A reminder, what is torture?

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: Genx87

however, the left (and McCain and Co.) would have you believe that it means "Bush condones torture!"... bah... what crap

Did you read the list of what the president wanted to be allowed and they cried?

Sleep deprevation
Loud Music
Hot\cold room routine
Waterboarding
Yelling or heightened tone
forced to stand for long periods of time

And they are crying about that, may as well just put the white flag up now.

Abu Ghraib

I think prisoners were being treated worse than that here. You are fools to think the US military don't regularly torture people. The whole point of not using torture is so neither side will do it to each other if captured.

Man some of the ****** you people is say is utterly retarded. Alot of you have no ****** clue of what a patriot is.

WHEN THE ****** DID UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION BECOME UNPATRIOTIC?

FOOLS.

 

[judasmachine]

"If you fvcking beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the gd Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it fvcking so!"

yup, thans Quentin.

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
The point is, it's against the Geneva Convention... and since the US is allowed to break the convention, why can't other countries? And ya know, maybe other countries won't be so "humane" in their torture-- but HEY! The US started it!

Whatever, in Bush's eyes, everyone is guilty until proven innocent... and then they're still guilty anyway, so why bother?

Good point, but common sense and collected arguments don't matter to those biased to defend criminal military policy no matter how much you tell them.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: Genx87

however, the left (and McCain and Co.) would have you believe that it means "Bush condones torture!"... bah... what crap

Did you read the list of what the president wanted to be allowed and they cried?

Sleep deprevation
Loud Music
Hot\cold room routine
Waterboarding
Yelling or heightened tone
forced to stand for long periods of time

And they are crying about that, may as well just put the white flag up now.

Abu Ghraib

I think prisoners were being treated worse than that here. You are fools to think the US military don't regularly torture people. The whole point of not using torture is so neither side will do it to each other if captured.

Man some of the ****** you people is say is utterly retarded. Alot of you have no ****** clue of what a patriot is.

WHEN THE ****** DID UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION BECOME UNPATRIOTIC?

FOOLS.

I am pretty sure ABU Ghraib is not an example of coerced interrogation but nice try.

When did the consitution start applying to people outside the United States captured on foreign lands fighting our forces?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
The point is, it's against the Geneva Convention... and since the US is allowed to break the convention, why can't other countries? And ya know, maybe other countries won't be so "humane" in their torture-- but HEY! The US started it!

Whatever, in Bush's eyes, everyone is guilty until proven innocent... and then they're still guilty anyway, so why bother?

Good point, but common sense and collected arguments don't matter to those biased to defend criminal military policy no matter how much you tell them.

Common sense tells you people who dont fall under the geneva convetion do not have its rights applied to them.

 

[umbrella39]

It's only torture if you get caught. We seem to have a penchant for getting caught.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

Indeed, I want to get the rank, and which army terrorists captured on the battlefield belong to.

Because if you did your homework, I dont think wearing civilian clothing, not fighting under a hierarchy of commanders, and not carrying arms in the open, means they arent prisoners of war.

Mmm, nice job, you cited the part of the article that didn't matter in context. I included that just to show where it was in relation to the part I bolded.

Now, ya know, reactions to the bolded part? I'm sure your knee jerked at it like always, so I'd like to hear what you have to say.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
The point is, it's against the Geneva Convention... and since the US is allowed to break the convention, why can't other countries? And ya know, maybe other countries won't be so "humane" in their torture-- but HEY! The US started it!

Whatever, in Bush's eyes, everyone is guilty until proven innocent... and then they're still guilty anyway, so why bother?

Good point, but common sense and collected arguments don't matter to those biased to defend criminal military policy no matter how much you tell them.

Common sense tells you people who dont fall under the geneva convetion do not have its rights applied to them.

And because one country says they don't fall under the Geneva Conventions gives them the right to torture another human being? I'm sure Hitler said the Jews didn't fall under the Geneva Convention, so I'd suggest re-thinking your argument, or do you really support such things as the holocaust?

 

[straightalker]

There's a lot of tortue threads already so i'll just post this here...

Bush bashes Syria at UN, but sent an innocent man to be tortured in Syria

What is torture?

Torture is torture. Let's not let the psyops get into our heads on this one. I suppose there's a fine line somewhere you could draw somewhere between "being rough" and causing "serious injury" or "serious mental distress".

I think the international laws already in place make it clear what torture is don't they?

