RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Sinergy -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:22:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

No I don't.  I see where Bush has incarcerrated illegal combatants and those suspected of committing or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S.  This AGAIN goes back to that famous prior thread when we got into a protracted discussion about trying terrorists in State courts.  So...you are wrong to compare this country to Nazi Germany.  Period.  Why don't you have the moral courage to admit you are wrong (just like on the UDHR issue) and get away from it?  Why Fargle?  Why oh why?  LOLOLOLOL like I really care.  You wanna compare this country to Nazi Germany?  Many hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives for you to have the right to spew such stupidity.


You forgot the word "alleged" before the word incarcerated.  You also forgot to mention that said individuals were denied due process and dealt with on a military installation outside of the United States.  farglebargle's point is that the Constitution and Bill Of Rights does not state "except terrorists or people we do not like."  It states "All people."

Sinergy



farglebargle -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:23:27 PM)

quote:


There are people now moving out of Iraq because they fear what things will be like when the US withdraws,


They're leaving because it's sucked pretty bad for the past 4 years, and it ain't going to get any better.




lockedaway -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:31:20 PM)

Go to bed.  This is the same thread as the aforementioned, word for word.  It is pathetic.   



Aswad -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:33:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Oh, so now you want to discuss War? Get back to me when Congress declares one.


Good point. Someone once made a comment to that effect, a Marine in fact. It went along the lines of: "What, there's a war going on? That's odd, because non of my buddies have called me up to say 'Hey, devil dog! Suit up, we're riding out. Hooyah!', and they would."

quote:

Torturers do not have a "Right To Life". They are a Cancer on civilization.


Two wrongs do not make a right. How is depriving them of their right to live, for reasons you consider just, any different from them depriving others of their right not to be tortured, for reasons they consider just?

Do you have the One True Way(tm) and a right to determine who has a right to live and not?

Because that point of view is just what I would say is a part of the problem with the current administration, as well as having been the problem with the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Nanking Massacre, and any number of other atrocities where one side felt they had the One True Way(tm) and could decide who had a right to live and not.

There are many cancers on civilization, just as there are many in your body at any given time. The real problem is when they overpower the immune system.

Be part of the solution, not the problem.

quote:

You can rationalize *any* act, if you try hard enough.


Perhaps you can, but I cannot.

And in the majority of cases, rationalization is just a tool people use to desensitize themselves to the horror of the things they do, one they start employing after having crossed the line.

quote:

Are you saying you're happy to only be HALF as evil as Saddam Hussein?


Given your insistence on applying the term "evil", how would you quantify it, exactly?

Every day of your life, a zillion different organisms die, and you choose which ones. The extent to which that choice is conscious, the extent to which the effects are direct, and the extent to which this includes humans, will vary. Such a thing can only stop being the case when all life is extinct, something I would not care to advocate.

As the Buddhists realized, but IMO got a bit wrong, suffering is a part of life. One we cannot escape without ending existance itself, although we can try to mitigate it.

Assuming there is such a things as "half as evil" (if there weren't, you'd be equally evil, as death and suffering are inherent in your existance), is it okay to be a third as "evil"? A tenth? A hundredth? What fraction of that level of "evil" is okay?

quote:

EVIL is EVIL. If you are NOT GOOD, YOU ARE EVIL.


This is what Nietzsche (apparently correctly) identified as the mechanism of what he called "slave morality" ...

When morality starts with a perception of "evil", and defines "good" in opposition to it.

Most of what one would consider "evil" in the Old Testament is being presented as "good" in opposition to the "evil" of other cultures, i.e. their budding faith was defining its tenets in terms of not being "the other guy".



lockedaway -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:34:59 PM)

The word "alleged" would go before the word illegal.  No, neither the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence applies to the illegals.  You were part of this thread too, do you recall?  The pertinent body of law is The Hague Convention.  That was well established and re-hashing this point is a fruitless and moronic waste of time.



