No. Notice how you use "discomfort" for euphemism. Just because he does it doesn't mean the policeman can do it too. Tu quoque?
"I don’t see the distinction torture starts when u lay a hand on someone, or deprive them of the basics of life." Exactly like the pussy you are to resort to this kind of complete BS. Torture is one end of a continuum of displeasure. If I hit your shoulder lightly, that's NOT fucking torture. If you think it is, you're a giant douche. Maybe it's shit sandwich. Either way. Try the dictionary, wuss. It's pathetic that you bend the language to suit your sordid little need to skewer those who disagree with you. I bet under the right circumstances, you'd be chomping at the bit to torture someone you hypocritical little bitch.
Exactly like the pussy you are to resort to this kind of complete BS. Call me names, but the fact remains that laying ur hands on someone for the purpose of extracting information is torture imo. Torture is one end of a continuum of displeasure. If I hit your shoulder lightly, that's NOT fucking torture. It is because the motive is. If you think it is, you're a giant douche. Maybe it's shit sandwich. Either way. Don't confuse me with ur conception.
Could you please, please use complete words in your sentances. You keep writing 'ur'... What does an ancient Babylonian city have to do with anything?
Wes: Sounds to me like someone is trying to engage in weasel word fallacy. And placing PoW under 'duress', or humiliating them, is also against the Geneva Conventions. So trying to draw a line between 'torture' and 'abuse' is rather pointless. Neither should be occurring to prisoners of war. web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004 Really, Wes? I hear the Bush Administration using the same excuses. Funny, they were singing a different tune when the same things were happening to THEIR soldiers. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004 So, please clear up the confusion which is now evident amongst the audience, Wes. Why is stripping, sexual humiliation, food deprivation, solitary confinement, exposure to cold etc. considered TORTURE when it is inflicted on American soldiers and non-Iraqis, yet is considered 'ABUSE' when performed by Americans?
The nazis were terrorists. they only stopped terrorism after they were nealy all killed. The US behaves in a terrorist's way: hurt enough innocent people and you'll get the ones you want. It is a method which produces more terrorists, so the US can justifiably hurt... Given that the circumsatnces include the US's habit of supporting or intalling murderous dictators who obey the US government the US is acting to encourage terrorism. How far the US government needs terrorism and how far its encouragement is conscious or unconscious is another matter. Far fewer Americans have been killed by terrorists than by Americans exercising their right to drive cars. The one is acceptable; the other is not.
this is kinda off topic but i was just wondering why there is such outcry from governments (that still practice capital punishment) about public beheadings,is it because of the people who are killed or the manner in which they are killed cause i'd much rather be beheaded than electrocuted.
Perhaps then, you could demonstrate it. Sounds to me like someone is lazy, suspiscious and incapable of backing up their accusations. Fuck you and your weasel. Yeah, but these bitches aren't covered under the Geneva Conventions bright boy. They are not prisoners of war, they don't wear uniforms. "excuses"? Show me an "excuse". I offer reasons and comprehension. I don't make excuses. Our soldiers if capture, are prisoners of war. We wear uniforms. Of course we'll bitch if our guys are treated like shit. Be more specific. Unless any of that shit is done to an extreme it's not torture regardless of which side does it. It's presented as you say by the powers that be because it's politically advantageous to do so. It manipulates appearance in a manner advantageous to them. Were you in their position, you'd almost surely do it too. On a fundamental basis, authority figures are almost bound to do it to compensate for the variety of interpretations that can be surmised from any information that comes from them. The more people the authority reports to, the more pronounced the variety and thus, stronger compensation.
Nothing but hypocrisy of course. Speaking of which: I notice in this thread the typical sentiment that assumes detainees are guilty of something, despite no charges due to lack of evidence. Disgusting. The US subjects people to "stress positions and verbal abuse" and outright torture, just to see if they have some info from which the Republican elite can profit. The rest of us Americans will no doubt pay for that.
The next time you insult a member, you will be banned permanently. This is the second time under this name and it happened multiple times under the name of Nico.
There is no basic line between torture and what ever else you can call caping peoples knees wes, and yes it makes bush an asshole for letting it happen. what pisses me off is that the law system either consists of retards or corupt bastards... they send the perpetrator to prison but dont go up the ladder to take care of the one giving the order to torture. Another thing is the idea of causing discomfort... I would rather be living my life than sitting in a cell for years getting beaten for information I dont have, also in that photo undecided posted I think either the vain in the knee was cut or he was shot in the lower leg... dosnt sound like discomfort sounds alot like abuse or torture. And wes why are the prisoners not covered under the geneva convention? it applys to all humans, if some american burocracy sais that it isnt so then it just proves that that fag who runs your country supports it. Oh this is great: "their not prisoners of war they dont wear uniforms" I dont know you served in the fucking army, a POW dosnt have to be a solider. This guy I respect: http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3953&stc=1 You and the fags who treat prisoners like that I dont.
