It's May 21, 2024, 07:33:22 AM
To make this issue entirely clear. If you support the current Administration you support and condone torture. There is no way to run from it this time around. Since Bush chose to nominate Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General there have been numerous arguments made by so-called conservatives arguing for the necessity of torture. Only they don't call it that, instead they make claims like the liberals are trying make us lose the war on terror, they are trying to embarass our troups, and so on. But let's be clear about what this administration supports and condones. George Bush willingly made the choice to nominate Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General knowing full-well that Gonzales has on record said:a) The Geneva Conventions are 'quaint' and 'obsolete' do not apply to the war on terror. But let me offer a little more background. After it became official Administration policy that the Geneva Accords do not apply to the War on Terror, Colin Powell asked Bush to reconsider this decision. Alberto Gonzales responded directly to president Bush with this memo: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/ in it he argued that Powell was wrong to suggest the Geneva Accords apply to the War on Terror. This position was accepted by the Administration, and directly by Bush. Yet, when Abu Graib fotos leaked Bush claimed he had no clue.b) According to Alberto Gonzales an act against a detainee can only be considered an act of torture IF it is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."When republicans vote to support Gonzales be very clear with yourself. If you support this administration, you support torture. (unless of course you also foolishly subscribe to the narrow definition of torture A.G. has put forth)
please show me some evidence that these rules have been in effect for decades?
i just did another search and found Interrogation rules fall under the Rules Of Engagement and most are considered classified...that would explain why in all these news posts they don't refer you to some publication
Quote from: Needles Kane on February 02, 2005, 09:12:18 PMi just did another search and found Interrogation rules fall under the Rules Of Engagement and most are considered classified...that would explain why in all these news posts they don't refer you to some publicationfine, then show me the news posts you are referring to or wherever it is you learned that this definition has been used for decades and these practices have always been acceptable.
Quote from: Ant on February 02, 2005, 09:27:43 PMQuote from: Needles Kane on February 02, 2005, 09:12:18 PMi just did another search and found Interrogation rules fall under the Rules Of Engagement and most are considered classified...that would explain why in all these news posts they don't refer you to some publicationfine, then show me the news posts you are referring to or wherever it is you learned that this definition has been used for decades and these practices have always been acceptable.well since they are classified, i can't just sit here at home and find out the date, so you'll have to wait for that... as for the uses....have you ever heard of prisoner incidents until this year? well that's because technology and some retards teamed up to make america look stupid... ask any vietnam vet and they'll tell you the things that were done to the VC without any repercussions
Quote from: Needles Kane on February 02, 2005, 09:36:16 PMQuote from: Ant on February 02, 2005, 09:27:43 PMQuote from: Needles Kane on February 02, 2005, 09:12:18 PMi just did another search and found Interrogation rules fall under the Rules Of Engagement and most are considered classified...that would explain why in all these news posts they don't refer you to some publicationfine, then show me the news posts you are referring to or wherever it is you learned that this definition has been used for decades and these practices have always been acceptable.well since they are classified, i can't just sit here at home and find out the date, so you'll have to wait for that... as for the uses....have you ever heard of prisoner incidents until this year? well that's because technology and some retards teamed up to make america look stupid... ask any vietnam vet and they'll tell you the things that were done to the VC without any repercussionsSo if they are classified and you can't produce them how do you know about them? You stated as a fact that the gonzales definition for torture has been american policy for decades now, but you have nothing to back it up. Also, while unfortunate things have have happened in vietnam these things were not legal then, and they are not legal now. Remember, ironically it was John Kerry who stood in front of the U.S. senate and brought these issues to light. The republican side spent years calling him a traitor and claiming he lied to the American poeple. The Swift Boats ran an ad about it in 2004. Now today you tell me that if you ask anyone who was in vietnam they can tell you torture occured there as well. I don't doubt that some extremely inhumane acts occured there as well, but these types of acts were not legal then, and are not legal now. Unfortunately, the republicans took the same side then as they do now. They said Kerry was a traitor, he was lying and slandering our troops.. you called the people who shot these photos 'retards' and claimed they were trying to embarass America. So anyways, rather than arguing with me about it anymore just state your position clearly. I am inclined to believe that you support and/or condone the use of torture. If that is the case then simply say so.
Quote from: Don Rizzle on May 10, 2006, 03:16:12 AMiraq would just get annexed by iranThat would be a great solution. If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
iraq would just get annexed by iran
just like it's legal for me to have 4 beers and drive my car but at 6-7 beers i might be breaking the law....when done in moderation and within guidelines it's fairi don't see anything wrong with sleep and food deprivation and stress positions to interrogate prisoners....tying them up to electrodes sicking dogs or taking food deprivation too far is where i draw the line
do you read what you write? you stated:According to Alberto Gonzales an act against a detainee can only be considered an act of torture IF it is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."the key word here being equivalent... now don't you think burning someone and sodomizing is equivalently painful to serious bodily harm?