Do you support torture?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No. They're not the same. I might 'limit' the instance of something to once or twice a week (eating large evening meals, for example). That's a far cry from saying I'd eat them either 'pretty rarely', or 'exceedingly rarely'. These terms do not equate with each other as you suggest that they do.



You are at best applying an arbitrary judgment over how often you'd get valuable information by using torture on a terrorist. It might be true for one terrorist. It may well NOT be, for another. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU GENERALISE ? You cannot infer uniformity of reliability between ALL terrorists, as you're trying to do. That is a nonsense.



Here's another concept, then. Suppose terrorists planned a terrorist atrocity very likely to involve your wife (or other loved ones), and you had one member of that terrorist cell readily available to you for interrogation, primed for whatever technique you chose. Tell me ... would you consider using ALL, I mean ALL, methods available to you to get the information you'd need to stop it, or would the sheer 'exceeding rarity' of considering torture mean that you'd be unlikely to go that far ?

Put it another way. Terrorists bomb, maim, kill, INNOCENT LOVED ONES FROM PEOPLES' FAMILIES .. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO. BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU JUDGE THAT TO SAVE THOSE LIVES, YOU SHOULD ONLY TAKE THE FULLEST OF STEPS TO STOP THEM ON 'EXCEEDINGLY RARE' OCCASIONS ???



Er'm ... WE are unbelievable .. ??!!?

My friend, you have been officially ignored!! ---Tyr
Now stop bothering the man..

ConHog

Originally Posted by Drummond
No. They're not the same. I might 'limit' the instance of something to once or twice a week (eating large evening meals, for example). That's a far cry from saying I'd eat them either 'pretty rarely', or 'exceedingly rarely'. These terms do not equate with each other as you suggest that they do.



You are at best applying an arbitrary judgment over how often you'd get valuable information by using torture on a terrorist. It might be true for one terrorist. It may well NOT be, for another. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU GENERALISE ? You cannot infer uniformity of reliability between ALL terrorists, as you're trying to do. That is a nonsense.



Here's another concept, then. Suppose terrorists planned a terrorist atrocity very likely to involve your wife (or other loved ones), and you had one member of that terrorist cell readily available to you for interrogation, primed for whatever technique you chose. Tell me ... would you consider using ALL, I mean ALL, methods available to you to get the information you'd need to stop it, or would the sheer 'exceeding rarity' of considering torture mean that you'd be unlikely to go that far ?

Put it another way. Terrorists bomb, maim, kill, INNOCENT LOVED ONES FROM PEOPLES' FAMILIES .. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO. BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU JUDGE THAT TO SAVE THOSE LIVES, YOU SHOULD ONLY TAKE THE FULLEST OF STEPS TO STOP THEM ON 'EXCEEDINGLY RARE' OCCASIONS ???



Er'm ... WE are unbelievable .. ??!!?




Did I , or did I not tell you that I was done with this stupid line of thought.

You post examples of rare events and then ask me if I would torture then as if by answering yes I would prove that I would torture in cases other than rare events.

It's nonsensical.

/unsubscribe

[Drummond]

My friend, you have been officially ignored!! -

I'm 'officially devastated' ... !!!! ...

[Robert A Whit]

Conhog asked me when I was in the Army

16 Feb 62 - 29 Jan 64

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm 'officially devastated' ... !!!! ...

An uppity Brit like you should be.. DISPLAYING THAT BRIT CHARM THAT MAKES THA' WOMEN SWOON .
And your Brit accent that makes the ladies think of 007..- Connery not Moore, CONNERY WAS A FAR BETTER BOND..

Hows a guy to compete with that??

CH NEVER STOOD A CHANCE until he hit you with the dreaded "ignore you bomb"..
Take your licking like a man now. No going to the local PUB to drown your wicked little sorrows..

Ok, a bit of levity to chase the doom and gloom away.. Sue me.. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Conhog asked me when I was in the Army

16 Feb 62 - 29 Jan 64

I don't think I saw you post this earlier, lemme place the insignia next to your name...