Gotta love that logic, huh? All civilians are subject to torture to elicit info they might have, or summary execution, because they don’t wear a uniform. I’m sure they’ll love us once “democracy” takes hold.
If they manage to open their mouths to complain without getting shot in the knees. and goofyfish both sides are just as insulting, thats politics.
Ad hominem. Please attack the arguments, not the man. I am quite justified in calling you on your weasel word fallacy. You have failed to actually draw the line between torture and 'abuse', hence your attempts to weasel word are quite sad. Another ad hominem. What a pity that the posting is so sub-par here. And for your information, since the majority of the prisoners were actually considered civilians, they are covered by the Geneva Conventions. The rest had not been before a competent military tribunal to determine their status, hence they are also covered by the Geneva Conventions. I suggest you actually go to the effort of reading the relevant parts of the Geneva Convention, instead of parroting Bush lies. It really hurts your credibility. Can you prove that every inmate in Abu Gharib was an enemy combatant who didn't wear a uniform? You are aware that many prisoners were just plucked off the street at various check points, and that many were not considered a threat, aren't you? From: http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/a..._and_wanton_criminal_abuses_at_abu_ghraib.htm
But the United States is subject to other laws besides the Geneva Conventions, laws against torture that George Bush Sr. signed during his presidency, too bad Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! here you go: http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html
Had you done so, you wouldn't have been attacked. It's childish of you to pretend that "Sounds to me like someone is trying to engage in weasel word fallacy." is not an ad hominem, no matter how justified you think it is. So you say, but can you back it up? I never compared the terms. I compared the terms "duress" and "torture" and showed how they are not equivalent by quoting the dictionary above. Perhaps you didn't read it, or cannot accept its validity. You come at me calling me a weasel and don't expect to get railed for it? You are the reason the posting is sub-par. Do you have a report regarding the status of the prisoners? Can you base your assertion in fact? Sounds like conjecture to me. Got a source on that? So now you call Bush a liar without establishing the fact too. What a wonderful ad-hominem attack. Instead of me, you attack someone who isn't involved in the conversation to defend themselves. How big of you. I'm not particularly concerned with your poor impression of me or my credibility. You have demonstrated clearly IMO, that you're not really looking to discuss this, but instead you want to get in on insulting me because you find yourself superior. Nicely done. I'm a weasel. Thanks. No. Can you prove they did? Can you prove it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why should I take your source as credible when the title reads "sadistic_blatant_and_wanton_criminal_abuses_at_abu_ghraib.htm". Is the term "sadistic, blantant or wanton" generally used in an objective sense? Regardless, I haven't said that no one tortured anyone. I figure that some sadistic bastards were almost certainly torturing innocents. I explained to you why the term "abuse" is used instead of "torture". [/QUOTE] Okay. If you don't like what I'm saying, please address something specific. Writing it off cart blanche as a "tired old argument" is as lacking in support and fallacious as you accuse me of being. Note that you offered nothing to support any of your claims prior to the statement above. You make a number of claims regarding prisoner's status and eligibility under the geneva convention, but do not support them. Then you cite me doing what you've just done. That doesn't lend much to the credibility you seem to be concerned with does it? Believe it or not, I DID read the geneva convention several months ago and gathered from it at the time that those who did not wear uniforms but were capture on the battlefield were not eligible for protections. Perhaps I didn't understand what I read perfectly clearly. Instead of bashing me, you could easily get me on your side about their eligibility by citing the pertinent text from the convention with a link to the source. Instead, you resort to the same old fallacious kneejerk liberal whining that my argument is tired and unsupported. No less supported than your own. Pardon, but when I made the assertion I was referring to those captured on the battlefield. I was not referring particularly to abu-gharib, just to "capture enemies". I do not doubt that a number of innocents have been severely mistreated. . I'll modify the statement to apply only to those who were attacking US troops or conspiring to do so. It didn't occur to me to specify the first time around because I failed to consider those being "plucked off the street". I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the "screening process". I only had a vague notion that they were detaining "innocents" just walking down the street. Perhaps you could actually demonstrate how you see it as a red herring. I don't see it that way or I wouldn't have said it. Without an explanation, your complaint remains unfounded no? Perhaps then you could specify what issue you think I've avoided? Of course the administration chooses the most politically advantageous position. Perhaps you've read way too much into what I've said. You're missing a point somewhere. I haven't agreed with that assertion. I maintain that severe pain, or terrific psychological abuse is indeed torture regardless of which side it's on. That the administration calls it something else is perspective, expected. I think that they are obligated to minimize the political damage incurred by people disobeying the law. You seem to presume them guilty and call them liars. I see no evidence of lies. I don't think the administration endorses torture of prisoners. If you do, please cite the evidence. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. If you'll notice, I never said "the US and UK don't torture". I said it's not their policy to do so but no matter what your policy is, there will always be people within the system that break it. I further stated that duress is an acceptable tactic for getting information from people... I meant those who qualify as spies or terrorists. If they conspire to destroy the occupying force, I think they are candidates for interrogation with duress - NOT torture. Torture is duress in the extreme. Thus "moderate duress" is acceptable. What comprises moderate duress should be discerned by a court if necessary. I think the administration has done a very poor job of clearly dilineating the rules in this regard. You're not paying attention. You may not like the answer, but I ADRESSED IT IN THE PRIOR POST: "It's presented as you say by the powers that be because it's politically advantageous to do so. It manipulates appearance in a manner advantageous to them. Were you in their position, you'd almost surely do it too. On a fundamental basis, authority figures are almost bound to do it to compensate for the variety of interpretations that can be surmised from any information that comes from them. The more people the authority reports to, the more pronounced the variety and thus, stronger compensation." See above. As clockwood noted, it's not about truth, it's about perception. I suggest that you consider potential hypocracy on your part before telling me what I should consider. Ha. Okay well how about you retract your assertions that I avoided the issue then eh?
