer Bush leading into the election.

Here's a question...and be honest with yourself. Imagine you have an Al-Qaeda member in custody...and you know they are planning another terrorist attack on the United States. The dog-squeeze in front of you knows who's doing it and where it's going to happen. Thousands, if not millions of lives are at stake. Would you torture him to get the information? Damn right you would.....and should! Do you want to face the families of 30,000 people killed in a terrorist attack and tell them that their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, sons and daughters would still be alive if you had only twisted an Islamic terrorist's arms a bit more? This whole business about the Geneva Conventions does not apply. Those rules apply to organized armies...not terrorist organizations. But that doesn't matter to the Bush-hating, anti-American left.

Oddly enough, the one voice of reason on this was New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, who said " I think there are very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake." Maybe there is hope for the Democrats...what would The Poodle think?
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[takao]

man boortz should do a little bit research before writing something

this is _not_ talking about the geneva convention
it's another treaty which has nothing to do with the geneva convention....nothing... zip... nada.. nichts...

this treaty applies to human beings..it's an discussion about _human rights_ (one of the reasons iraq got invaded)...

the treaty says black on white (i've posted it) that there is _no_ justification.period.

just read the links

human rights are one of the central points of a democracy

[mactastic]

Say you torture the guy and he gives you false info, the attack happens anyway AND you have to deal with the fallout from the torture. Boortz makes it sound like it's a black and white issue. It's not.

Torture does not equal reliable information no matter how much the sick dog-squeezes who advocate it would like to think it does.

[takao]

Say you torture the guy and he gives you false info, the attack happens anyway AND you have to deal with the fallout from the torture. Boortz makes it sound like it's a black and white issue. It's not.

Torture does not equal reliable information no matter how much the sick dog-squeezes who advocate it would like to think it does.

400 years ago people tortured others untill those confessed that they were witches/etc.

after a certain point a tortured person will confess _everything_ what the torturer wants to hear

[mactastic]

400 years ago people tortured others untill those confessed that they were witches/etc.

after a certain point a tortured person will confess _everything_ what the torturer wants to hear

Not only that they were witches, but they gave detailed confessions regarding meetings with Satan, sexual activities they had engaged in with said demon, and many other things that the torturers were seeking to hear.

Boortz is an idiot if he thinks we can torture our way out of this WOT thing.

[Voltron]

Not only that they were witches, but they gave detailed confessions regarding meetings with Satan, sexual activities they had engaged in with said demon, and many other things that the torturers were seeking to hear.

Boortz is an idiot if he thinks we can torture our way out of this WOT thing.
Big difference between torturing a confession out of someone about crimes of the past which I would be against and torturing someone to prevent crimes in the future, knowledge which he wouldn't be able to actually fake, at least not for very long.

[wwworry]

So you think you would get a straighter answer about something that MIGHT happen as opposed to something that already did happen with torture??? That seems ass backwards.

There are a lot of benefits to living in the kind of country that does not torture people based on sketchy evidence. Think about it.

Big difference between torturing a confession out of someone about crimes of the past which I would be against and torturing someone to prevent crimes in the future, knowledge which he wouldn't be able to actually fake, at least not for very long.

[mactastic]

Big difference between torturing a confession out of someone about crimes of the past which I would be against and torturing someone to prevent crimes in the future, knowledge which he wouldn't be able to actually fake, at least not for very long.

I'd think it would be harder to lie about past events since they can be cross-checked. Future events? I could make up anything and tell it to you and you'd never know. Even if the attack I predicted never happened it still doesn't mean I was lying, just that something else stopped it. Or I was lying. You'd never know.

[Voltron]

I'd think it would be harder to lie about past events since they can be cross-checked. Future events? I could make up anything and tell it to you and you'd never know. Even if the attack I predicted never happened it still doesn't mean I was lying, just that something else stopped it. Or I was lying. You'd never know.
The point is one life is worth torturing if it means potentially saving 30,000 lives. Especially if you already know he's a terrorist.