Aswad -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:35:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKitty

Unless you're "Beyond Good and Evil."


I love that. Pity it was lost on him.



SardonicAss -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:37:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Torture is predicated on the deprivation of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law.

To strip someone of those Rights, you must consider them alienable, as in, not absolute, nor granted us by our creator. Simply because there has BEEN NO PROTECTION OF THE LAW nor DUE PROCESS.

If you get picked up in NYS for a crime, you are arraigned within 72 hours. That is because we have an unalienable right to liberty. That right is protected by requiring the Government to use ONLY Due Process, and apply the laws Equally.

By saying that someone else gets DIFFERENT RIGHTS than anyone in New York, well, there is no act *more* antithetical to the spirit and letter of the Declaration of Independence.

Torturers Hate American Values. Period.

They are Evil. We cannot be GOOD and condone Evil.

It *is* that cut and dried.




Ohhhhhhh just because I'm bored and like to argue. . . .

Hey fargle, the terrorists and suspected terrorists don't believe in 'our creator' or even respect that we have one. So our creator is not their creator. OUR creator gave us inalienable rights. They reject said creator so 'technically' they can't have those rights in this country, now can they?



Sinergy -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:47:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

The word "alleged" would go before the word illegal.  No, neither the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence applies to the illegals.  You were part of this thread too, do you recall?  The pertinent body of law is The Hague Convention.  That was well established and re-hashing this point is a fruitless and moronic waste of time.


I agree completely.  The Hague Convention applies to "terrorists."  Thank you for making that lucid point.

From the Hague Convention.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

Before trashing it as a liberal nonsense web site, that would be the web site from the school that AnencephalyBoy got his education from.

I had almost given up completely about your reasoning (or lack thereof) skills.

CHAPTER II
Prisoners of War
Art. 4.
Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them.
They must be humanely treated.
All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property.

Humanely treated vs. enhanced interrogation techniques.
 
Discuss.

Art. 5.
Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or other place, and bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits, but they cannot be confined except as in indispensable measure of safety and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist.

We are at war against a tactic, not a specific enemy.

Discuss.
 
Art. 7.
The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance.
In the absence of a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who captured them.

Compare and contrast treatment of Gitmo prisoners vs. soldiers serving in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
 
CHAPTER III
The Sick and Wounded
Art. 21.
The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention.

Please describe how this applies to tortured prisoners at Gitmo.
 
Do a search on the name Omar Khadr if you are clueless about how injured soldiers are treated
 
I look forward to your lucid analysis.
 
Sinergy
 
p.s. Next time you come to a discussion and start throwing terms and treaties and words you dont really understand, expect to be called on them and come out looking like a doofus.



lockedaway -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:55:12 PM)

"CHAPTER II
Prisoners of War
Art. 4.
Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them.
They must be humanely treated.
All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property."

They aren't prisoners of war, they are illegal combatants.  Do you remember we had this discussion about 6 weeks ago?  "Doofus"  is that the word you used?  Nyuck, Nycuk....Synergy!



Aswad -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:55:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I do not think that Nietzche's criticism of Catholic Morality is really relevant in my case, being a Jew.


You're missing a lot of the different points of Nietzsche's writings.

And it applies equally well to a Jew.

Bear in mind that, for instance, if the Jewish faith is pronounced to be "under siege" (i.e. oppressed), then not observing the requirements to stone someone to death for failing to uphold every commandment of Leviticus will be a sin equivalent to murder.

quote:

And Our G-d, the Old Testament G-d, he doesn't mess around. It's really clear cut what Evil is.


From a deontic and moral absolutist point of view, that may be so. Not everyone follows the same faith, however, nor does everyone interpret the human records of dieties in the same way, nor does everyone believe in a morally absolutist point of view.

If you must apply a label to me, I'll give you a tongue twister: I'm a neoabrahamic pseudognostic.

