Libs Claim Pres Bush Confessed To War Crimes

[Pagan]

How do any of these sound?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

I would say that if ANY of the above definitions apply, then the person is a terrorist. Argue with the various entities if you don't like their definitions, but ANY of them are good enough reason for me to give the green light to torture if it's possible it can save lives. If you want to afford them protections, that's your opinion.

Let's go through it by line item shall we?

the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

Pretty much includes all Covert Ops across the board.

[T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

This covers a good chunk of any criminal behavior in the U.S.

the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives

Again covers any and all those who protest against the Government.

For the purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include,in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty ... We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines or elsewhere

Covers pretty much any and all Covert Ops

activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Covers pretty much any and all Covert Ops


So with this definition any and all Covert Ops are "Terrorists" and it also includes those protesting and speaking out against the Government.

So now that you've defined it you support Government snagging any and all they call a terrorist. Then torture a confession out of them.

Sorry, I don't support going back to the Dark Ages of absolute rule.

[jimnyc]

Let's go through it by line item shall we?

Pretty much includes all Covert Ops across the board.

This covers a good chunk of any criminal behavior in the U.S.

Again covers any and all those who protest against the Government.

Covers pretty much any and all Covert Ops

Covers pretty much any and all Covert Ops

So with this definition any and all Covert Ops are "Terrorists" and it also includes those protesting and speaking out against the Government.

So now that you've defined it you support Government snagging any and all they call a terrorist. Then torture a confession out of them.

Sorry, I don't support going back to the Dark Ages of absolute rule.

Your ability to "redefine" the definitions is hilarious. Tell me how many thousands of terrorists were either killed or captured via these definitions? Now tell me how many peaceful protesters have been classified as terrorists. How many local "Joe's" who committed no crimes. How many regular criminals in the US that were involved in "regular" crimes who were misclassified as terrorists?

I'm also confident that the small snippets of definitions on wikipedia is not where the agencies definitions stop.

Look, argue in defense of terrorists and claim it's what is best for our country, you won't be alone. But if me supporting torturing the fuck out of known terrorists somehow bothers you, too fucking bad. I would vote to allow our government to torture 20,000 known terrorists if it would save just one American life.

[Pagan]

Your ability to "redefine" the definitions is hilarious. Tell me how many thousands of terrorists were either killed or captured via these definitions? Now tell me how many peaceful protesters have been classified as terrorists. How many local "Joe's" who committed no crimes. How many regular criminals in the US that were involved in "regular" crimes who were misclassified as terrorists?

I'm also confident that the small snippets of definitions on wikipedia is not where the agencies definitions stop.

Look, argue in defense of terrorists and claim it's what is best for our country, you won't be alone. But if me supporting torturing the fuck out of known terrorists somehow bothers you, too fucking bad. I would vote to allow our government to torture 20,000 known terrorists if it would save just one American life.

Again it comes down to -

Who defines who's a Terrorist and how.

From your response's I gather it's the government, is that your answer?

[jimnyc]

Again it comes down to -

Who defines who's a Terrorist and how.

From your response's I gather it's the government, is that your answer?

We have MANY possible agencies (police, cia, fbi, nsa...) and possibly the military catching these people. If you want a unified definition -who do you think should come up with it, the local boy scouts? As much as we both detest more and more government involvement, it needs to be a large consensus WITH authority over the various agencies in order for it to work. Hell, they still need to classify specifically what counts as torture as it's very loosely defined at this point. But you'll argue that we are giving government too much control and the ability to torture..

But who do you want making these tough decisions, the military? The CIA? The FBI, your local pee wee football team? Your local Elks? The Rotary Cub?

SOMEONE has to deal with this scum. SOMEONE needs to classify, for people like you, specifically what a terrorist is. And SOMEONE needs to classify specifically what torture is. You've posted the outline several times, but it doesn't spell out specific techniques and everyone might have a different idea of what "pain, long term, fear" and all that other bullshit applies to.