[Robert A Whit]

To those that did not endure the gas chamber in the Army.

When we all went into the gas chamber excercise, of course we were told it was tear gas.

Well, the chamber at Ft. Ord CA accomodated perhaps a platoon of men.

Now, if you can hold your breath for a long time, as I did, they simply could not see if I was coughing or not. I had taken the mask off. You can't fake that. But so long as you can hold your breath and are close to the exit door and have sgts stripes on, in said training, sure, I did hold my breath and the rest of the guys coughed their guts out.

And I got away with it too. LMAO

[Drummond]

An uppity Brit like you should be.. DISPLAYING THAT BRIT CHARM THAT MAKES THA' WOMEN SWOON .

Now you're talking !!

And your Brit accent that makes the ladies think of 007..- Connery not Moore, CONNERY WAS A FAR BETTER BOND..

Nice thought. But my true accent comes with at least a hint of a cockney twang ... remember, I originated in London ...

CH NEVER STOOD A CHANCE until he hit you with the dreaded "ignore you bomb"..

.... Aargh. The dreaded 'cut and run' tactic ... well, that really taught me a lesson !!!

Take your licking like a man now. No going to the local PUB to drown your wicked little sorrows..

I suspect I'll survive it all ... somehow ....

[Robert A Whit]

I don't think I saw you post this earlier, lemme place the insignia next to your name...

Yup, was in 6th Army in CA and got shipped to Ft. Benning after taking Basic training, leadership academy near Ft Ord and AIT at Ft. Ord. Signed up to be Airborne but due to lack of half of a pull up (Airborne pull ups are a bastard to do) (regular pull ups are much easier) was to do what we called the gorilla pit. Then back to take training. I spotted a flaw in how they shipped men to either Korea or Europe and told them I quit. I went to Germany so my plan worked. At Ft. Ord there was NEVER a chance of going to Europe since all of the training company I was in either went to Korea or stayed stateside for more training. But at Ft Benning, if you came from the east, they sent them to Korea but from the west, we got sent to Europe. A scrwed up way for sure but it worked for me.

Serving in Germany, I was in the 3rd division and Gen. Frank Mildren commanded. He rose to a higher rank when he served in Vietham. I am sure some of those who served with me in Germany ended up in Vietnam since I talked to my former company commander on the phone when Clinton was president and he told me he went to Vietnam and rose to Lt. Col and when he retired he taught at college. Funny thing about this CO. He was a company clerk in Korea during that war and went to OCS to be an officer. He liked me and I was his clerk. He fired the guy who had the job when I came to his unit.

Yep, he fired Glen Taplin. Glen came from some state in the South and made some bad statements about blacks. His ears were huge and the guys called him grips. Boys, explain to the girls why he got called grips. Anyway the CO was from Louisiana and had black in him. His eyes were blue which caused some to be fooled. But he considered himself as black but he was also very light. I did not know he was black until that came up.

[jimnyc]

Please continue here where I moved posts - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...litary-service

[Hanging Judge]

If someone is known to have knowledge that would save American lives I'm not against twisting their knickers a bit. As for say the animal who raped and killed a 6 month old little girl - well I think a few turns on the rack and iron maiden would be just fine. Drawn and quartered works too.

[Hera]

You bet.

[Neo]

If someone is known to have knowledge that would save American lives I'm not against twisting their knickers a bit. As for say the animal who raped and killed a 6 month old little girl - well I think a few turns on the rack and iron maiden would be just fine. Drawn and quartered works too.

BRAVO! BRAVO!

Ditto.