In short, I believe in G*d, presumably the same one you do. I interpret His commandments and so forth in a very different way, however.

If it is so clear cut what Evil is, then please do explain it to us. The Torah has offered many examples of things that are undesireable, unacceptable, or even תֹּועֵבָה. It has not, however, given a satisfactory, clear cut explanation of what is Evil. It has certainly made it abundantly clear that massacring a people for various reasons is acceptable, if you have G*d at your back, which many people have claimed to have.

As I said before, Leviticus pretty much lists every practice the Caananites had that wasn't shared with Moses' group as being unacceptable, requiring the death penalty for a great number of them. It is not for no reason that when, later on, the nazarene said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", none did so, even though the Temple stood.

If you have personally received your messages directly from G*d, please do tell. Otherwise, you are stuck in the same situation as the rest of the Abrahamic fates: resigned to either make unsupported claims of having the One True Way(tm), or going my way of being a bit more careful about it and trying to sort through the confusing mess that humans have left behind as remnants of His will. Even the Hebrew version of the תּוֹרָה is a translation of older translations, and the passing of time has left the potential for significant redactions and loss of transmission to occur.

I will propose to you a simple experiment if you disagree with my contention that the divine message has degraded over time. I'll dub it "Rabbi's Whispers". Have your Rabbi verbally pass a message that contains a translation of the תּוֹרָה into, let's say, Arameic, onto someone of good standing attending your synagogue. Have them memorize it as best as they can, then pass it on to another, and so forth, for 10 links. See how much sense the original message contains.

If it hasn't degraded, you may have found yourself a convert here.



lockedaway -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 7:57:42 PM)

Oh...I'm sorry synergy.  It ISN'T the Hague Convention that applies, it is the Geneva Convention!  My mistake.  But you remember that it was the Genevan Convention, right?  You were highly involved in that thread, weren't you?



Sinergy -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 8:00:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Oh...I'm sorry synergy.  It ISN'T the Hague Convention that applies, it is the Geneva Convention!  My mistake.  But you remember that it was the Genevan Convention, right?  You were highly involved in that thread, weren't you?


That would be the "Geneva" Convention. since it was signed in the city of Geneva.

Thank you for clarifying it was your mistake.

Sinergy



Sinergy -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 8:03:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

"CHAPTER II
Prisoners of War
Art. 4.
Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them.
They must be humanely treated.
All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property."

They aren't prisoners of war, they are illegal combatants.  Do you remember we had this discussion about 6 weeks ago?  "Doofus"  is that the word you used?  Nyuck, Nycuk....Synergy!


Weird.

I dont find "illegal combatant" in the Geneva Convention.

Accordingly, how exactly does it apply?

Discuss.

Sinergy

p.s.  Perhaps you prefer ignoramus to doofus?



lockedaway -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 8:03:52 PM)

Right...so the Geneva Convention is what applies to unlawful combatants and that is the well spring of their rights, not the U.S. Consitution, not the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights, not the UDHR, not synergy's personal opinion's or his good buddy Fargle. :)



Aswad -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 8:04:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Well, it's a MORAL stance, isn't it. If your personal and subjective moral core *isn't* absolute, then how can it form the foundation of your individual moral acts?


An answer to this would be beyond the scope of the post.

Instead, please find the answer by studying the philosophical schools of moral relativism and moral absolutism, the latter with particular attention to deontism. Further, include a study of the general philosophy of ethics, formal systems, and moral development models (some, myself included, favour Kohlberg & Gilligan in this regard).

If not, suffice to say that moral absolutism is not a necessary foundation for individual moral judgement and moral acts.

quote:

We *have* *exactly* the society we deserve.


If that is the case, couldn't that argument be applied to the effect that the people tortured by the US get exactly the treatment they deserve?

