Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick; You Will Go Far

[Bloodgeon11]

Careful with the biblical "Turn the other cheek", they might whip out "An eye for an eye". What does the bible have to do with government anyway? "Separation of Church and State" must be around there somewhere...

 

[Bloodgeon11]

But what do i know, I'm quoting Wierd Al in my sig!

 

[Elissar]

And double posting to boot..

Dont do that anymore.

 

[Bloodgeon11]

Aye aye, mon capitan, and thanks for the leeway. It was, i assure you, for artistic purposes only.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

as to the remarks about turning theh other cheek to the 9/11 bombings, ignorance must be bliss; if you had a sister and she was raped by a thug, even if you were a "devout Christian" you would still want to kill the bastered with your bare hands would you not?

! Actually your comparison between 9/11 eleven and a thug raping my sister is really far fetched. Why? Well let's slice it up shall we?
On one side we have a huge terrorist suicidal bombing, wich killed a lot of people, including the terrorists; on the other we have (for the sake of argument) my sister being raped by a thug.
Differences:
Though traumatized my sister is still alive and my first priority would be to help her get over this, not kill the SOB. And killing the mother-fucker wouldn't help as much as her killing him (identification with the aggressor, it's a defense mechanism). In the 9/11 case the people who flew the planes are dead and you can't seem to get a hold of the mastermind of the attack, so you think it is fair to take it out on the citizens of Iraq who have also been the victims of your strategical bombing raids. Would killing civilians in Iraq bring back the people who died in 9/11? I think not. What you should do instead is to lick your wounds and try to burry the hatchet, or do you wish for more spilt blood, both Iraqi and American? Plus by perpetuating this chain of revenge you only offer more recruits to the various terrorist oganizations, wich would alow them to make another 9/11 happen.

you speak softly so that the person you are talking to will not become suspicious, and when he turnes to leave you wack em in the back of the head.

No, because you are not a back-stabbing SOB, instead you talk softly to get your point across and keep the stick just for show because, as Welsh said:

Potential power, the threat of power for instance, is often stronger than the actual use.

@Bludgeon11

Careful with the biblical "Turn the other cheek", they might whip out "An eye for an eye". What does the bible have to do with government anyway?

First those two quotes are from the two parts of the Bible, and the "Turn the other cheek" thing makes a bit more sense than "An eye for an eye", because by following the second the world might soon be blind . That was a terrible misquote, I know. But look at it this way: if you turn the other cheek and you get hit again you now have ample reason to put out his lights; if he does not hit the other cheek than there is a chance for reconciliation. Like I've said over and over in this thread violence is not the first nor the best solution to most conflicts.
Oh, and from now on try to edit the existing post instead of posting again if nobody has posted after you, it's something we hold dear.

 

[Bloodgeon11]

I gathered from the immediate and (I thought) rather harsh upbraiding from Elissar.

 

[Sander]

How would you feel about the war in Iraq if your grandfather died in a Baathist prison? How would you feel about the war on terror if your girlfriend died on 9/11? That's a strange standard, Sander, you should know that.

Not if you hold by it. You do realise that I would have supported the war in Iraq, if....etc( I will not list all those reasons again. I've done that enough already)

I largely agree with you here. But my main quarrel was not with the way the prisoners are handeled (torture in this situation is often warrented). It's the fact that it was here, it's the fact that 90% of the people in this prison where innocent, it's the fact that these fuckwits took pictures................

I disagree. Well, not with the last bit, but I do disagree that torture is warranted. As a modern country, you strive to protect the modern morals, including the Geneva convention, but protecting them by violating them simply doesn't work. One would need to get as much info as possible from these Al Qaeda members, yes, but torture...no.

"Separation of Church and State" must be around there somewhere...

SO what you're saying is that if I start a religion saying that it is illegal to extort people, you cannot make a law saying that you can't extort people? Good thinking!
The principle of the Seperation of Church and State is not to throw out all the lessons taught by a religion, because they can be quite valid, but the principle is to not officially or unofficially support any one religion. It would be illogical to ban laws based on Christian morals, but it would not be illogical to ban the official support for Chrisitanity. Every religion is treated the same is, in fact, the basis of Seperation of Church and State.

 

[John Uskglass]

Not if you hold by it. You do realise that I would have supported the war in Iraq, if....etc( I will not list all those reasons again. I've done that enough already)

I don't get this. You seem to agree with me, but that can't be right.

