Steven Crowder: Gitmo and Torture
-
Christian Graus wrote:
To trivialise torture
Actually, calling anything we have done to anyone in the last 8 years "torture" trivializes torture.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, calling anything we have done to anyone in the last 8 years "torture" trivializes torture.
http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html[^]
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
To trivialise torture
Actually, calling anything we have done to anyone in the last 8 years "torture" trivializes torture.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Assuming that your only source of news is links like the one the OP posted, you probably think that's true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
To trivialise torture
Actually, calling anything we have done to anyone in the last 8 years "torture" trivializes torture.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, calling anything we have done to anyone in the last 8 years "torture" trivializes torture.
Which is one of Mr Crowder's points.
And I assume you know how stupid it is, because you're not responded to my comments on it, in any meaningful way.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, calling anything we have done to anyone in the last 8 years "torture" trivializes torture.
Which is one of Mr Crowder's points.
-
Steven Crowder: Gitmo and Torture[^]
I don't know about the USA torturing its own troops, but UK's special services were subjected to exactly the sort of treatment they could expect if captured. It was part of the selection process. Gitmo was relatively open to public scrutiny, the cells in Afghanistan, Morocco, and other countries where torture took place weren't. Better stick to justifying the use of torture, rather than denying it.
Bob Emmett
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, calling anything we have done to anyone in the last 8 years "torture" trivializes torture.
http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html[^]
John Carson
Well, hell, if the ACLU says it it must be true!!!! Unfortunantly, John, this was never anything more than part of a concerted effort to get the republicans out of power. What ever really happened had the full endorsement of everyone - your friends included ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/obama-backs-bush-on-bagra_n_168766.html[^] The fact that none of this has ever been proven in any court, and never will be even with Bush long gone, proves that there was never any validity to it. No one knows what condition those people were in when they arrived, and it is highly unlikely that anything as nefarious as the accusations ever occured at all. So, once again, it is you trivializing the real thing. Haven't you heard, John? Bush is gone, the republicans are out of power, the propaganda campaign worked. Good job. Well done. Go have a beer and celebrate or something
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
And I assume you know how stupid it is, because you're not responded to my comments on it, in any meaningful way.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
And I assume you know how stupid it is, because you're not responded to my comments on it, in any meaningful way.
You're a liar (and a fool); there's nothing to respond to; I don't answer to you, you do not dictate how I expend my time.
-
Well, hell, if the ACLU says it it must be true!!!! Unfortunantly, John, this was never anything more than part of a concerted effort to get the republicans out of power. What ever really happened had the full endorsement of everyone - your friends included ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/obama-backs-bush-on-bagra_n_168766.html[^] The fact that none of this has ever been proven in any court, and never will be even with Bush long gone, proves that there was never any validity to it. No one knows what condition those people were in when they arrived, and it is highly unlikely that anything as nefarious as the accusations ever occured at all. So, once again, it is you trivializing the real thing. Haven't you heard, John? Bush is gone, the republicans are out of power, the propaganda campaign worked. Good job. Well done. Go have a beer and celebrate or something
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, hell, if the ACLU says it it must be true!!!!
Ah, yes. It's like anything reported in the NY Times. Completely ignorable by those in denial.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What ever really happened had the full endorsement of everyone - your friends included ...
Actually no. It is longstanding law that people captured and held outside the US don't have access to the US courts. The Bush Administration sought to abuse that law by deliberately holding people at Guantanamo Bay --- effectively on US soil, but technically not. Objecting to the use of Guantanamo Bay in this way is not the same as a wholesale rejection of the doctrine. I am not offering a final opinion either way on whether the Obama Administration was right or wrong in the position it took on the case, but no one seriously maintains that each and every prisoner captured overseas must be given access to US courts, so there are concerns about the setting of precedents. Be all that as it may, it is a ridiculous stretch to infer from the case any endorsement of torture by the Obama Administration.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that none of this has ever been proven in any court, and never will be even with Bush long gone, proves that there was never any validity to it.
Ah yes, the Justice Department under Bush has been zealous in the prosecution of abuses. As to whether any of it will be proven in court in future, that depends in part on which of Obama's statements prevails: "noone is above the law" or "I believe we need to look forward rather than back".
Stan Shannon wrote:
No one knows what condition those people were in when they arrived, and it is highly unlikely that anything as nefarious as the accusations ever occured at all.
Clutching at straws here.
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And I assume you know how stupid it is, because you're not responded to my comments on it, in any meaningful way.
You're a liar (and a fool); there's nothing to respond to; I don't answer to you, you do not dictate how I expend my time.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, hell, if the ACLU says it it must be true!!!!
Ah, yes. It's like anything reported in the NY Times. Completely ignorable by those in denial.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What ever really happened had the full endorsement of everyone - your friends included ...