[mactastic]

The point is one life is worth torturing if it means potentially saving 30,000 lives. Especially if you already know he's a terrorist.

Does that logic work in reverse, say if a US soldier was tortured you'd be ok with that?

[Voltron]

Does that logic work in reverse, say if a US soldier was tortured you'd be ok with that?
What part of terrorist do you not understand.
They are combatants not in uniform that target civilians sometimes bypassing military targets to do so. Besides they already do.

[blackfox]

The point is one life is worth torturing if it means potentially saving 30,000 lives. Especially if you already know he's a terrorist.
Well, there is the little matter of "Moral Authority"...which, if lacking, could complicate any concerted international effort on the WOT (ie state cooperation) and perhaps indirectly cost more people (soldiers and civilians alike) to be targeted...(a la Berg...), not to mention the strain it would put on the US logistically and morally. If we are to remain the society we claim to be, this is a principle that cannot be compromised...the old "even if you win, you lose" or "win the battle, lose the war..."
Another pressing concern, however, is who decides who is a "terrorist" and what the criteria are for this judgement...this could easily be used arbitrarily or for ulterior motives...

As difficult as it is for me to accept sometimes, even terrorists deserve ethical treatment and the due process of law...we are supposed to be the civilized, high-ground...right? We have to decide what Americas' true mettle is, in these times...if we are an America that sanctions torture (for ANY reason), then I do not want to be an American. American deaths may strengthen it's resolve, but it should never compromise it's principles...if they are, then perhaps the terrorists will have won.

[Voltron]

Well, there is the little matter of "Moral Authority"...which, if lacking, could complicate any concerted international effort on the WOT (ie state cooperation) and perhaps indirectly cost more people (soldiers and civilians alike) to be targeted...(a la Berg...), not to mention the strain it would put on the US logistically and morally. If we are to remain the society we claim to be, this is a principle that cannot be compromised...the old "even if you win, you lose" or "win the battle, lose the war..."
Another pressing concern, however, is who decides who is a "terrorist" and what the criteria are for this judgement...this could easily be used arbitrarily or for ulterior motives...

As difficult as it is for me to accept sometimes, even terrorists deserve ethical treatment and the due process of law...we are supposed to be the civilized, high-ground...right? We have to decide what Americas' true mettle is, in these times...if we are an America that sanctions torture (for ANY reason), then I do not want to be an American. American deaths may strengthen it's resolve, but it should never compromise it's principles...if they are, then perhaps the terrorists will have won.
Didn't some Democrat already post on here how Morality was relative?

You wear a suicide belt -- your a terrorist.
You aren't wearing a uniform but are engaging in combat against my troops -- you are not a legal combatant, although not real sure if I would call you a terrorist either. BTW its legal to execute all combatants found on a battlefield not in uniform. So they execute them slowly is all *shrug*

This isn't a game, it is not about being fair. It is about survival and our survival is more important to me than their survival. Plain and simple. Even though we pretend to be more civilized than that we still live under Darwinism laws even if we like to shade our eyes a bit and pretend like we are above that. Forgetting that tiny factor could be the beginning of the extingsion of Americans or freedom loving countries for that matter.

[blackfox]

What part of terrorist do you not understand.
They are combatants not in uniform that target civilians sometimes bypassing military targets to do so. Besides they already do.
What part of American values do you not understand?
There was a time when Wars were fought on a big field, with opposing lines of uniformed troops, and civilian casualties were virtually non-existent...you might say those were "honorable" wars...as the Century progressed, and guerilla-warfare became more normal, matters were complicated. A numerically-weaker and less well-armed group, fights by a different strategy out of necessity, as abhorrent as those might be.
May I remind you, many "combatants" in the Vietnam War were not uniformed, and we still played by the rules (Geneva), and in those times we did not, we at least attempted to punish those responsible and acknowledged our failures. If you look at the wars in former Yugoslavia, many of those "combatants" were not in uniform, or mis-matched uniforms, or the other-sides uniforms, yet we did not condone torture in those circumstances either...and they were commiting horrible atrocities...
Voltron, I did not know you were willing to compromise yourself and your country so readily...