I disagree. Well, not with the last bit, but I do disagree that torture is warranted. As a modern country, you strive to protect the modern morals, including the Geneva convention, but protecting them by violating them simply doesn't work. One would need to get as much info as possible from these Al Qaeda members, yes, but torture...no.

Firstly, the Geneva convention does not apply here. We take in terrorists to Abu Gharib, or at least people we suspect of terrorists. Thus, as they are not the agents of a foriegn recognized nation, the Geneva convention does not apply. THere is the anti-torture legislation that the US signed in 1994.

Depends on the means of torture and the situation. Let's say we find mr. Ahmet, and he knows exactly where a car bomb is going to go off in an hour. I'd say it's entirely correct to do some dirty things with him. Same thing for a carbomb in a day, a group of terrorists attacking a US convoy.

This is'nt America, or Belgium or the Netherlands. Torture-filth, awful as it may be-can save many lives in a country like Iraq, or Isreal even.

 

[Sander]

Firstly, the Geneva convention does not apply here. We take in terrorists to Abu Gharib, or at least people we suspect of terrorists. Thus, as they are not the agents of a foriegn recognized nation, the Geneva convention does not apply. THere is the anti-torture legislation that the US signed in 1994.

Wrong. You use convenient legislative loopholes to let the Geneva convention not apply here.

Depends on the means of torture and the situation. Let's say we find mr. Ahmet, and he knows exactly where a car bomb is going to go off in an hour. I'd say it's entirely correct to do some dirty things with him. Same thing for a carbomb in a day, a group of terrorists attacking a US convoy.

Of course, there must first be absolute proof that such a thing will happen and that this person knows about it, and furthermore, the torture must be effective. Now, what I do know is that torture is not effective. It gets people to say things that are untrue, but still convenient for the torturers.

 

[John Uskglass]

Wrong. You use convenient legislative loopholes to let the Geneva convention not apply here.

Nope. THat's the way it's always been. It's nasty, and in my view if anything there should be some kind of Geneva 2 to get rid of that, but the Geneva convention only applies to POWS.

Of course, there must first be absolute proof that such a thing will happen and that this person knows about it, and furthermore, the torture must be effective. Now, what I do know is that torture is not effective. It gets people to say things that are untrue, but still convenient for the torturers.

Forgive my welshing you, but
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-09-11.htm

 

[Sander]

Nope. THat's the way it's always been. It's nasty, and in my view if anything there should be some kind of Geneva 2 to get rid of that, but the Geneva convention only applies to POWS.

I know that; and that is, in fact, a legislative loophole.

Forgive my welshing you, but
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-09-11.htm

Hmmm.. Interesting.
And this:

You conclude that "coercion should be banned but also quietly practiced," because legalized coercion, even when closely regulated, is the ultimate "slippery slope."

Is the most interesting part of the interview. I agree wholeheartedly, because it is immoral to not use such coercion methods if you know they will save lives, but they are still a slippery slope.
This says it a bit better:

They've banned it, but they've arrived at the place where we ought to be—which is you ban it, but you practice it in certain selected cases. And those who do practice it do so at their own risk, knowing that they are violating the law and if there's a change of Administration or mood and they are caught in that switch they can end up going to jail.

Still, you can obviously see that the coercion meant here was in no way, shape or form applied on the pictures that were released of the Iraqi prison.

 

[John Uskglass]

I know that; and that is, in fact, a legislative loophole.

No, it's not. That implies something wrong with the wording. It just does'nt apply there.

Is the most interesting part of the interview. I agree wholeheartedly, because it is immoral to not use such coercion methods if you know they will save lives, but they are still a slippery slope.

Never argued with that.

Still, you can obviously see that the coercion meant here was in no way, shape or form applied on the pictures that were released of the Iraqi prison.

Not arguing here.

 

[Big T]

I know that; and that is, in fact, a legislative loophole.

No, it's not. That implies something wrong with the wording. It just does'nt apply there.

It is. And there is something wrong with the wording.
The problem with it is that POWs can only be agents of a agents of a "foriegn recognized nation" (in your words). Regardless of the status of the group they're working for, they are still human beings and should have the same rights as others.

 

[John Uskglass]

I know that; and that is, in fact, a legislative loophole.

No, it's not. That implies something wrong with the wording. It just does'nt apply there.