[revelarts]

Torture: Why the uniformed military balked at ‘enhanced interrogation’


By Jon HarperStars and Stripes
Published: December 16, 2014

WASHINGTON — More than a decade before the Senate intelligence committee released its report on the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation practices, the U.S. military’s top lawyers were warning that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were legally questionable, likely ineffectual and could expose American troops to criminal prosecution and torture at the hands of their own captors.Those warnings, similar to the findings of the report that was released Dec. 9, came in the form of several memos generated in early 2003 after then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tasked a Defense Department working group with conducting a legal review of the proposed techniques, including waterboarding and sleep deprivation.
At the time, the services were pushing back against the Department of Justice legal counsel, which argued in the ‘torture memos’ that the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. Supporters of the tough new techniques argued that al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists were “unlawful combatants” rather than prisoners of war like the Germans and the Japanese in World War II.
“I question whether this theory would ultimately prevail in either U.S. courts or in any international forum,” Maj. Gen. Thomas Romig, Army judge advocate general at the time, wrote in a March 2003 memo to the Department of the Air Force general counsel.
Maj. Gen. Jack Rives, the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force at the time, echoed those concerns. He wrote in a February 2003 memo that several of the proposed techniques “on their face, amount to violations of domestic and criminal law and the UCMJ (e.g., assault) …”
He wrote that other countries would probably consider the techniques as violations of international law and their own national laws, placing interrogators “and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations” at home and abroad.
Romig, now retired from the military, said concerns about overseas arrest and prosecution are still valid, and those connected with the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program could still be at risk.
“Torture is an international crime. It has no statute of limitations. I would not, if I were those people, travel to a foreign country,” he told Stars and Stripes in a telephone interview.
The lawyers also warned in the memos that abandoning the Geneva Conventions went against American values and could lead to the torture of captured American troops.
“If it’s OK for us to [torture], why wasn’t it OK for the Germans and the Japanese to do it [during World War II]?,” Romig asked in the interview. “Why wouldn’t it be OK for our next combatant in the future — whoever that might be — to do it against us?”
The Army brass shared a similar view, according to Romig.
“There was a pretty solid consensus, certainly among the leadership, that we shouldn’t be doing this at all,” he said. “I think that’s where they lose sleep when they think that, because of these kinds of activities, there’s a possibility that this will be done against our own” troops.....

read the rest at
http://www.stripes.com/news/torture-...ation-1.319634

[Drummond]

From Revelarts, this extract ..

“I think that’s where they lose sleep when they think that, because of these kinds of activities, there’s a possibility that this will be done against our own” troops....

So, Revelarts ... set us straight. Is the suggestion, here, that terrorist scum only thinks to conduct mistreatment against their victims because they've already been shown such examples from OUR side ??? That, if torture activities (to the extent that it ever happens) were to cease, terrorists would suddenly find the decency to behave in a humane fashion ?!?

What, from the West's side, encouraged (or gave grounds to 'copy') 9/11 ?

What, from the West's side, do terrorists base their beheadings on ?

Revelarts, this is so ridiculous that it has to be pure propaganda, designed to 'humanise' terrorists in peoples' eyes. Needless to say, IT DOESN'T WORK.

A challenge: I want you, Revelarts, to devote a single post, one comparable in outlay to the reams you've already posted, DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO SYMPATHY AND SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM'S VICTIMS.

How long will we have to wait for, to see you post such a missive here ... ?

[Drummond]

A challenge: I want you, Revelarts, to devote a single post, one comparable in outlay to the reams you've already posted, DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO SYMPATHY AND SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM'S VICTIMS.

... and there it is. NO reply posted.

As expected.

For all of the reams of stuff you've posted in support of giving terrorists immunity from any likelihood of torture, to say nothing of the speed you've countered opposing arguments with ... suddenly, when it comes to UNRESERVEDLY supporting their VICTIMS, you become mute. You have visited this site since my challenge was issued, and posted several messages. But .. on THIS issue, all of a sudden, you've gone quiet.

Massive support for terrorist welfare. NOTHING remotely comparable in terms of VICTIM support, however.

Very well, then. Since we've now established the extent of your true sympathies, I'll set you another challenge. Will you be as silent on this one ?

I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN TO US WHY, TIME AND AGAIN, THE LEFT IS SO COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING TERRORIST INTERESTS.

Why do we keep seeing this from Left wingers ?