lonesome loser, you’re being a dick. Please stop being a dick.
It’s a little late to be bringing it up right now, but a month or two of lurking before you signed up for your guest membership, might have been beneficial to you. Thirty days is kind of a steep learning curve for identifying your intellectual betters, but you’re locked into it now. I’ll give you this hint for free: Scylla is definitely your intellectual better.
:Shrug: Oh well. Eleven days to go.
There is a huge fundamental difference between Sen. McCain and all of you.
McCain repeatedly made it perfectly clear that he agrees with the war and he wants to win it. His struggle against incidents of torture and abuse is motivated by the desire to fight a better, cleaner war and achieve a more spectacular victory.
What do all of you want? You didn’t make it clear at the least, not once. If your goals are different from McCain’s, you have no right to hide behind his noble name.
Also, this just in:
Picked the wrong person New Iskander, I like McCain and stand by his decision to execute the war in a honorable fashion. I don’t like how Bush/Cheney do things. I am a vet and now that we are there, it would be good to have someone like McCain clean up the mess. I am against the torture and Cheney and Bush.
Jim
I was for the Afghan war and against the Iraq war. So what. I like McCain. So what. I still disagree with him and feel this is not a justifiable war. So what. Even if McCain were to take over and continue the fighting, at least he would not be doing what the current bunch got caught doing… detaining without evidence, detaining despite contrary evidence, torture, beatings, etc. He would follow the Army interrogation manual and the Geneva conventions. It would be a huge improvement over what we have now. He would probably be far more interested in the soldier’s welfare too - health care, benefits, equipment, armor, etc.
Yes, with such arguments as “If you have differeing standards of proof than I do, you’re an America hating traitor.”
Good show. As you were.
Something else which disturbs me is that by calling us Traitors, he is essentially wishing death upon us as treason is punishable by death.
Bah, this is just slimey.
Actually, yes, even with those. From what I’ve seen of lonesome loser, it’s not that high a hurdle.
“Fuck me?” Oh no, my dearest. Fuck you.
Now that we’re done fucking, perhaps we can have some pillow talk, yes?
It’s not particular enlightening to say “you lost my respect” or “Fuck you,” unless you explain your position.
I will explain mine. You tell me (if you’re capable and willing) what’s wrong with it.
Finnagain has said that US forces have tortured and killed dozens. I asked him to prove his statement or be considered a traitor. He said “deal.”
To date Finnagain has not made any serious attempt to defend his statement. He has a cite from the ACLU showing that 14 detain died as a result of homicide, and copies of their autopsy reports are available.
From this he has concluded (after he originally made his statement, mind you) that these people were tortured and killed by American forces. That’s quite a logical jump.
When it is pointed out that there are alternate explanations he complains that the standard of proof is too high. I suppose I’m just to simply take his word.
One alternate explanation that I provided was that the people were hurt before we got them. He dismissed this.
In fact today, the very thing happened:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/15/iraq.main/index.html
Our soldiers rescued detainees who were being abused and possibly tortured. Now, if any of those people are dead, or died, there will be autopsies. Those autopsies will be available under the Freedom of Information ACT.
Someone like will Finn will do exactly what he did before. He will read those autopsies, and he will conclude that our troops did the torture. He will be immune to reason, and consider the autopsies as proof.
He jumps to this conclusion because it suits his argument that it be so.
He has said that our soldiers have tortured and killed dozens, when he does not know it to be fact. It’s a slander and a lie against the soldiers who are out there risking their lives. It’s a slander against the soldiers in the article who are literally rescuing people from abuse. Such rhetoric and Memes gets picked up and transmitted. There are plenty who would like to beleive the worst of us. He’s lying, fabricating, and literally creating the rhetoric that jeopardizes our soldier’s safety, and turns their best efforts against them.
It’s traitorous. It’s stupidity. It disgusts me.
A strong accusation such as he made requires strong evidence. He has none.
Do you Vibtrotonica think it’s ok to fabricate lies to slander our soldiers?
Do you understand why I take strong issue with it?
You’re misquoting me. I never said that, nor implied such sentiments. This is another fabrication you’ve made.
Please retract that quote… or else.
Have persons unknown (soldiers, CIA, private contractors), acting on behalf of the US government, tortured and/or killed anyone?
Thinking in absolutes is the mark of stupidity. As we see from discussions in this and other threads, the subject of torture, what constitutes it, and if and when it is morally justifiable, or right rapidly becomes complex.
No, that does not follow. You’re not a very careful thinker, are you?
It’s not a fact. You’ve just committed a basic logical fallacy. Being against Caesar does it mean I’m for Anarchy.
I’ve done my research now. Unlike you, I’ve learned it’s stupid to talk out my ass and better to admit when I don’t know.
Failed algebra, did we?
You’ve made this up, too! Do you ever tell the truth. I most certainly have never stated nor felt a desire for the President to “rule” without opposition. In fact, I stated otherwise more than once, in this very thread. I stated that I support opposition. Loyal opposition.