It is. And there is something wrong with the wording.
The problem with it is that POWs can only be agents of a agents of a "foriegn recognized nation" (in your words). Regardless of the status of the group they're working for, they are still human beings and should have the same rights as others.

And I agree with you, except for a problem with the wording thing. This was not an accident, it was deliberate. I don't know why, but it was.

 

[Big T]

And I agree with you, except for a problem with the wording thing. This was not an accident, it was deliberate. I don't know why, but it was.

Fair enough, but it shoud still be corrected. Particularly in the light of the "War on Terror", as there are likely to be many prisoners who will not count as POWs.

 

[John Uskglass]

And I agree with you, except for a problem with the wording thing. This was not an accident, it was deliberate. I don't know why, but it was.

Fair enough, but it shoud still be corrected. Particularly in the light of the "War on Terror", as there are likely to be many prisoners who will not count as POWs.

I suggested a Genevea 2 to amend that. I agree with you completely.

 

[quietfanatic]

as to the remarks about turning theh other cheek to the 9/11 bombings, ignorance must be bliss; if you had a sister and she was raped by a thug, even if you were a "devout Christian" you would still want to kill the bastered with your bare hands would you not?

Yes, you would at first but that is the reason why the family of the victim is not in the jury.

We should try to forgive people and understand why they do what they do. I am not Christian but that doesn't mean that Christisn morality is not useful.

Torture should not be used in any situation because it is ineffective and amoral. People should try harder to prevent any crisis situation that even reminds us of the possibility of using torture to meet our aims. The war against terror should be replaced with measures that prevent people even wanting to become associated with terrorism. Worldwide education, economic advancement, security, independence and political stability are what is needed for peace. Application of military power should be replaced with careful planning and diplomatic action. America should learn more about other cultures and peoples and think twice before nuking them.

 

[welsh]

Actually I am not sure if terrorists are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention and most of the Rules of Warfare have been directed at the care of prisoners-of-war and soldiers for sovereign states that are fighting because of their legal obligations to serve that state. We make the distinction between killing and murder in war because we recognize that the intent of the person doing the killing, the soldier, is different from a murderer. The soldier is often compelled to serve or is under a legal obligation to serve as the agent of the state. The murderer is a free agent who kills for personal reasons.

Much of the Geneva Convention also concerns non-combatants, civilians caught in the midst of war. The Geneva Protocols have given some recognition to combatants in guerrilla wars, civil wars or insurgent wars. However, this has not been without controversy or debate. It is often the practice of a state to treat rebels as criminals violating the war and thus not entitled to the international protections of soldiers of sovereign states. Indeed, for the country frighting a civil war, the matter is one of domestic politics.

Now, what about those who don't get those protections. Spies, who are often agents of a foreign state operating diguised are often put to death. Spies that operate under limited diplomatic immunity, as members of an embassy staff, are usually sent home. But if you are an American spy posing as a worker for IBM or if you happen to be an Iranian civilian working for the US, than you can be put to death.

Pirates and other international criminals can also be punished as criminals. That is a matter of soveriegn law and if the law says the death penalty is appropriate, so be it. Blackbeard didn't get his head hacked off and hung from a poll because he was a citizen but because he was a pirate.

So what about terrorists? Terrorists operate in disguise, they are combatants, they don't work under the sovereign authority of a state. They are not compelled to act by sovereign law but do so for their own reasons. They sound more like spies or pirates to me.

Honestly, I have often thought that terrorists should be treated like pirates, to whom they perhaps have the closest analogy.

To assume they have the rights and privileges of soldiers is a mistake. If they receive that treatment or any good treatment at all it has more to do with how we want our soldiers treated when captured. If we treat prisoners well, we should expect that they will also treat their prisoners well. But this is a policy choice not a legal one.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

I agree with Welsh. Terrorists should be spared no torture, if it is necessary. The question here is what are/were the prisoners from Abu Gharib? And if they were terrorists the least those morons could have done would have been to not get caught? Who the fuck had the idiotic idea of making photos/ letting someone take photos? It's not like that was the Christmas Party at work when you get the women drunk and make them xerox their ass, then make those pictures part of a memo just for the laugh!

 

[Big T]

I agree with Welsh. Terrorists should be spared no torture, if it is necessary.

The problem is the definition of the terms "necessary" and "torture".
What if a particulary sadistic guard decides necessary means "necessary for me to get my rocks off"? And that "torture" could also include rape? Or worse.