THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Lightwizard wrote:

Let's see, the last twenty posts on this thread by Ican contain no links.

When I quote the posts of others in this forum, the implied link is to this forum in able2know.

I have neglected to re-mention my principal reference in my debate with InfraBlue. It is to "History of Palestine" at www.britannica.com

I have given that reference here several times before. The problem with that reference is that it costs about $65 per year to access such information as frequently as one chooses.

0 Replies

Thanks -- I subscribe to Britannica. I also click on links Blatham offers.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bush Policies Led to Abuse in Iraq ...

No, this is more correctly blamed on the adopters of the Fifth Ammendment to the US Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
...

Quote:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

One more time:

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

Under those rules, the difficult question for every war time president has been and continues to be: where shall we draw the line in our attempt to gain information that will save the lives of the innocent. We know that in this war, WWIII, the enemy, the TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers), are not co-signers of any convention much less the Geneva Convention. In a war such as this it is extremely diffficult to always correctly determine whether a captive is innocent, a defender of the innocent or a homicidal maniac. Yes, where do we draw the line when we are attempting to extract that information from a detainee we judge will save the lives of those we love?

Yes, this is truly WWIII!

Gelisgesti Posted:

Quote:

Al-Qaida Statement Warning Muslims Against Associating With The Crusaders And Idols
Jun 09, 2004
Translation By JUS
...

No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.
...

Al-Qaida Organization of the Arab Gulf
19 Rabbi Al-Akhir 1425

0 Replies

Quote:

Under those rules, the difficult question for every war time president has been and continues to be: where shall we draw the line in our attempt to gain information that will save the lives of the innocent. We know that in this war, WWIII, the enemy, the TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers), are not co-signers of any convention much less the Geneva Convention. In a war such as this it is extremely diffficult to always correctly determine whether a captive is innocent, a defender of the innocent or a homicidal maniac. Yes, where do we draw the line when we are attempting to extract that information from a detainee we judge will save the lives of those we love?

What is your purpose in posting this statement?

We all have read the news in recent weeks. We all know -- per John McCain among others -- that torture elicits no useful information but often comes up with falsified verbiage to get the torturee off the hook.

Why should we give up our principles and our beliefs expressed in the Geneva convention to a blanket foreswearing of same in order to find some few bits of info that might -- read will-not-happen -- elicit a few names and phone numbers that are dead ends.

0 Replies

The liberal media is trying to make it look like Americans are condoning torture. They aren't.

What is being debated here is the specific law that governs that kind of thing and that addresses some outrage at the misconception that we are engaging in it or condoning it.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

Quote:
Under those rules, ... save the lives of those we love?

What is your purpose in posting this statement?

We all have read the news in recent weeks. We all know -- per John McCain among others -- that torture elicits no useful information but often comes up with falsified verbiage to get the torturee off the hook.

My purpose should be obvious. It's to convince the pusillanimous among us that we can no longer ignore the reality that surrounds us. It's to convince the pusillanimous among us that good intentions are not enough to solve this problem. It's to convince the pusillanimous among us that they can no longer afford to be pusillanimous.

You write: "we all know." False! I for one don't know this. I don't believe you for one know this. I don't believe John McCain for one knows this to be true for anyone other than himself.

I know that information has already been elicited from these homicidal maniacs that has saved the lives of the innocent. You ought to know this too. Thus far in this damn war we have not yet experienced another 9/11/2001. Do you think those that have been incarcerated so far were incarcerated because they were directly witnessed to be attempting more maniacal homicides in the US, or were detected merely by asking detainees for such information?

It is plain that the TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers) plan to change our luck in extracting sufficient information in time. How do we know? Because the TMM have said and written so (see above), and because they have heretofore attempted or succeeded in doing exactly what they said they would do. Short of killing or maiming those homicidal maniacs, we should use force to cause them enough terror/pain/discomfort to tell us what we need to know to protect ourselves.

kara wrote:

Why should we give up our principles and our beliefs expressed in the Geneva convention to a blanket foreswearing of same in order to find some few bits of info that might -- read will-not-happen -- elicit a few names and phone numbers that are dead ends.

That is BS. Our principals and beliefs are first presented in our Declaration and Constitution. Our first principal is to secure the liberty of all innocent people.

Your question assumes falsities. I bet that you personally have zero information regarding what information has actually been extracted from these self-declared murderers of innocents who bare zero allegiance to the Geneva Convention. The principal reason for your and my not knowing is that such information must be extracted secretly in order to be effective. The Geneva Convention is a treaty we signed with other states. It is not a treaty we signed with those who expressly want us all dead; those who declare:

Quote:

... the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.

Do you not understand that one of the Crusaders they refer to is you? Yes, you!

Do you not understand that some of the Crusaders they refer to are those you love? Yes, those you love!