And with that said - I still think terrorists deserve no protections, IMO from any state, federal or international laws or treaties.

[Pagan]

We have MANY possible agencies (police, cia, fbi, nsa...) and possibly the military catching these people. If you want a unified definition -who do you think should come up with it, the local boy scouts? As much as we both detest more and more government involvement, it needs to be a large consensus WITH authority over the various agencies in order for it to work. Hell, they still need to classify specifically what counts as torture as it's very loosely defined at this point. But you'll argue that we are giving government too much control and the ability to torture..

But who do you want making these tough decisions, the military? The CIA? The FBI, your local pee wee football team? Your local Elks? The Rotary Cub?

SOMEONE has to deal with this scum. SOMEONE needs to classify, for people like you, specifically what a terrorist is. And SOMEONE needs to classify specifically what torture is. You've posted the outline several times, but it doesn't spell out specific techniques and everyone might have a different idea of what "pain, long term, fear" and all that other bullshit applies to.

And with that said - I still think terrorists deserve no protections, IMO from any state, federal or international laws or treaties.

So are you saying that a Court is the definitive authority on determining who a Terrorist is?

[jimnyc]

So are you saying that a Court is the definitive authority on determining who a Terrorist is?

You've heard my stance on torture, how it should/could be defined and who can possibly oversee any unification. NOTHING you say will change my stance on whether or not known terrorists should be tortured or if they should be afforded any protections. So stop with the "So you are saying..." shit that is not surprisingly followed by a statement I never even came close to saying.

[gabosaurus]

So terrorism is not terrorism if the U.S. does it?
When a terrorist group announces that it has tortured a prisoner, people scream bloody murder and want vengeance. But when the Bushies tortured prisoners, it was a necessary act that saved lives. Despite the fact that there has never been any proof of such.
Bush and Cheney were war criminals, pure and simple. Cheney was known to enjoy watching film of interrogations. I often wondered how often he had to wipe off his TV screen after waterboardings. There is no telling how many captured soldiers suffered in retaliation for their acts. Not that any of the Bushies cared. It was their war and they were proud of it, carnage and all.

[Pagan]

You've heard my stance on torture, how it should/could be defined and who can possibly oversee any unification. NOTHING you say will change my stance on whether or not known terrorists should be tortured or if they should be afforded any protections. So stop with the "So you are saying..." shit that is not surprisingly followed by a statement I never even came close to saying.

Then answer the very simple and direct question

"Who defines who's a Terrorist and how?"

Why do you continue to evade it?

[SassyLady]

So terrorism is not terrorism if the U.S. does it?
When a terrorist group announces that it has tortured a prisoner, people scream bloody murder and want vengeance. But when the Bushies tortured prisoners, it was a necessary act that saved lives. Despite the fact that there has never been any proof of such.
Bush and Cheney were war criminals, pure and simple. Cheney was known to enjoy watching film of interrogations. I often wondered how often he had to wipe off his TV screen after waterboardings. There is no telling how many captured soldiers suffered in retaliation for their acts. Not that any of the Bushies cared. It was their war and they were proud of it, carnage and all.

So, Gabby, do you think the terrorists tortured people to get information to save lives? Or, do you think they tortured people to cause fear and terror so they can have control? Or to further their religious/cultural beliefs?

If you cannot see the difference, then I know you've lost your soul.

[Pagan]

So, Gabby, do you think the terrorists tortured people to get information to save lives? Or, do you think they tortured people to cause fear and terror so they can have control? Or to further their religious/cultural beliefs?

If you cannot see the difference, then I know you've lost your soul.

Those who torture, support and defend torture have lost their soul.

[NightTrain]

Arf! Arf ruff ruff arf!

What's that, girl? Sarah fell down the well?

Growwwwlll!! Rrrrruff! Yap yap yap!

You say Dubya was Evil? And Cheney, too? It was all about the Oiilllll?

Yorrrph yarf! Rowwlf yip! yarp yarp yarp!

Gabby, you mean to say that we're the real terrorists?

You need to be put down.