I'd disagree with the assertion, but I think your statement can be logically carried to the conclusion of making the assertion, which is part of the reason I disagree with it. Quite simply, we have exactly what we have, no more, no less, and attempting to say that we "deserve" it is futile. I'd suggest sticking with saying that each should do what s/he can to change it into what we want, what we need, or what we think we deserve.

quote:

We need to try harder to be Good.


Always.

But I would take it one step further, and make it a bit more general, to say:

We must always strive to better ourselves.


Which is a different statement, of course, but one that I believe to be a lot more central to the true spirit of the Torah, and indeed virtually every faith, as well as most secular philosophies. As many have stated before, spirituality transcends religion.



Sinergy -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 8:09:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

Right...so the Geneva Convention is what applies to unlawful combatants and that is the well spring of their rights, not the U.S. Consitution, not the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights, not the UDHR, not synergy's personal opinion's or his good buddy Fargle. :)


That would be the point you are diligently trying to make, with limited success.

The name is Sinergy, not Synergy.

Sinergy



farglebargle -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 8:11:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SardonicAss


Ohhhhhhh just because I'm bored and like to argue. . . .

Hey fargle, the terrorists and suspected terrorists don't believe in 'our creator' or even respect that we have one.


1) it doesn't say "YOUR CREATOR", it says "their Creator"

2) Everyone has a Creator. For Atheists, it's their Mommy.

3) They're not unalienable if you're taking them away.






farglebargle -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 8:14:58 PM)

quote:


We are at war against a tactic, not a specific enemy.


We're not At War with ANYONE or ANYTHING, until Congress declares it.

Even dumbass Alberto Gonzales got that right, on the record.




farglebargle -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 8:17:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

"CHAPTER II
Prisoners of War
Art. 4.
Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them.
They must be humanely treated.
All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property."

They aren't prisoners of war, they are illegal combatants. Do you remember we had this discussion about 6 weeks ago? "Doofus" is that the word you used? Nyuck, Nycuk....Synergy!


How is that different from a "Person", as in "any person in US Jurisdiction"?




Aswad -> RE: "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. (5/31/2007 8:21:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

No, if I'm going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to give it to the service personnel that has to deal with these terrorists.


Rather than providing an argument, let me extend yours.

Why do you have courts and trials?

If you extend the benefit of the doubt to the service personell who deal with terrorists (or presumed terrorists, but that's irrelevant to the argument, why do you not confer this benefit of the doubt on the service personell who deal with criminals?

If you place less stock in the police than you do in military officers engaged in torture, why have you not rid yourself of the police? They carry weapons in your streets, are allowed to employ lethal force under the right circumstances (which they'll be judging on the spot), and generally pose a serious problem if they don't generally do their jobs right.

Could it be that service personell, of any kind, are only human, and thus bound to make mistakes that need to be caught?

If you make a single mistake in torturing someone presumed to be a terrorist (for this part of the argument, "presumed" makes a difference), you have tortured an innocent foreign national. That's a hostile act, and a host of other things besides.

One must assume that, if the police can make mistakes on friendly territory, with every reason to be careful, with greater resources at their disposal, and dealing with the people they are charged to protect, then the military can make mistakes too.

If it is acceptable to torture innocent foreign nationals, which will by this argument happen, when not actually experiencing significant hostile activity on one's native soil, how can one make the argument that "innocent until proven guilty" is viable as an aspect of the judicial system, nationally? Why not just round up all the "likely suspects" and lock them up or kill them? It would most likely lower crime rates a lot, which would make a lot greater impact on the safety of every citizen of the USA than these foreign efforts can be optimistically be said by the military itself to do.

Besides which, by all accounts, the "war on terror" is nothing more than a life-support system for terrorism; if you look at the current government, their actions, the things that underlie terrorism, the terrorists themselves, their actions, and compare to how others have been living with terrorism for many years (IRA, ETA, Hizbollah, etc.), then there is a term in biology which applies perfectly:

Mutualism.

Feel free to look it up, if unfamiliar with the term.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875