Do you understand that the Crusaders they refer to are not those westerners who conquered Palestine approximately 1000 years ago?

Do you understand that the Crusaders they refer to are all of us now who are not Muslims that obey TMM standards of Islam.

If you don't understand such, perhaps you might come to understand such if you interview the families of all the 9/11/2001 victims.

0 Replies

foxfyre said

Quote:

The liberal media is trying to make it look like Americans are condoning torture. They aren't.

This is what the Americans are doing. And they are doing it in prisons across Iraq and Afghanistan and at Gitmo. The documentation is now copious. The incidents are everywhere of a like nature, designed specifically for Arab POWs, and including the same acts. The linked piece by Danner is thorough, footnoted, and utterly compelling because it matches all the other evidence available from other sources. What stands in contrast is only claims from the administration and people like you that all this evidence ought to be ignored.

Folks here should read this piece thoroughly and with care. Check the footnotes. If you like, go to the earlier issue and find the first part of this essay. Then folks should read the Justice Department memos (carried in the Wash Post and New York Times) which advise that the President is not bound by either the Geneva Conventions or US military laws and codes, that torture is acceptable.

Your two sentences above are empty of any value. The first forwards the logical fallacy you consistently forward. The second is an ontological claim for which you offer no evidenciary basis, and which is contradicted by every photo out of Abu Ghraib and much documentary evidence and testimony.

Quote:

0 Replies

link here http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17190

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

link here http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17190

Despite my skepticism, I will assume this fellow was telling the truth.

Was he decapitated? No!
Was he otherwise murdered? No!
Was he maimed? No!
Was he judged to possess information about a threat or threats to the security of the liberty of the innocent? Yes!

Only if not yes, then all the perpetrators and aiders and abettors and comforters of the perpetrators should be incarcerated.

0 Replies

There is no doubt in anybody's mind that people in Abu Ghraib were treated badly. And it was not condoned. And those who did it are being tried and punished for what they did.

There is no doubt that strenuous interrogation tactics are being used to get whatever information is available from people believed to be terrorists or associated with terrorists.

I remain confident that our government has not condoned and does not practice tactics that cause undue pain, suffering, or mutilation of any prisoners. Will there be sadistic individuals who overstep their authority? Of course. There always have been and probably always will be. But with no more evidence than has been presented thus far I will not believe that this is a government policy, overt or covert.

The law is specific as to treatment of prisoners whether they be citizen criminals or prisoners of war. What was ruled is that these laws do not apply to non-citizen terrorists. They were technically saying that as far as the law is concerned for terrorists, there is no law prohibiting torture. The President, the attorney general, and other members of the administration are on record that they do not condone torture however.

Now the debate should be:

1. What exactly is torture? and

2. Is preventing another 9/11 worth making an avowed terrorist a bit uncomfortable, sleep deprived, embarrassed, frightened? Or is the comfort of that terrorist more important than hundred or thousands of innocent lives?

0 Replies

Zionists looking to establish an exclusive state and working towards that goal is an action. The establishment of Israel was the result of said action.

Zionists established a state whose by-laws demand the maintenance of a religious/ethnic character, a "Jewish" character. A candidate cannot run for a seat in its senate if he negates the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people (7A[1] of the Basic Law of the Knesset). The forced maintenance of a religious/ethnic "character" is ethnocentric exclusivism, suffrage notwithstanding.

Talking about "minorities of a group" and "majorities of a group," the "majority of the group" were not involved in the Arab riots in the 1920's. The rioters were a minority, just like the Zionists who assaulted Arabs were a "minority of a group." About what justifies what, I'll go further and say assault does not justify assault; assault does not justify murder; and murder does not justify murder. But both sides engaged in violent retaliation.

The war was largely a continuation of the violence between the Arab militants and the Zionist terrorists organizations Irgun Zeva'I Le'umi and Lohamei Herut. It was the terrorism of these two groups that finally drove the British out of Palestine, dumping their Palestine problem onto the nascent UN. These terrorist groups also concentrated their efforts on terrorizing the Arab populations out of areas of their control. Eventually they were absorbed into the Haganah, the Jewish defense force that pre-dated the IDF. The neighboring Arab countries sent in their armies in opposition of partition and in support of those Arabs in Palestine. Ben Gurion issued the order for Operation Dani [July 1948], the order for ethnic-cleansing. The order for ethnic cleansing came from the highest leadership of the Zionist organization, and it was carried out by the Zionist organization's military force. Many Arabs fled at the urging of their tribal leaders. Many were killed and driven out by terrorism perpetrated by the Zionist forces.

We're all living with the blunder of an imperialist power making promises of homelands to ideological extremists at the expense of native populations.

0 Replies

Quote:

I remain confident that our government has not condoned and does not practice tactics that cause undue pain, suffering, or mutilation of any prisoners. Will there be sadistic individuals who overstep their authority?