[Voltron]

What part of American values do you not understand?
There was a time when Wars were fought on a big field, with opposing lines of uniformed troops, and civilian casualties were virtually non-existent...you might say those were "honorable" wars...as the Century progressed, and guerilla-warfare became more normal, matters were complicated. A numerically-weaker and less well-armed group, fights by a different strategy out of necessity, as abhorrent as those might be.
May I remind you, many "combatants" in the Vietnam War were not uniformed, and we still played by the rules (Geneva), and in those times we did not, we at least attempted to punish those responsible and acknowledged our failures. If you look at the wars in former Yugoslavia, many of those "combatants" were not in uniform, or mis-matched uniforms, or the other-sides uniforms, yet we did not condone torture in those circumstances either...and they were commiting horrible atrocities...
Voltron, I did not know you were willing to compromise yourself and your country so readily...
What part of survival do you not understand. :p
dieing honorably sucks, your still dead.

[blackfox]

Didn't some Democrat already post on here how Morality was relative?
Two things:
1) Is it relative to YOU?
2) Even if it is (and a simple answer is yes, sometimes), that fact does not address that it our own morality and values as a Nation that are at stake here, which has nothing to do with how it relates to the morality of other cultures and Nations
Do not evade the points...

[blackfox]

What part of survival do you not understand. :p
dieing honorably sucks, your still dead.
Does the saying "Death before Dishonor" ring a bell?

or

"Duty, Honor, Courage"?

They are used by US armed forces, and honor is valued more than one's life...and is part of courage. To be dishonorable is to be cowardly, among other things...

"The valiant never taste death but once."
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar...which I take to mean, that a corruption of principles and honor can "kill" a man many times over, where as an honorable man only dies a literal death.

You must ask yourself, are we fighting purely for revenge, or for our principles? If it is the latter, they cannot and must not be compromised...

[Thanatoast]

So they execute them slowly is all *shrug*Voltron, I must say that this is the most disgusting, disturbing thing I've seen you post. That you are so willing to toss principle out the window in the name of expediency and the cause of "maybe" is despicable. Has it not occurred to you that the people tortured (in Abu Ghraib, and doubtless elsewhere) were picked up in sweeps, and may not have done anything at all? If a crime occurred near you and you were picked up and tortured for information, would you be okay with with that? It's in the name of protecting society, after all.
This isn't a game, it is not about being fair. It is about survival and our survival is more important to me than their survival. Plain and simple. Even though we pretend to be more civilized than that we still live under Darwinism laws even if we like to shade our eyes a bit and pretend like we are above that. Forgetting that tiny factor could be the beginning of the extingsion of Americans or freedom loving countries for that matter.Damn ****ing skippy this isn't a game. In games, people don't die. In games, spending a nation into financial ruin is fixed by reloading. In games, you're expected to kill out of hand. In real life things work different. There are consequences. Torturing prisoners has already come back to bite us on the ass. Playing warring groups off of eachother in the middle has created a world-wide problem with terror. Alienating our allies has made our "mission" of eradicating terrorism more difficult.

Use your head, think about what the consequences of our actions will be. When we give up civil liberties in the name of security, what will follow? What has always followed in the past? When we show ourselves to be hypocrits by our actions, what will follow? Will the world trust and help us or will they distrust us and stand in our way? When our government uses lies to start wars, and uses war to solve problems what will follow? Goddamn right-wingers need to pull their heads outta their asses and take a look around. ****.

sorry - got kinda pissed, there

[blackfox]

Voltron, I must say that this is the most disgusting, disturbing thing I've seen you post. That you are so willing to toss principle out the window in the name of expediency and the cause of "maybe" is despicable. Has it not occurred to you that the people tortured (in Abu Ghraib, and doubtless elsewhere) were picked up in sweeps, and may not have done anything at all? If a crime occurred near you and you were picked up and tortured for information, would you be okay with with that? It's in the name of protecting society, after all.
Damn ****ing skippy this isn't a game. In games, people don't die. In games, spending a nation into financial ruin is fixed by reloading. In games, you're expected to kill out of hand. In real life things work different. There are consequences. Torturing prisoners has already come back to bite us on the ass. Playing warring groups off of eachother in the middle has created a world-wide problem with terror. Alienating our allies has made our "mission" of eradicating terrorism more difficult.

