Reading some of the responses here was torture...

Reply By: d3adz0mbiePosted: Sunday, January 09, 2005Reading some of the responses here was torture...

no shit.....

Can any of you bleeders name one instance in THIS WAR where we did anything approaching what I said is torture??

Yes, making people stand naked, while being taunted, laughed at etc, and having electrical equipment to electrocute prisoners with, as we did, is A) Sexual Harassment and Torture, because it is anguish of the mind, and the electrocution of the body.

Moderateman.. I have realized two things from reading your posts... a) you are not moderate and you don't spell/write/talk very properly

Cacto- my respect for you just at least doubled based on that excellent post regarding torture-lite

Moderateman.. I have realized two things from reading your posts... a) you are not moderate and you don't spell/write/talk very properly

glad to see you disagree with me........ yay you

I have posted many times I am uneducated and grammar and spelling sucks so get over it booooo you and you have no idea not one about my speech or patterns... you judgemental lout

Cacto- my respect for you just at least doubled based on that excellent post r

there ya go cacto another fan..... make sure she gets her bleeding heart carryall ok?

you know,, the one with swallowable bandaids... bought on taxpayer money..

Reply By: sandy2Posted: Sunday, January 09, 2005Can any of you bleeders name one instance in THIS WAR where we did anything approaching what I said is torture??Yes, making people stand naked, while being taunted, laughed at etc, and having electrical equipment to electrocute prisoners with, as we did, is A) Sexual Harassment and Torture, because it is anguish of the mind, and the electrocution of the body.

when did this happen???? electricity applied to prisoners???/ did it happen in sandyland??

Reply By: sandy2Posted: Sunday, January 09, 2005Can any of you bleeders name one instance in THIS WAR where we did anything approaching what I said is torture??Yes, making people stand naked, while being taunted, laughed at etc

this must be a "personal" issue with you {see I can make judgements too} seeing yourself standing naked in mirror and laughing {crying} tormenting yourself about how you look??/ hmmmmmmmmmmm???????

Well making a devout man commit a sin that will condemn his soul to all enternity in hell (ie through forcing him to have homosexual sex) is not really torture - after all, after condemning someone to slightly postponed eternal suffering there's not much else you could threaten to do - but I don't think that's relevent anyway. Allegedly games of that kind aren't played any more in US-run Iraqi jails, so discussing it with reference to pursuing a policy of torture-lite doesn't make sense. It's another matter entirely.

Reply By: cactoblastaPosted: Monday, January 10, 2005Well making a devout man commit a sin that will condemn his soul to all enternity in hell (ie through forcing him to have homosexual sex) is not really torture - after all, after condemning someone to slightly postponed eternal suffering there's not much else you could threaten to do - but I don't think that's relevent anyway. Allegedly games of that kind aren't played any more in US-run Iraqi jails, so discussing it with reference to pursuing a policy of torture-lite doesn't make sense. It's another matter entirely

religiously DEVOUT men and women DO NOT SLAUGHTER innocents cacto.... killing in the name of GOD is way old way wrong... why do you insist on defending these monsters?

Allegedly games of that kind aren't played any more in US-run Iraqi jails, so discussing it with reference to pursuing a policy of torture-lite doesn't make sense. It's another matter entirely.

the whole point is it should be allowed... because its not torture..........

Mainly because in the eyes of the US administration the majority of those held are not criminals, or at least not so criminal that they deserve to be imprisoned. So they're hardly monsters. I agree with you, religiously devout men and women don't slaughter innocents, but not all imprisoned are guilty. Did you even bother to read what I wrote? EDIT: Hmm, the quote didn't add on properly... this is in reference to Moderateman's first comment on my post.

religiously DEVOUT men and women DO NOT SLAUGHTER innocents cacto.... killing in the name of GOD is way old way wrong

tell that to david koresh (who i believe was being defended in another blog as an example of government zeal gone wrong). or to the pentacostal missionaries whove come close to wiping out the yanomami (as well as the other remnant stone-age tribes throughout the world) in the interest of saving their souls.  dont forget the lebanese falangists--and the reverend (hah) richard butler and his church of jesus christ christian.  then there are the hindu fanatics who blow up mosques.  the list goes on and on.  

i'm in no way defending them.  religious fanatics of all sects disgust me beyond words.  but it's not as if it's something that only exists in the islamic world. 

some of the guantanamo detainees may have been unluckily in the wrong place at the wrong time...or turned in by neighbors or members of other tribes for money.  you yourself have--in this thread--pointed out quite correctly that the government is hardly infallible (or worse).   or did you mean all arms of government BUT the military?

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Monday, January 10, 2005religiously DEVOUT men and women DO NOT SLAUGHTER innocents cacto.... killing in the name of GOD is way old way wrongtell that to david koresh (who i believe was being defended in another blog as an example of government zeal gone wrong). or to the pentacostal missionaries whove come close to wiping out the yanomami (as well as the other remnant stone-age tribes throughout the world) in the interest of saving their souls. dont forget the lebanese falangists--and the reverend (hah) richard butler and his church of jesus christ christian. then there are the hindu fanatics who blow up mosques. the list goes on and on.

david koresh is a poor example kingbee he is just another nut job, like that jones fellow that twisted everyones thinking to commit mass suicide.