Actually no. It is longstanding law that people captured and held outside the US don't have access to the US courts. The Bush Administration sought to abuse that law by deliberately holding people at Guantanamo Bay --- effectively on US soil, but technically not. Objecting to the use of Guantanamo Bay in this way is not the same as a wholesale rejection of the doctrine. I am not offering a final opinion either way on whether the Obama Administration was right or wrong in the position it took on the case, but no one seriously maintains that each and every prisoner captured overseas must be given access to US courts, so there are concerns about the setting of precedents. Be all that as it may, it is a ridiculous stretch to infer from the case any endorsement of torture by the Obama Administration.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that none of this has ever been proven in any court, and never will be even with Bush long gone, proves that there was never any validity to it.
Ah yes, the Justice Department under Bush has been zealous in the prosecution of abuses. As to whether any of it will be proven in court in future, that depends in part on which of Obama's statements prevails: "noone is above the law" or "I believe we need to look forward rather than back".
Stan Shannon wrote:
No one knows what condition those people were in when they arrived, and it is highly unlikely that anything as nefarious as the accusations ever occured at all.
Clutching at straws here.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Clutching at straws here.
It is a perfectly valid legal question. Is it really unusually that people captured during ongoing combat operations would have blunt force trama and bruising? How badly injured were these individuals before they arrived? And, again, the complete lack of fervor on the part of the democrat party to pursue these charges is proof that there was never any validity to them at all. They know that any court case would (a) vindicate the Bush administration, (b) once again expose them to being the party that is weak on defense and (c) actually render them unable to conduct anti-terrorism efforts as effectively as Bush did. Don't expect any of the leadership to push on this. It was never any thing other than a means to return to political power and nothing more. Guys like you might have sincere, heartfelt concerns over this, but the democrat party sure as hell doesn't.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
Clutching at straws here.
It is a perfectly valid legal question. Is it really unusually that people captured during ongoing combat operations would have blunt force trama and bruising? How badly injured were these individuals before they arrived? And, again, the complete lack of fervor on the part of the democrat party to pursue these charges is proof that there was never any validity to them at all. They know that any court case would (a) vindicate the Bush administration, (b) once again expose them to being the party that is weak on defense and (c) actually render them unable to conduct anti-terrorism efforts as effectively as Bush did. Don't expect any of the leadership to push on this. It was never any thing other than a means to return to political power and nothing more. Guys like you might have sincere, heartfelt concerns over this, but the democrat party sure as hell doesn't.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is a perfectly valid legal question. Is it really unusually that people captured during ongoing combat operations would have blunt force trama and bruising?
It is hard to reconcile the high incidence of deaths from asphyxia with pre-existing injury claims.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, again, the complete lack of fervor on the part of the democrat party to pursue these charges is proof that there was never any validity to them at all.
No, it is evidence that a) many Democrats are pretty conservative, b) they know the politics of it is dangerous. It may well be that some of the deaths did not involve any wrongdoing on the part of the authorities. That this is true for all of the deaths strikes me as improbable. The way to proceed is to have proper investigations by prosecutors, with trials where the evidence merits it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Guys like you might have sincere, heartfelt concerns over this, but the democrat party sure as hell doesn't.
I'm sure some Democrats do. How many and how it will be weighed against other political concerns remains to be seen.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is a perfectly valid legal question. Is it really unusually that people captured during ongoing combat operations would have blunt force trama and bruising?
It is hard to reconcile the high incidence of deaths from asphyxia with pre-existing injury claims.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, again, the complete lack of fervor on the part of the democrat party to pursue these charges is proof that there was never any validity to them at all.
No, it is evidence that a) many Democrats are pretty conservative, b) they know the politics of it is dangerous. It may well be that some of the deaths did not involve any wrongdoing on the part of the authorities. That this is true for all of the deaths strikes me as improbable. The way to proceed is to have proper investigations by prosecutors, with trials where the evidence merits it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Guys like you might have sincere, heartfelt concerns over this, but the democrat party sure as hell doesn't.
I'm sure some Democrats do. How many and how it will be weighed against other political concerns remains to be seen.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
No, it is evidence that a) many Democrats are pretty conservative,
Not the leadership - they are are further to the left than most European politicians.
John Carson wrote:
The way to proceed is to have proper investigations by prosecutors, with trials where the evidence merits it.
I have always agreed with that. I am all for such investigations. I think there is probably a lot that the Bush administration would not wish to be uncovered simply for national security reasons (which I no longer care about since most of the people who will die as a consequence are mostly the very people who voted a Marxist government into power). But I think the more heinous claims have been pure bullshit from the start. (Although, just as with Valerie Plame, the media will certainly blow any finding entirely out of proportion)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And I assume you know how stupid it is, because you're not responded to my comments on it, in any meaningful way.
You're a liar (and a fool); there's nothing to respond to; I don't answer to you, you do not dictate how I expend my time.
You're the worst kind of hypocrite. I feel bad for you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.