Use your head, think about what the consequences of our actions will be. When we give up civil liberties in the name of security, what will follow? What has always followed in the past? When we show ourselves to be hypocrits by our actions, what will follow? Will the world trust and help us or will they distrust us and stand in our way? When our government uses lies to start wars, and uses war to solve problems what will follow? Goddamn right-wingers need to pull their heads outta their asses and take a look around. ****.

sorry - got kinda pissed, there
Thankyou for re-iterating and augmenting my position/posts...Thanatoast. You were more eloquent than I, although we are equally pissed. I am afraid it may be to no avail, unfortunately, as Sly's positions often exist in a moral vacuum...or simplistic, rhetoric-driven fantasy world.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't mean to depress you any further, but there's a lot of Voltrons out there these days, just as there always have been. In fact we could call this point of view "voltronism." Most human misery can be traced in one way or another to voltronism.

[numediaman]

I don't mean to depress you any further, but there's a lot of Voltrons out there these days, just as there always have been. In fact we could call this point of view "voltronism." Most human misery can be traced in one way or another to voltronism.

Another "ism", huh? Maybe in the future some silly "journalist" will make the claim that Kerry won the war on voltronism the same way right-wingers say Reagan won the cold war.

[takao]

This isn't a game, it is not about being fair. It is about survival and our survival is more important to me than their survival. Plain and simple. Even though we pretend to be more civilized than that we still live under Darwinism laws even if we like to shade our eyes a bit and pretend like we are above that. Forgetting that tiny factor could be the beginning of the extingsion of Americans or freedom loving countries for that matter.

social darwinism ? you get a big "NO THANKS" from me for that :eek:

in case you don't know: the last party who supported that idea here was the NSdAP

i will not make further comments on your opinions in any thread on this board anymore. i draw the line here.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Voltron

This isn't a game, it is not about being fair. It is about survival and our survival is more important to me than their survival. Plain and simple. Even though we pretend to be more civilized than that we still live under Darwinism laws even if we like to shade our eyes a bit and pretend like we are above that. Forgetting that tiny factor could be the beginning of the extingsion of Americans or freedom loving countries for that matter.

So the notion of winning hearts and minds is a load of bull, hmm.

[themadchemist]

The point is one life is worth torturing if it means potentially saving 30,000 lives. Especially if you already know he's a terrorist.

Um, maybe. But the point is, you're not averting anything if the info. isn't reliable.

But why talk about terrorists? We picked up street criminals and tortured them...Some say it wasn't torture, but any fashion of demeaning, unnecessary, gratuitious activity by people in positions of authority over those who are powerless IS torture. We disregarded their culture, their dignity, their very status as human beings and made them objects of sick pleasure...And what had they done? Maybe stolen somebody's wallet?

What I find most disconcerting about that memo was that the discussion even occurred. The Bush administration thought very, very carefully about torturing people, even so far as to use the word 'torture' in its discussion. This activity was pre-meditated.

We have spat on our constitution, on our ethics, on our very sense of decency. If being an American means standing for the ideals and rights that this country has avowed itself to uphold, then George Walker Bush is no American.

edit: I didn't see page 2 of this thread. I'm very glad to have learned from our friend Voltron that there is no need for ethics or morals in this world. If I go shoot someone, then I should be praised, not imprisoned. Why? It's a question of survival, right?

No. It's a question of cooperation. It's a question of making this world better for all human beings. You're right--this is NOT a game. We are not competing in a worldwide military olympics, here. I thought we were trying to make the world safer, better, and happier.

Voltron, they're people too...Don't you see that? They are people, too.