Bottom line? Torture has never been an honorable thing. It's not an American virtue it's a disgrace if we let it take place in our name. Lastly, we can't allow ourselves to torture them because then they will torture our people. The tides can easily be turned in war. That's why civilized people decided to create international laws to prevent barbarism. There's no need for torture anyways. Information taken that way has almost zero reliability.

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: Genx87

however, the left (and McCain and Co.) would have you believe that it means "Bush condones torture!"... bah... what crap

Did you read the list of what the president wanted to be allowed and they cried?

Sleep deprevation
Loud Music
Hot\cold room routine
Waterboarding
Yelling or heightened tone
forced to stand for long periods of time

And they are crying about that, may as well just put the white flag up now.

Abu Ghraib

I think prisoners were being treated worse than that here. You are fools to think the US military don't regularly torture people. The whole point of not using torture is so neither side will do it to each other if captured.

Man some of the ****** you people is say is utterly retarded. Alot of you have no ****** clue of what a patriot is.

WHEN THE ****** DID UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION BECOME UNPATRIOTIC?

FOOLS.

I am pretty sure ABU Ghraib is not an example of coerced interrogation but nice try.

When did the consitution start applying to people outside the United States captured on foreign lands fighting our forces?

Sorry I was thinking something else with the constitution... I was referring to us originally being a leader of civil rights and we should have an extremely high standard as a society.

Now, how is the United States setting an example for "freedom" and "democracy" when it tortures people. TORTURES. It is simply the most inhumane thing you can do. Yet, we are the good guys? No wonder we have so many f**king enemies over there.

BTW guys: Torture is far more useful when used as a threat, for control. It is very inneffective for information gathering. Either someone will say ANYTHING to stop their suffering or they will simply not say sh*t out of sheer defiance and anger.

Those of you that are defending torture OF ANY KIND are immoral sh*t. And no I am not saying loud music or waterboarding, that is retarded. If you really think the prisoners @ Abu Ghraib and Gitmo aren't subject to PAINFUL PHYSICAL TORTURE then you are fools.

2 + 2 = ?

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
The point is, it's against the Geneva Convention... and since the US is allowed to break the convention, why can't other countries? And ya know, maybe other countries won't be so "humane" in their torture-- but HEY! The US started it!

Whatever, in Bush's eyes, everyone is guilty until proven innocent... and then they're still guilty anyway, so why bother?

Good point, but common sense and collected arguments don't matter to those biased to defend criminal military policy no matter how much you tell them.

Common sense tells you people who dont fall under the geneva convetion do not have its rights applied to them.

They are human beings. So as soon as some legal loophole comes into play you are going to just jump @ the chance to torture people?

What the f*ck is wrong with you?

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Bottom line? Torture has never been an honorable thing. It's not an American virtue it's a disgrace if we let it take place in our name. Lastly, we can't allow ourselves to torture them because then they will torture our people. The tides can easily be turned in war. That's why civilized people decided to create international laws to prevent barbarism. There's no need for torture anyways. Information taken that way has almost zero reliability.

Well said!!

There is nothing but horrible negative things that come from this practice. Yet people are on here DEFENDING IT! WTF?!?!?

****** ******

? Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
The point is, it's against the Geneva Convention... and since the US is allowed to break the convention, why can't other countries? And ya know, maybe other countries won't be so "humane" in their torture-- but HEY! The US started it!

Whatever, in Bush's eyes, everyone is guilty until proven innocent... and then they're still guilty anyway, so why bother?

Good point, but common sense and collected arguments don't matter to those biased to defend criminal military policy no matter how much you tell them.

Common sense tells you people who dont fall under the geneva convetion do not have its rights applied to them.

They are human beings. So as soon as some legal loophole comes into play you are going to just jump @ the chance to torture people?

What the f*ck is wrong with you?

Heh, welcome to P&N. He's just your typical right-wing knee-jerker who's scared of people who aren't like him.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: Genx87

however, the left (and McCain and Co.) would have you believe that it means "Bush condones torture!"... bah... what crap

Did you read the list of what the president wanted to be allowed and they cried?

Sleep deprevation
Loud Music
Hot\cold room routine
Waterboarding
Yelling or heightened tone
forced to stand for long periods of time

And they are crying about that, may as well just put the white flag up now.

Abu Ghraib

I think prisoners were being treated worse than that here. You are fools to think the US military don't regularly torture people. The whole point of not using torture is so neither side will do it to each other if captured.

Man some of the ****** you people is say is utterly retarded. Alot of you have no ****** clue of what a patriot is.

WHEN THE ****** DID UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION BECOME UNPATRIOTIC?

FOOLS.