Let us examine these “absurd standards:”
To back up the statement that “American Forces had tortured and killed dozens” You agreed to provide proof that US Soldiers had tortured 24 or more people to death in the recent conflicts, or you would agree to be considered a traitor.
You said, and I quote, “deal” to this.
Your “proof” consists of autopsy reports for fourteen people who died of “homicide” in US custody. That’s it. Other than opinion based on those reports, that’s all you have.
First off, 14 is not 24. Your insistence that my saying 14 isn’t 24 is an “absurd standard of proof,” is simply stupid.
Secondly, the fact that they were killed, does not prove or even imply that they were tortured, and it says nothing about who did it.
As I have cited in my previous post, we are rescuing people who are being abused and tortured. If they are dead and die and an autopsy is performed, and it is available under the FOIA, you can use it to sar that our forces are torturing people when in fact they are trying to rescue them.
The standard of evidence you call absurd, protects our soldiers. It is irresponsible, slanderous, traitorous and just plain amazingly stupid to rely on such a standard of evidence for your proof.
You don’t know that our soldiers are torturing people to death. You have literally nothing to support this that stands up to even the most rudimentary analysis. Yet, you make the insistence anyway.
So stop your whining, you little bitch. You agreed to these terms, and they are reasonable. Your little whining is nothing compared to the false and traitorous statement you have maligning our troops.
And, you did it for no reason but rhetorical value. Shame on you.
but the rights of those who we arrest without trial or charges are handwaved away. Etc, etc, etc…
[/QUOTE]
Last night, I said “I agree with you, I think.” to these statements. I thought about it last night, took your advice and looked at McCaine’s proposal, the news on Cheney’s response and thought about it some.
I’ve changed my mind. I don’t agree with your statements (I may change my mind again, I’m still thinking about this)
Here’s the problem. In the scenario you responded to, the NYPD member breaks the law and suffers the consequences to do what’s right.
I think you’ll admit that this is not an optimum solution. A system of justice that counts on people breaking the rules and suffering for it in extreme situations is not necessarily a good system. A person in a situation as we’ve described should have pretty clear guidelines as to what he should do, and he should be able to act properly without consequence.
Do you agree?
The key issue as I currently think about it, lies in the definition of torture. To me, torture is inflict pain and suffering on a helpless person in order to coerce information or action out of them they don’t wish to provide or do.
The key word here is “helpless.”
If a suspect is holding a gun to a hostage’s head, nobody considers it torture if any level of force up to and including maiming or killing the man is used to prevent him from killing his hostage.
The use of force is justifiable. Injuring or killing the man, or coercing him may be necessary and a policeman has clear guidelines and knows he is accountable for his actions and must use force judiciously and responsibly, first to protect the hostage, second to preserve the suspect if possible.
In the example you replied to, it seems that the man who has planted the bomb is doing the exact same thing. He is actively threatening 100s of people. The man is not helpless.
It seems to me that it is proper that he be treated according to the same standards as a man holding a gun to the head of a hostage. Whatever is necessary in such a circumstance is justified.
An officer in such a situation would be required to act judiciously and appropriately, but the man would not have status as a prisoner. He would be a suspect actively threatening others and force would be appropriate.
The officer can act. He would in fact be required to act. If his responses were appropriate he would need fear no reprisal.
Does that seem to make sense to you?
I’ve read a summary of McCaine’s proposal. Basically, he wishes to make the interrogation part of the field manual for our armed forces apply to all situations.
I agree with Cheney in thanking that this is a bad idea.
If you think that my above scenario makes any kind of sense, than you can see why. I don’t think that blanket doctrine covers all situations, particularly those related to terrorism appropriately.
I would agree with McCaine’s proposal with one change, that would be the exemption for the “loaded gun” scenario. To my thinking a man withholding knowledge of a terrorist act to be committed in the future is not helpless, and the use of force is justified just as if he was holding an actual gun.
I think the standard for this exemption would have to be very strict and rigorous, and the person engaged in the use of force would be required to justify his actions. I wouldn’t think it would be torture.
Finally, I think the use of force needs to be appropriate and nonbarbaric. I think the use of truth drugs, and severe psychological stress is appropriate. Smashing the guys toes with a ball peen hammer wouldn’t.
That’s my current thinking. It’s about twenty four hours old, and subject to change based on you or somebody else knocking holes in it or suggesting something better.
Scylla, let me just express my regret at not having qualified my response to Finnagain. i could have predicted (and I should have) that you would object to his characterization. I am sorry that, by not qualifying it, I gave an appearance of endorsing it.
FTR, my feeling is that if your position is going to be characterized in such stark terms, the characterization should be well-supported by your actual words, and not merely by a string of inferences.
See, cutesy semantic games CAN be useful. 
No problem. Lemon Chiffon is an evil unreadable color to type in, though.
I see some validity to what you are saying. I also see some holes.
The man with the gun has a gun in hand.
The man who planted the bomb can only be confirmed as planting the bomb if he is making a verbal threat that he planted the bomb. He could be a crackpot or just the mouthpiece who does not know the location of the bomb. It is hard to have a smoking gun scenario and not know where the bomb is.