[mactastic]

What part of terrorist do you not understand.
They are combatants not in uniform that target civilians sometimes bypassing military targets to do so. Besides they already do.

The part where you define terrorist is the part I don't understand.

You do realize that over there we are called terrorists, don't you? Or are you so obtuse that you think everyone sees Americans as liberators and Iraqis as terrorists? And you already stated that being out of uniform doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist (which is a good thing, remember those pictures of our Special Forces guys in native garb on horseback? I'm sure you aren't calling THEM terrorists. Are you?) so how are you defining terrorist? Are you saying that everyone we've tortured was caught with a suicide belt? Or is it anyone who takes up arms against Americans that is a terrorist?

What part of honor do you not understand?

[themadchemist]

Didn't some Democrat already post on here how Morality was relative?


No, moral relativism is when you say that a Middle Easterner defending his country against foreign, invading military targets is a 'terrorist' while Americans preemptively and unilaterally invading another nation, killing both military personnel and civilians is a 'liberator.'

Let's have a less fuzzy definition of terrorism.

Terrorism is targeting civilians or, in rare instances, DORMANT military targets. USS Cole was borderline terrorism. 9/11, 3/11, and attacks targeting civilians in India, Ireland, and Israel, are blatant examples of terrorism.

However, if you strap a bomb to your belt and blow yourself up around a bunch of military personnel who are aggressing against you and your people--then you're NOT a terrorist. You're a soldier. Yes, your tactics are unconventional, but they are NOT terrorist.

I think defining suicide bombing as always terrorist is silly. If an individual blows him/herself up with a military target of his/her enemy, then how is that anymore terrible than him bombing the target from a plane. Maybe he can't afford a plane! Maybe he doesn't spend billions of dollars on an unnecessary war! Not all of us have that luxury.

If Iraqis have come to the point of desperation that they feel the only way to expel their aggressor is to destroy their military targets and that the only way to destroy those targets is to do so through suicide bombing, then so be it.

The unfortunate thing about these tactics is that they makes it more difficult to distinguish military personnel from civilians. But it sounds to me like we're going after both, anyway.

It is painful to see our men and women overseas dying at the hands of their enemies. But it is perhaps more painful to see Iraqi civilians die at the hands of our men and women. The former signed up. The latter didn't.

This is war. People die. Just because those people are sometimes American, it doesn't mean that their killers are terrorists.

Their killers are killers. They are also soldiers. We, likewise, have soldiers there, and they, too are killers.

[Taft]

However, if you strap a bomb to your belt and blow yourself up around a bunch of military personnel who are aggressing against you and your people--then you're NOT a terrorist. You're a soldier. Yes, your tactics are unconventional, but they are NOT terrorist.


You best be careful. In this political climate you are libel to be labelled a traitor for making such "bold" statements. You aren't giving "aid and comfort to the enemy," now are you?

:rolleyes:

Taft

[themadchemist]

You best be careful. In this political climate you are libel to be labelled a traitor for making such "bold" statements. You aren't giving "aid and comfort to the enemy," now are you?

:rolleyes:

Taft

Sadly, you're right. It's just that I hear Republicans complaining about moral relativism all the time, and yet here's a glaring example of THEIR moral relativism.

I don't like terrorists. I don't like Americans getting killed. But I think it's unfair to say that if we send our men and women to invade a country, we can't expect people to fight back.

I will continue to hold that our soldiers are killers just as much as their paramilitary forces are, but I don't blame our soldiers for having to be killers and to be the killed. I blame a government that would wage an ill-planned war without an exit strategy. I blame a government that acts unilaterally. I blame a government that doesn't understand the world it wishes to dominate.

Oh, and I'm Indian, by ethnicity...Doesn't the Patriot Act already denote that all brown people are terrorists? This, of course, despite the fact that my country of origin has been the target of dozens of terrorist attacks since its independence in 1947.

[mactastic]

Apparently Bush thinks so highly of the lawyers that wrote the memo saying torture was ok that he elevated one of them to a Circuit Court judgeship. How's that for repudiating torture? :mad: