Bush: "We Do Not Torture"

[Yrkoon]

SNIP

I refuse to address the ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT NON-POINT about whether or not our congress or the defense department has seen the THOUSANDS of torture photos that our army has.

 

I promise that I WILL address this ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT NON-POINT as soon as you ANSWER the 4 ON TOPIC questions I have been posing to you and you have been refusing to answer for the last 2 pages. Get to them.

[kumquatq3]

SNIP

I refuse to address the ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT NON-POINT about whether or not our congress or the defense department has seen the THOUSANDS of torture photos that our army has.

 

I promise that I WILL address this ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT NON-POINT as soon as you ANSWER the 4 ON TOPIC questions I have been posing to you and you have been refusing to answer for the last 2 pages. Get to them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

OK, you know why you won't address it? The point from serveral posts back now that has been repeatedly asked?

 

THE ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT?

 

 

Because it one of the MANY lies you have posted in your crazed effort to make some kind of point

Edited November 15, 2005 by kumquatq3

[kumquatq3]

There is no evidence showing the prisoners that the US tortured were part of the Iraqi Intelligence Service so that argument is null and void.  Besides the government that sanctioned the torture of those US prisoners was deposed by us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

but my arguement was, in response to the question as to why torture charges were nto brought, is because it would be too damn hard to prove. Too many loop holes, the trial would take forever.

 

 

So they got them on several related charges

Edited November 15, 2005 by kumquatq3

[kumquatq3]

PLEASE STOP AVODING OUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT:

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Judge Hades]

They should just outlaw all torture and make it apply to every US agency, and specify what exactly is torture. Torture, in my book, is the deliberate or negligent physical or mental harm of another. It needs to be outlawed.

[kumquatq3]

They should just outlaw all torture and make it apply to every US agency, and specify what exactly is torture.  Torture, in my book, is the deliberate or negligent physical or mental harm of another.  It needs to be outlawed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But you have to be careful.

 

I mean, isn't imprisoning someone causing them deliberate mental harm?

Edited November 15, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Judge Hades]

Depends on the mores of one's society. If the purpose of imprisonment is to introduce rehabitation of the prisoner so that he can become a positive contributor of society, no. If the purpose of the imprisonment is to isolate the prison from all human contact, yes.

[kumquatq3]

Depends on the mores of one's society.  If the purpose of imprisonment is to introduce rehabitation of the prisoner so that he can become a positive contributor of society, no.  If the purpose of the imprisonment is to isolate the prison from all human contact, yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, wouldn't that depend on the prisoners metal status?

 

but it's not just that. You could argue your definition covers LOTS of things we view as legal.

 

what about legal police interrogations? Or hell, maybe even an audit!

 

The death penalty, in case your for it, would be out of the question

[Judge Hades]

If the US wasn't the same as Hitler or Stalin we wouldn't have destroyed and decimated an entire culture and people. There is more blood on the foundations of the US than there ever was on Nazi Germany.

[Judge Hades]

The death penalty, in case your for it, would be out of the question

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not if it is done painlessly. Obviously death by the electric chair is out but lethal injection is the most painless way to execute a prisoner and least violent.

[kumquatq3]

The death penalty, in case your for it, would be out of the question

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not if it is done painlessly. Obviously death by the electric chair is out but lethal injection is the most painless way to execute a prisoner and least violent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You don't think KNOWING the goverment is going to kill you won't cause a person "deliberate mental harm"?

[kumquatq3]

my point is just that it's not that easy to get a good legal definition

 

EDIT: thats not to say I don't expect that the people we pay to do these things shouldn't have the responsibilty to do just that.

 

I just acknowledge that it's hard

Edited November 15, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Yrkoon]

You're Wrong. Both Iraq, and Afghanistan are high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions. Check your facts.

ooo, I guess you didn't know that if you don't meet your Geneva convention conditions, you essential break the treaty

Oh what a friggin DODGE! a page ago you claimed this:

But Iraq wasn't part of either Geneva convention. So, legally, they can't have POWs. Hence you can't convict under such laws or, at least, it would be hell to prove.

Contrary to your absurd claim, They are in fact, a high contracting party to the Geneva convention. Oh and to address your dodge specifically, It doesn't matter in the slightest if 1 contracting party in a conflict fails to follow the conventions...the other contracting party is still required to abide by it. Thus, if saddam hwas having his troops attack from civilian areas, we are STILL required to treat captured Iraqis as POWS. CHECK. YOUR FACTS.

 

Since Iraq did not apply the protections of the Geneva Conventions to American POW's throughout Gulf War I (e.g. abuse of 17 American POW's at the now-infamous Abu Ghraib, by the Iraq Intelligence Service)

 

and Gulf War II (e.g. the well-known story of Jessica Lynch's unit), it may be argued that Iraq lost its protections under these particular documents

Did you know... that EVEN if one of the Powers in a conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it? I bet you didn't, but I bet a a simple google search will enlighten you and prevent you from talking about stuff you know NOTHING about.

 

Incidently, as I'm sure everyone ELSE is aware, the alleged Jessica Lynch "mistreatment" story has already been debunked several times over. Including once by Jessica Herself

 

...reports indicated that she had been raped.

 

She said she had no recollection of the attack. "Even just the thinking about that, that's too painful," she told interviewer Diane Sawyer.

 

Initial reports suggested that Miss Lynch had been abused after she came round in the hospital. She says that again was untrue - there was no mistreatment, and one nurse used to sing to her.

 

Really, kumquatq3....

Edited November 15, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Judge Hades]

That is why we have expert lawmakers who need to do their jobs and lay it all out, then give it to the Supreme Court to make sure its constitutional.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You don't think KNOWING the goverment is going to kill you won't cause a person "deliberate mental harm"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats something they wanted to do. Put someone in a cell and just kill them one night in their sleep. It was deemed as cruel and unusual punishment.

[kumquatq3]

snip

 

Learn to use quotes if you want me to read what you write, but I'll leave you with this:

 

PLEASE STOP AVODING OUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT:

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited November 15, 2005 by kumquatq3

[kumquatq3]

That is why we have expert lawmakers who need to do their jobs and lay it all out, then give it to the Supreme Court to make sure its constitutional. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, but I was just saying how your definition, while practical in alot of situations, isn't complete

 

 

Also remember we have several treaties to meet, in terms of our definitions. Under all sorts of different senerios.

[Yrkoon]

You don't think KNOWING the goverment is going to kill you won't cause a person "deliberate mental harm"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats something they wanted to do. Put someone in a cell and just kill them one night in their sleep. It was deemed as cruel and unusual punishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hell, why wait until nighttime and kill them in their sleep? why not just Interrogate them to death in 90 minutes

 

Fantastic way to get vital information to prevent the next massive terrorist attack, don't you think?

[Musopticon?]

Is this THE infamous Yrkoon?

[kumquatq3]

Fantastic way to get vital information to prevent the next massive terrorist attack, don't you think?

 

No, they could just lie:

 

PLEASE STOP AVODING OUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT:

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Yrkoon]

Learn to use quotes if you want me to read what you write, but I'll leave you with this:

 

All my posts are accurately utilizing the quote feature. In the rare instances where I have hit the submit button before double checking to make sure they were, I have edited them and fixed the problem within 2 or 3 minutes time.

 

Stop whining.

 

By the way, Jay Bybee is a HE..isn't he.

[Yrkoon]

Fantastic way to get vital information to prevent the next massive terrorist attack, don't you think?

 

No, they could just lie:

 

PLEASE STOP AVODING OUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT:

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just a question. What difference, exactly does it make whether or not Thousands of unreleased torture photos (cited by rumsfeld on the senate floor, btw) were actually in the Defense department's hands?

 

Hmm?

 

Why in the WORLD, are you ignoring the MASSIVE multi point rebuttals to your every argument and just clinging to this ABSOLTELY irrelevant...thing?

 

Hmm?

[kumquatq3]

By the way, Jay Bybee is a HE..isn't he.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I already said I made a mistake on that point

 

 

unlike you, I can admit them.

 

But I'll start you off small:

 

Is "Severe" in the legal definition of torture or is that still BS?

 

 

then work your way to:

 

PLEASE STOP AVODING OUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT:

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Musopticon?]

By the way, Jay Bybee is a HE..isn't he.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I already said I made a mistake on that point

 

 

unlike you, I can admit them.

 

But I'll start you off small:

<snip>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hah, Yrkoon's "You forgot Poland", eh?

[Yrkoon]

By the way, Jay Bybee is a HE..isn't he.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I already said I made a mistake on that point

 

 

unlike you, I can admit them.

 

But I'll start you off small:

 

Is "Severe" in the legal definition of torture or is that still BS?

 

 

then work your way to:

 

PLEASE STOP AVODING OUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT:

 

You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them

 

While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is:

 

"Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control."

 

"Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of:

 

"For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme"

 

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I already addressed this. Scroll up.

 

(yes, I'm commenting on your blindness.)