Is it duress you call it now-a-days? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! WOW it looks NOTHING like torture... i now compleatly agree with you the techniques used by the us military should be regarded as Duress not Torture as the two are compleatly different... :bugeye:
"i now compleatly agree with you the techniques used by the us military should be regarded as Duress not Torture as the two are compleatly different... " It's unfair of you to mischaracterize what I've said. Perhaps you've gotten the wrong impression. I think duress is acceptable, but have made no claims that duress is the only technique being utilized. In fact I beleive I've stated more than once that I'm sure some sadistic bastards have probably tortured some innocents in all this.
I did not engage in any ad hominems. No, it is not an ad hominem to point out that the opposition is engaging in a logic fallacy. I did not call you a weasel, I claimed that you were using the weasel word fallacy. Yes, I posted a report which clearly established that over 60% of the prisoners in Abu Gharib were civilians. Thank you. By openly admitting that you can't determine whether they were enemy combatants who weren't wearing a uniform, you have merely supported my argument, and weakened your credibility. Your belief that ALL of the prisoners were enemy combatants who were not wearing uniforms is nothing more than conjecture. Hence, your belief that they are not protected under the Geneva Conventions is conjecture. While I agree that enemy combatants who are not in uniform are not granted protection under the Geneva Convention, the burden of proof rests with the you to show that they are indeed enemy combatants. My source makes references to independant studies performed by various human rights agencies. Unless you can show why my article is false, then I strongly suggest you don't assume that it is, merely because it contradicts your beliefs. Thank you. At least we are in some agreement. It comes down to personal opinion. However, I feel that it is hypocritical that when 'abuse' occurs to American soldiers, it is labelled as 'torture'. But herein lies the problem. The majority of people 'abused' (for the sake of the argument, we will call it abuse, not torture) are civilians, and have not had their status determined by a competent military tribunal. Whether it is correct to 'abuse' an enemy combatant is a question of morality, and something which I do not want to get into. I am merely pointing out that to even ABUSE, or HUMILIATE, someone whose status is in doubt is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. By allowing any abuse, we risk violating the Geneva Conventions, as innocent civilians may be victims. Let's be realistic, a war zone is messy, and sometimes a civilian may be mistaken for a soldier out of uniform. In your previous post, you seemed to avoid the double standards regarding 'torture' of Americans vs. 'abuse' of Iraqis. No matter, you've addressed it in the most recent post which I am responding to, although I find the answer less than satisfactory. Correct. It is politics at work as usual, using double-speak to justify actions which in the past they have condemned. But this still doesn't annihilate or excuse the double standards. If stripping an American is torture, then stripping an Iraqi is torture, not abuse. If stripping an Iraqi is abuse, then stripping an American is abuse. Please tell me simply, is stripping an America and subjecting him to sexual humiliation, exposing him to cold, threatening his relatives, denying him food, and placing him in solitary confinement for extended periods of time, abuse, or torture? This is all I want to know. The Bush Administration is being hypocritical if it labels what has occurred to the Iraqis 'abuse', yet squealed 'torture' when the exact same things were done to American soldiers. You can't have your cake and eat it too. They need to make up their minds, and get their definitions down pat. No more double-speak, just give clear definitions of abuse, and torture. If the Iraqi prisoners were not abused, then many cases of Americans being 'torture' were actually cases of them being abused.