I am pretty sure ABU Ghraib is not an example of coerced interrogation but nice try.

When did the consitution start applying to people outside the United States captured on foreign lands fighting our forces?

Jesus, I guess that would have been when we held 'these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, and that among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jesus, I guess that would have been when we held 'these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, and that among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

But does that really make any more sense than that 'Article Three of the Geneva Conventions' mambo-jumbo? I mean, seriously, "there will be no outrages on human dignity". ...uh, it's a, uh, that is like.. it's very vague. Can anyone make heads or tails of all this nonsense?

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jesus, I guess that would have been when we held 'these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, and that among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

But does that really make any more sense than that 'Article Three of the Geneva Conventions' mambo-jumbo? I mean, seriously, "there will be no outrages on human dignity". ...uh, it's a, uh, that is like.. it's very vague. Can anyone make heads or tails of all this nonsense?

I mean, I can see how it can be ambiguous...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jesus, I guess that would have been when we held 'these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, and that among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

But does that really make any more sense than that 'Article Three of the Geneva Conventions' mambo-jumbo? I mean, seriously, "there will be no outrages on human dignity". ...uh, it's a, uh, that is like.. it's very vague. Can anyone make heads or tails of all this nonsense?

I mean, I can see how it can be ambiguous...

Nothing makes sense to somebody committed to not understanding the sensible. Everybody will know when they are being tortured, it's the people who torture whose minds are clouded by ambiguities because they dissemble inwardly. Do unto others as you would have done to you. It is all profoundly simple.

When in doubt as to what is right or wrong, just ask any child. They will know what you hide from yourself.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jesus, I guess that would have been when we held 'these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, and that among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

But does that really make any more sense than that 'Article Three of the Geneva Conventions' mambo-jumbo? I mean, seriously, "there will be no outrages on human dignity". ...uh, it's a, uh, that is like.. it's very vague. Can anyone make heads or tails of all this nonsense?

And what the hell do you mean by sense for Christ's sake? You know God Damned well it makes perfect sense.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jesus, I guess that would have been when we held 'these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, and that among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

But does that really make any more sense than that 'Article Three of the Geneva Conventions' mambo-jumbo? I mean, seriously, "there will be no outrages on human dignity". ...uh, it's a, uh, that is like.. it's very vague. Can anyone make heads or tails of all this nonsense?

And what the hell do you mean by sense for Christ's sake? You know God Damned well it makes perfect sense.

I think your sarcasm meter has been malfunctioning for the last couple posts.

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
The point is, it's against the Geneva Convention... and since the US is allowed to break the convention, why can't other countries? And ya know, maybe other countries won't be so "humane" in their torture-- but HEY! The US started it!

Whatever, in Bush's eyes, everyone is guilty until proven innocent... and then they're still guilty anyway, so why bother?

Um, question? What makes you think that other countries don't already do these things, or WORSE?? Granted, we should be the example set to others, but you don't always win wars by being the nice guy, or following the rules. The sooner people figure that out, the better, imho.

Besides, in these politically correct days, some folks might consider torture as being nothing more than denying cable tv to prisoners. Oh wait......that already happened, the prisoners sued, and WON. Geez, it's no wonder this debate is going on! :roll:

 

[palehorse]

some of you people are CLUELESS.

by that, i mean that you have no business discussing something that you nothing about.

me? i know.

how u like dem apples?

We will ALWAYS have the moral highground, and even more so once Bush gets our authorized interrogation methods down on paper. At that point, you will be able to hold them up against the beheadings and say "gee, we're still better than them."

trust me. i know.

g'day.

morons.

ps: im drunk, and some of u people p*ss me off.

 

[kylebisme]

The 'still better than beheaders' argument just doesn't cut if for me.

And sorry, Moonbeam I don't have the disclamer like you but my comment was by no means intented to be taken as anything but sarcasm.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
We will ALWAYS have the moral highground, and even more so once Bush gets our authorized interrogation methods down on paper. At that point, you will be able to hold them up against the beheadings and say "gee, we're still better than them."

Thanks to the Bushwhackos, we've already lost the moral high ground. I don't think we need to behead them to regain it, but indicting, trying and convicting them for treason would be a good start.

ps: im drunk, and some of u people p*ss me off.

P.S. I believe you, and I don't give a sh8 if I piss you off. In fact, since you don't seem to like the truth of the situation, I hope I do. :laugh:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The 'still better than beheaders' argument just doesn't cut if for me.

HA! that's punny!

 

[sandorski]

Damn Commies.