And so, how do I know that Ican and Fox (even aside from the time lapse) have chosen not to read Danner's piece nor gone to any of the footnoted links? Your confidence is built upon a poverty of information and a lack of courage to challenge your preferred beliefs. Both of you restrict your reading sources to a narrow band of palatable ideas and that too evident fact is reflected with repetition every day on every thread.

If either of you are truly interested in engaging the legal and moral questions of Abu Ghraib and of this administration's prosecution of prisoner treatment, you'll take on something like Dworkin HERE, and you'll take it on with dilligence.

If either of you are truly interested in engaging the facts of torture, you'll go back and read Danner's two essays, and refer to the footnotes.

I have no hope at all that either of you will take either step.

Quote:

These constraints of fair criminal procedure and these humane rules of war are important not just when a nation's constitution or its treaty obligations make them binding, but because a very large community of civilized nations thinks that either they or closely similar constraints are necessary to prevent criminal prosecution or war from becoming a crude sacrifice of some people for the sake of others, a sacrifice that would ravage rather than respect the idea of shared humanity.

from Dworkin

The claim and threat advanced by the administration is that those imprisoned and those not yet captured and held are out to destroy our freedoms and our values. But the fact and the irony is that they cannot do this. It can only be attempted by them. And it can only be accomplished by us ourselves.

0 Replies

Bush knew of the tortures in Iraq.
****************************
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6164.htm

0 Replies

I did read Danner's essays Blatham, twice now. And my opinion is not changed. There is enough there to support both Ican and my view that the law technically does not prohibit strenuous questioning of non-citizen terrorists. The question of the American citizen behing held without counsel, if true, has been in the national debate for some time now. A good deal of the piece actually addresses, but does not answer my questions posed above that you ignored. A good deal of it is speculative and a good deal of it addresses the philosophy behind what is happening.

Again, with no more evidence than has been presented so far, I will not believe that the U.S. government is condoning or conducting torture of prisoners in the sense that I define torture.

0 Replies

Methinks the egg hath split again ..... methinks

0 Replies

Well done on reading the essay fox. Head over to Dworkin and take your time with it.

But how in god's name can you sit there and throw out a euphemism like "strenuous questioning" to refer to the incidents described by Danner and others?!

The following, starring yourself...

- foxfyre, in the minute or two before you alert the soldiers that you are an American soldier too, are beaten so badly that you are sent home disabled.
- foxfyre while hooded is pissed on
- foxfyre is made to stick her finger up her anus and then lick it
- foxfyre is held naked for months or years without access to anyone other than those who beat you and piss on you and loose dogs on you
- foxfyre is beaten so badly she is murdered
- foxfyre is made to publicly masturbate in front of people of another faith
- foxfyre has a small bible shoved up her ass or her vagina
- and on and on
You think you'd still call that 'strenuous questioning' fox?

0 Replies

Can you show me that this is condoned Blatham? That it happened I don't doubt. We have ample proof via Abu Ghraib. But very few of the really awful things you listed constitute torture by my definition of torture. You would classify everything on your list as torture?

And I repeat my question. Is there any justification for making a terrorist uncomfortable, sleep deprived, embarassed, frightened? Or does the necessity to treat the terrorist with total respect and compassion override any risk to hundred or thousands of innocent citizens?

Edited on afterthought: If it can be shown that the U.S. government is practicing or condoning excessive pain, mutilation or other real physical harm of prisoners, I will join with you in your protest. I do not have any problem with them making terrorists pretty miserable to encourage them to provide critical information necessary for the lives and safety of innocent American citizens.

0 Replies

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6145.htm

0 Replies

fox

In google news, type in 'torture'. Lots there. Here's one...

Quote:

Excerpts from the memo and on laws banning torture

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The following international treaties and U.S. laws prohibit the use of torture, even in wartime. They apply to prisoners of war and "unlawful combatants," the designation the Bush administration has given to detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Geneva Conventions. Ratified by the United States in 1955. There are four Geneva Conventions, all negotiated in 1949 and covering different situations (the third convention covers prisoners of war, the fourth detained civilians). The third and fourth conventions consider torture or inhuman treatment to be war crimes. A subsequent protocol, known as Article 75, prohibits "torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental," "corporal punishment" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, and any form of indecent assault."

Convention Against Torture. Ratified by the United States in 1994. Outlaws "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The War Crimes Act, adopted by Congress in 1996. The law makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel or civilians to commit war crimes as specified in the Geneva Conventions.

Excerpts from "Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy and Operational Considerations 6 March 2003":

"In light of the president's complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority in these areas."

"Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements in the battlefield."

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network."

"In sum, the defense of superior orders will generally be available for U.S. Armed Forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

"If a defendant has a good faith belief that his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture."

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know