RE: intel or law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DarlingSavage -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 7:52:27 AM)

quote:

And I'm not giving any excuses or reasons for.
Just stating the obvious.


Where did you get these numbers?



Kana -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 8:06:26 AM)

What numbers?
I never quoted any.
All I said was that out of the millions who have been tortured, it a would be statistical anomaly of cosmic proportions for one of them not to have confessed the truth.
I entered this forum basically on a whim, basically because I hate to see hyperbole used in a debate.  Using hyperbole weakens arguments, when people start throwing around broad generalities such as never, it becomes difficult to take their points seriously because it is  generally fairly easy to poke holes in the logic, and once one part of a statement is proven untrue, it brings into doubt the validity of the remainder.



Thadius -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 8:14:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

A lot of interesting questions-

For instance, Ronald Reagan signed a treaty that forced the United States to prosecute any government anywhere if it engaged in torture.

Awkward silence ensues.....

Just curious, which treaty and did congress ratify it?



philosophy -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 8:33:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy




.......thing is Rich, how many principles have to be sacrificed? And after you go down that road for a while, aren't you betraying what you sought to protect in the first place?



Nope.


...well, as i think we both would accept, we don't see eye to eye on this subject. However would you explain your position a little more?
i've tried to lay out why i believe as i do, why do you believe as you do?



AnimusRex -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 9:45:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
Just curious, which treaty and did congress ratify it?



Glenn Greenwald was and continues to be all over this issue. Sample quote:

"Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification:


The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.


Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law."

I am too lazy to research whether the Convention was ratified or not. If they did, all to the good; if they didn't, and someone wants to hang their hat on that, then first they will have to accept the fact that St. Ronaldus Magnus was a cowardly terrorist appeaser.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:08:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

but you never get useful and truthful intel from torture.


Oh c'mon...never? Not once in the history of the world has anyone gotten anything reliable from torture?
I seriously doubt that.

(And this is said taking no side on the question under debate)



Its good you doubt it, because its total bullshit.



Jeffff -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:12:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

but you never get useful and truthful intel from torture.


Oh c'mon...never? Not once in the history of the world has anyone gotten anything reliable from torture?
I seriously doubt that.

(And this is said taking no side on the question under debate)



Its good you doubt it, because its total bullshit.



Of course it is, because besides economics and physics you are an expert in interrogation too.

I will wait for you to cite something..... anything really.

You will now respond with, " I don't have any interest in proving something to you"

Then you will go on to another thread and spew more nonsense.

Thanks for stopping by!



mnottertail -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:13:36 AM)

note the ususal proof citation and astute, insightful and detailed pronouncement from the laffer curve master.



pahunkboy -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:16:00 AM)

ahh.  but the government needs more power and control.

MO  MO  MORRRRRRRRRRRRE



willbeurdaddy -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:21:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy




.......thing is Rich, how many principles have to be sacrificed? And after you go down that road for a while, aren't you betraying what you sought to protect in the first place?



Nope.


...well, as i think we both would accept, we don't see eye to eye on this subject. However would you explain your position a little more?
i've tried to lay out why i believe as i do, why do you believe as you do?


I already have. Moral equivalency cannot possibly exist. If your moral code is superior then defending it sometimes forces you to employ actions antithetical to that code or your self-imposed limitations will defeat you in the long run. Survival is the number one principle, and trumps all others.



philosophy -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:22:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana


Oh c'mon...never? Not once in the history of the world has anyone gotten anything reliable from torture?
I seriously doubt that.





...it's entirely possible that, at least once, something useful was gleaned from torture. However it's also possible that, at least once, Wilbe has admitted making a mistake. However, both events are extremely unlikely and not worth the effort.



philosophy -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:23:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I already have. Moral equivalency cannot possibly exist. If your moral code is superior then defending it sometimes forces you to employ actions antithetical to that code or your self-imposed limitations will defeat you in the long run. Survival is the number one principle, and trumps all others.



....ahh, that old canard, 'the operation was a success but the patient died' hypothesis.



Musicmystery -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:25:01 AM)

That's why I believe every person on the planet should be tortured at least once a year.

We're bound to learn something from at least one person, and that makes it all worthwhile.

[8|][:-]



AnimusRex -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:32:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
Oh c'mon...never? Not once in the history of the world has anyone gotten anything reliable from torture?
I seriously doubt that.


good point- here is an example:
Faced with the prospect of waterboarding and other "harsh interrogation" techniques, the suspect broke and provided the Truth...

"I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity throughout the entire Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and these His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.

I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.

I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.



Proof once again, Torture Works!


[image]local://upfiles/280232/694E2C12119C4343A3D0341BB1D09BDF.jpg[/image]



Kana -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:32:58 AM)

Grins
I knew this slave once
Torture her hard enough, she would crack and admit how much it turned her on...which it really did.
Does that count?



AnimusRex -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:37:31 AM)

Now, what to do with all those "Rightwing Terrorists"?

Hmmmm...

[image]local://upfiles/280232/086CD53B4A5F4FE296C2C255773007FE.jpg[/image]



willbeurdaddy -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 10:40:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I already have. Moral equivalency cannot possibly exist. If your moral code is superior then defending it sometimes forces you to employ actions antithetical to that code or your self-imposed limitations will defeat you in the long run. Survival is the number one principle, and trumps all others.



....ahh, that old canard, 'the operation was a success but the patient died' hypothesis.


Not sure whether you are intending to do so, but that supports my position. You can hold on to a precious limb to keep your body intact, or you can sacrifice it to keep the cancer from spreading and killing you.



DarlingSavage -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 11:07:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I already have. Moral equivalency cannot possibly exist. If your moral code is superior then defending it sometimes forces you to employ actions antithetical to that code or your self-imposed limitations will defeat you in the long run. Survival is the number one principle, and trumps all others.



....ahh, that old canard, 'the operation was a success but the patient died' hypothesis.


Not sure whether you are intending to do so, but that supports my position. You can hold on to a precious limb to keep your body intact, or you can sacrifice it to keep the cancer from spreading and killing you.


You've got to be kidding me! Nothing warrants torture! It's called human rights abuses.




AnimusRex -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 11:24:39 AM)

DarlingSavage, You sound like that pussy liberal, Ronald Reagan.

Like, we had to torture that undie bomber guy, to get him to talk.

Well, ok, actually he talked even after they read him his Miranda rights, without torture.

But still, we had to torture the OK City bombers to...well, not them, but we had to torture the first WTC bombers back 1993, or....well ok, they weren't, and were convicted in a criminal trial in New York.

But you see my point- that we have to torture, to get info. Or something like that.



DarlingSavage -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 12:43:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

DarlingSavage, You sound like that pussy liberal, Ronald Reagan.

Like, we had to torture that undie bomber guy, to get him to talk.

Well, ok, actually he talked even after they read him his Miranda rights, without torture.

But still, we had to torture the OK City bombers to...well, not them, but we had to torture the first WTC bombers back 1993, or....well ok, they weren't, and were convicted in a criminal trial in New York.

But you see my point- that we have to torture, to get info. Or something like that.


Oh, I see now. Why, yes, that all makes perfect sense, then, when you put it like that.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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