I am very happy you are against all use of Physical torture. Did I understand that correctly?
Cheney is asking for a much larger gray area than you are.
As far as the consequences, I purposely used a wiggle word, I used could. A jury could decide to set the cop free in the scenario. If he can prove he foiled a large bomb, most juries would find an excuse.
I prefer the burdn of proof be on the police or CIA in these cases.
Jim
…you convieniently forgot your mutual decision to not read or engage in any of Finnagain’s posts, which meant that, despite a plethora of cites that may or may not defend his position, you did not read. So yes, Finnagain did make a serious attempt to defend his statement, you however chose not to read it.
…well, what is your standard of proof? Are eyewitnessess good enough? Does there have to be a court conviction? A senate enquiry? Would you care to define your “standard of proof” so we could seek to meet it?
…do you mean “the very thing happened” in the case cited originally by Finnagain? Are you saying the prisoners in the ACLU cited case are the same as the ones in your cited case?
…gosh, those detainees were lucky this time. Remember one of the last times US troops found people abused by Iraqi’s?
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq0105/8.htm#_Toc93454304
…or maybe he has read the Human Rights Watch Reports, read the testimonies of those who have been released, and made his deductions from the pattern of evidence. You did read his cites, didn’t you? It looks like, that despite saying you wouldn t engage him in debate again in this thread, you decided to do it anyway, so why not read his cites?
…yeah, because I’m sure FinnAgain has a “Jump To Conclusions” mat at home. Why are you so sure that he “jumped”, and was not convinced?
…well they have. Of course soldiers kill, its a bloody war.
…your rebutal against FinnAgain’s evidence appears to be "well, there maybe another reason. Is that your only rebutal?
…umm, you forgot to say In My Humble Opinion. The evidence convinces me, and thousands of others like me. As to the challenge I offered up earlier… got any evidence on the Guantanemo prisoners yet? I’ll make it easier, how about proof for six of the prisoners?
Your accusations make me laugh out loud.
…and yet, your government holds over 600 prisoners all over the world, labels them the badest of the bad, terrorists, evil, yet provides no proof of any crime. Isn’t that worse than words spoken over a freaking messge board?
…not speaking for anyone else, but no its not okay to fabricate lies about your soldiers or anyone elses. Its a good thing that FinnAgain never did that then, isn’t it?
Since Finn isn’t likely to address this, I will. Where do you get this idea from? You raised the possibility that the people who died in U.S. custody were beaten before hand. That’s a stretch. Wouldn’t it be more likely that our forces would take prisoners in bad shape to recieve medical attention?
If we didn’t, then we are at least partially responsible for their deaths. I am aware that this is different from torturing them to death, but only by a degree or two. It certainly shows the care we are giving to our prisoners is suspect and places torture within the realm of possibility.
Of course, that’s a sideshow. I’m curious how you came to the idea that Finn would knowingly lie about something like that. You asked for proof of dozens and he came up with proof of slightly more than a dozen. That’s not a big enough stretch to back up your claim of him being a liar. The article he cited backed up at least a portion of his claim. The only doubts raised were yours and you have not provided a cite to back up your claims. A government official backing up your idea of the story would be acceptable.
The story of the prisoners in the care of Iraqi officials does not count unless you can prove that the prisoners in Finns cite were in the care of Iraqi officials before they came into our hands.
Lastly, “or else?” Let’s not start something like that on an internet message board please. It’s silly to say the least.
Yes. I acknowledge that hole. It seems tighter than the previous scenario though in which we count on somebody to break the law.
No. I’m against anything barbaric. The use of force might mean physical force. I would guess it would have to be appropriate and justifiable. I would think it would be highly undesirable and unnecessary but I’m not exactly an expert on interrogation, so I don’t know.
Personally, I would be more afraid of chemicals and drugs than physical torture which left no permanent damage.
I looked, and I still don’t know specifically what he’s asking for. It looks to me like he’s not asking for anything. He’s simply against McCaine’s proposal.
I agree that it’s disturbing though. If he has issues with McCaine’s proposal (as I’ve outlined, I think a valid one) he should address them and offer alternatives or modifications that make it better. That’s the political process.
Simply saying “No. We can’t have restrictions,” isn’t particularly helpful, constructive, nor justifiable.
Yes. But again, I don’t think the cop should have to stand trial for making the right decision. He should have guidelines so he knows how to act properly.
Is it the magic 24 number that makes your point? If it were 12, you’d still be in the right? Or 6? Or 3? Or even one?
You and this administration are trying so hard to blame the liberals for something…anything, that you’re willing to overlook the actions of our government (whether it be mistreatment of the Koran, torture of prisoners, or homicides while in custody). It absolutely boggles my mind that, apparently, you are more upset that there were only 14 rather than 24 homicides, than the fact that there were 14 homicides. You’d rather yell about the liberal media, such as the Newsweek story about the Koran (which was actually supported by evidence), than deal with the crimes perpetrated in your name, such as Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. I find that kind of thinking, that kind of looking at the world, absolutely atrocious.