[SassyLady]

Those who torture, support and defend torture have lost their soul.

Perhaps ... those who torture based on religion or to control through fear, as opposed to gaining information to save others, is a slam dunk. I think it would be worth sacrificing my soul to save innocents.

[abso]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_s...inian_conflict

http://www.cnsnews.com/node/16208

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/0...icide-bombings

I am not wrong.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingt...n&pqatl=google

it does happen, but not on daily basis as you think, its not a common thing to happen, because families which are willing to allow their kids to join the war are rare, but your logic to generalize that practice is what i am against, you cant deny that many palestinians are against that practice.

From your first link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_s...inian_conflict

This deliberate involvement of children in armed conflict has been condemned by international organisations and certain Palestinian groups.

Major Palestinian armed groups, including Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, have publicly disavowed the use of children in military operations, but those stated policies have not always been implemented. Some leaders, including representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, have said that they consider children of 16 to be adults.

-----------------------------------------------------

so some of them consider 16 to be adult, while you consider 18 to be adult, then my question is, who can define who is and who isnt an adult ???, why should someone follow your own definition which is over 18, instead of their definition which is over 16 ?

i am not saying that i support those bombing, i dont support them even if the bomber is 30 or 40, i am just debating about the child using part which you stated.

i dont deny that some get used in the operations, but not very often, and not on daily basis, its rare to find a family that accepts to let her childs fight.

and instead of just saying that they are being used, you should ask, why and how can they convince teenagers to detonate themselfs, WHY would a teenager accept that ?

Again from the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_s...Indoctrination

According to emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine Vamik Volkan,

Most suicide bombers in the Middle East are chosen as teenagers, “educated,” and then sent off to perform their duty when they are in their late teens or early to mid-twenties. The "education" is most effective when religious elements of the large-group identity are provided as solutions for the personal sense of helplessness, shame, and humiliation. Replacing borrowed elements sanctioned by God for one’s internal world makes that person omnipotent and supports the individual’s narcissism. I found that there was little difficulty in finding young men interested in becoming suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Repeated actual and expected events humiliate youngsters and interfere with their adaptive identifications with their parents because their parents are humiliated as well.<SUP id=cite_ref-Volkan_7-0 class=reference></SUP>

Volkan gives the examples of beatings, torture, or the loss of a parent as typical humiliating events which might make a young person more susceptible to recruitment for suicide terrorism.

--------------------------------------------------------------

[abso]

Perhaps ... those who torture based on religion or to control through fear, as opposed to gaining information to save others, is a slam dunk. I think it would be worth sacrificing my soul to save innocents.

yes it would

[abso]

Then answer the very simple and direct question

"Who defines who's a Terrorist and how?"

Why do you continue to evade it?

Pagan, i think he answered your question many times already, so there is no need to post it again and again and again .......................

you should have already stopped doing that when he said "SOLID PROOF"

instead of asking who defines a terrorist again, you should discuss the means to identify that proof, and verify it, not to get us back to stage number 1 again, which is the definition of the terrorist.

lets discuss the evidence them, lets say if he caught wearing a bomb and trying to detonate it, that would be hard evidence, in such case i agree with torturing him to know who helped him to stop furthur future operations.

i say that if someone was caught driving a car full of bombs, that guy could be classified as terrorist, and should be tortured if he refuses to give information about the origin of the bombs.

there are alot of ways to positively identify a terrorist, the only case that we shouldnt use torture in it, is if we have no solid proof, if the proof is just based on the word of another identified terrorist who may have given us a false info while he was under torture, so we cant torture someone basing it on the words of another terrorist, he may give us the name of an innocent, we need a proof more solid that that, or a confession from the person himself that he has helped them in anyway.

please dont get us back again to the first question, i really got bored from reading it over and over and over, and reading the same answer from jim, start discussing his answer instead of saying that the same answer applies for covert ops, we all know that covert ops may be considered as terrorist operations, but they usualy dont get caught to decide if we should torture them or not, so just skip that part.