Zealots of anykind, ie: jewish, christian hindi, muslim, are not devout... just twisted and evil sick people

I love your use of a dictionary definition of the word torture. Interesting attempt to deflect critism from the real issue.

Why is torture wrong? Because the US has signed legal documents forbidding it's use.

What documents? The Geneva Convention.

What does it actually say?

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: ( a ) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

and furthermore,

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever

Now, you may be willing to spend days arguing about whether terrorists are covered (this is dealt with under the special protocols to the Geneva convention) but the fact remains that whatever you define totrute as doesn't matter. Your list (for the dense) is all illegal under the Geneva convention.

Paul.

Reply By: cactoblastaPosted: Monday, January 10, 2005Mainly because in the eyes of the US administration the majority of those held are not criminals, or at least not so criminal that they deserve to be imprisoned. So they're hardly monsters. I agree with you, religiously devout men and women don't slaughter innocents, but not all imprisoned are guilty. Did you even bother to read what I wrote? EDIT: Hmm, the quote didn't add on properly... this is in reference to Moderateman's first comment on my post.

read all you replies cacto.... but as pointed out many times. do you believe the gov. or is it belief in gov. when they agree or backup your personal beliefs?

Reply By: SolitairPosted: Monday, January 10, 2005I love your use of a dictionary definition of the word torture. Interesting attempt to deflect critism from the real issue. Why is torture wrong? Because the US has signed legal documents forbidding it's use.What documents? The Geneva Convention.What does it actually say? To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: ( a ) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; and furthermore,No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever

touche!!

read all you replies cacto.... but as pointed out many times. do you believe the gov. or is it belief in gov. when they agree or backup your personal beliefs?

I haven't got a clue what you mean here. I thought this whole thread was about the fact that torture-lite is acceptable in interrogating suspects because it's not full torture. Apparently I have grossly misread you. If you have the time or the inclination I'd love to know exactly what point the debate was actually supposed to centre around, because currently I don't know if it's supposed to be about the deviousness of government, my own personal hypocrisy or some abstract dictionary definition.

Watching those who grandstand on pedal stools of self-righteousness in the face of the imminent threat of bloody thirsty killers is a torture that makes me want to poke my own eyes out.

see if id started this by tellin yall the fbi had lied at my trial, i woulda heard bout how that wasnt possible

I missed that... I trust you beat it

be back in a few hours to discuss this some more......

I fear that while the choir boys pick away, the terrorist bide their time in the shadows until... BOOM... 5th Ave is no more & Manhattan is gone

ya know, if the washington times hadnt felt the need to print information it was leaked about bin laden's satellite phone--thus tipping usama off to the fact he was being tracked-- things might be a lot different today.   it aint the necessarily the choirboys guys.   whomever it was that let that particular cat outta the bag may have done so because he or she felt the manson family was being too cautious and needed a lil push.

Forcing someone to remain in one position is corporal punishment, like push-ups, or calesthenics, or spanking. There are many places where corporal punishment is not allowed and most places err on the side of caution and do not allow corporal punishment.

let me tell you a little sumthin sumthin about torture.....

salad bar.....fresh romaine.....nicely shredded carrots...thinly sliced onions...
marinated mushrooms...ya..its all good..throw on some croutons..and then it happens
right next to the croutons(where they are always supposed to be) an empty container
where the BACON BITS should be!!!!

left right or center my friend....it hurts my soul.

Reply #39 By: Solitair - 1/10/2005 9:37:28 AM I love your use of a dictionary definition of the word torture. Interesting attempt to deflect critism from the real issue. Why is torture wrong? Because the US has signed legal documents forbidding it's use. What documents? The Geneva Convention. What does it actually say? To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: ( a ) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; and furthermore, No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever Now, you may be willing to spend days arguing about whether terrorists are covered (this is dealt with under the special protocols to the Geneva convention) but the fact remains that whatever you define totrute as doesn't matter. Your list (for the dense) is all illegal under the Geneva convention. Paul.

Maybe you should go look at who te Geneva Conventions cover. They cover enemy troops (prisoners of war) (those that wear an established uniforms) or civilians. Those we bare fighting and detaining are not considered POWS and are therefore not covered by the accords. They aren't considered civilians either if they were found bearing arms against US forces.

Solitair, excellent points all around.

We're in trouble, the righties have gotten the dictionary out again. I don't want my government using torture or extortion to gain information. We are the United States of America and we hold our nation to a higher standard. I don't know what's so hard to understand there.

Yes, and who wants such annoying things as proper word definitions used, correct?

Let's play it hypothetically, and look at it this way: let's say that any information obtained through torture is disallowed by law, and is therefore unable to be used or disseminated through official channels to the general public.
Now, one of the things a torture victim in question (could have) related was that 5,000 lbs. of explosives was going to be used to blow up the stadium during the Super Bowl.
Since torture was unable to be used, however, this information isn't obtained and/or isn't properly acted upon, and thousands upon thousands are murdered when the bomb explodes, collapsing part of the stadium.
Would you feel bad, knowing that, even though your opinion carried the day, thousands died anyway?