I see you share the same “judicial philosophy” as your heroes, Bush abd Cheney and Libby and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Gonzales. Guilty until proven guilty.
I hereby accuse you of piracy, murder, kidnapping, war crimes, burning puppies and eating live kttens. And lots of other stuff that is too secret to say (national security ya know). Turn yourself in to the nearest secret torture facility for “processing” immediately.
Due process. trial by the courts or tribunal (at least some sort of trial). Evidence. Testimony. Proof of guilt. If someone else is not entitled to these things, neither are you.
Updike, you seem to have a rather unfortunate tendency to think in stereotypes. It may be surprising for you to learn (I could just stop the sentence right there, really, couldn’t I?) that merely being against Bush, or the Iraq War (because hey, people can be for one and against the other!) does not automatically make them weeping, wimpy, crying heart liberals who would rather sit down with terrorists and have a nice conversation over tea and biscuits before asking them politely whether they might, possibly, think about maybe stop blowing people up?
It’s called a stereotype, mon ami (Oh no! By speaking french i’m only HELPING THE TERRORISTS!), because it’s an exaggeration. And, alas, when you resort to “Oh no, i’m wrong, but hey, I can just make pointed stereotypical remarks about the opposition in response to anything they say!” it is nearing the end of debate. Or, indeed, the beginning; I too, like Finn, would very much like to see you refute some of the arguments he has made. Take, for example, the premises of the last few arguments he’s made, build up your argument against him, find cites to back it up, and enter reality.
Well, to be fair, the Doper community must consider their merits, but I don’t see why they can’t be included in this thread as competition for Anti-Doper of the year. I still think that Puppy will probably take the crown as he’s not just stupid, but militant and obnoxious in his ignorance… but I’ve been wrong before.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. Finn made the argument that dozens of people have been tortured to death by U.S. troops. Despite repeated requests, by multiple posters, he has been unable to provide proof that his statement is true. I’m not the one who needs to provide agruments against him, he needs to provide evidence that his initial claim is true.
Do you think that others can’t read the dozens of cites I’ve given just because you claim I didn’t give them? Do you even believe your own bullshit? Did your mommy give you lead paint chips to suck on as a child?
He’s provided evidence that the US Army has confirmed there have been, definetley, 18 criminal homicides. Fact. Also, that they currently suspect there are another 8 more cases.
True, that’s not dozens. If six of these suspected cases are found, indeed, to be criminal homicide, then it will be dozens. But, as of yet, it’s not. It’s 18. If you want to make the argument that Finn was exaggerating, or because of his viewpoint believing (possibly erroneously) that there have been at least 6 more deaths, and that there are no definites about any more than 18, sure, that’d be an acceptable position. However, you do still need to provide evidence of your own to prove that Finn is wrong in his assumption that there will be more deaths from torture - for example, you could have a look to see if any media sources (or, indeed, the army itself) are saying that these current suspected cases do not have strong evidence, or a commentator saying that there will be new rules put in place which will change the situation with regards to current US torture laws.
I personally think that if you don’t change something, it’s going to carry on; thus, I believe (opinion) that because there have already been 18 deaths (fact), and that no new laws are being passed or treaties signed which will affect US torture, that there will be more deaths.
Excuse me, but I took part in that thread, and you didn’t provide much of anything at all. Finn provided numerous cites and articles. All you provided were more repeats of the same general tired questions.
I still think it’s impossible to get at an exact figure as the facts of the cases have, in many instances, been covered up. Factor in the abnormally high level of deaths due to heart failure in an enviornment where forcing people to exercise until they lost consciousness wasn’t unknown, and I don’t think it’s at all beyond the pale to assume that ‘dozens’ is an accurate estimate. There were, for isntance, 19 deaths due to heart related problems listed in the ACLU’s cite.
Although, I must say, it’s something of an inconsequential nitpick to argue over whether there were 24 or 22 or 27 or 21 or however many homicides. It seems to largely be a diversionary and obfuscatory tactic. The crimes are just as massive in terms of impact and moral implications whether it was 18 or 24.
And I think that when one looks at all the factors, including the climate in which the torture was going on, that it’s not all that absurd to conclude that 24 is a valid low estimate. And, of course, to say that with 18 proven criminal homicides and a pattern of systemic problems, that an estimate of just a few more deaths is ‘slander’ ‘malice’ ‘has no proof’, etc… is just absurd.
Besides, what does that bring us to? 18 confirmed criminal homicides, one that was listed as natural causes that other doctors found to be due to blunt force trauma, one death due to heat which was most likely due to the detainee not being given enough water, plus at least three who died of ‘heart attacks’ which were caused by our actions, that brings us to 23. Is it truly beyond the pale that out of the 8 more suspected criminal homicides and all the other ‘heart attacks’, only one single one was a homicide?
Thank God you posted this. I was beginning to think I’d slipped through into some bizarre alternative world where ‘Scylla’ was not a byword for ‘foaming at the mouth Bush Apologist who wouldn’t know Fact or Reason if they Uncomfortable Stress Positioned his sister to death in front of him.’
In any case, doing all this research and finding old articles which I’ve already had to read once is actually beginning to make me feel sick to my stomach. Not just that these things happened, which is revolting, but that now I’m using them to ‘score points’ in a debate. It’s like torture-porn, and it’s making me ill. For now I’ll leave things with the cites I’ve already given, which show a pattern of abuse, coverups, ‘natural causes’ which turned out to be homicides, etc…
As I said a page or two ago, the evidence is certainly up for interpretation to a certain degree, but to cast the debate in terms of ‘no proof’ as Puppy keeps doing is simply mindless bullshit.
By the way, I was curious if anybody else reading this thread questions my data or methodology? I’m not going to dig up any more cites tonight, but I believe I’ve put forward a convincing case that an estimate of around two dozen deaths via physical damage caused by our forces is as accurate an estimate as can be expected under the circumstances.
