Misinformation, misconceptions, and so on

[burner69]

Let's cast aside what is torture and what isn't torture for a moment.

What about the people arrested, given no trial, no access to a lawyer, and 'tortured'/'not tortured'... either way, held for a long time with no charge.

Supposing these people are who they say they are - not terrorists. Just imagine that. That's similar to what happened in Nazi Germany, people carted off to prisons to be tortured during the build up to war - no charge, they just didn't like them. Not on such a large scale, but you can't deny it could be happening, especially with many being released without trial later on.

 

[Hapless]

Let's cast aside what is torture and what isn't torture for a moment.

What about the people arrested, given no trial, no access to a lawyer, and 'tortured'/'not tortured'... either way, held for a long time with no charge.

Supposing these people are who they say they are - not terrorists. Just imagine that. That's similar to what happened in Nazi Germany, people carted off to prisons to be tortured during the build up to war - no charge, they just didn't like them. Not on such a large scale, but you can't deny it could be happening, especially with many being released without trial later on.

It's not a matter of whether we like or don't like them. Those people were found on the battlefield in Afghanistan, fighting our forces on behalf of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course I can't deny it could be happening. That's like saying, "Aliens are secretly sending me messages over my broadband connection, you can't deny it could be happening." Anything could be happening. This is exactly my point. Instead of rationally examining what is going on, people portray speculation, conjecture, and conspiracy theories as actual fact. It's akin to me posting, "Hey, you guys, Jacques Chirac is secretly plotting to overthrow the U.S. government. I've got a friend whose cousin knows a guy who works for a company subcontracted by the French Government, and he told me, so it must be true." Do you think Stern or Mech would let me get away with that? Have you ever heard the saying, "There are no guilty people in prison?" Think about it.

 

[burner69]

It's not a matter of whether we like or don't like them. Those people were found on the battlefield in Afghanistan, fighting our forces on behalf of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course I can't deny it could be happening. That's like saying, "Aliens are secretly sending me messages over my broadband connection, you can't deny it could be happening." Anything could be happening. This is exactly my point. Instead of rationally examining what is going on, people portray speculation, conjecture, and conspiracy theories as actual fact. It's akin to me posting, "Hey, you guys, Jacques Chirac is secretly plotting to overthrow the U.S. government. I've got a friend whose cousin knows a guy who works for a company subcontracted by the French Government, and he told me, so it must be true." Do you think Stern or Mech would let me get away with that? Have you ever heard the saying, "There are no guilty people in prison?" Think about it.

Difference is; many people there weren't found fighting, they were just found. And if you said Jacques Chirac is such-and-such, Stern or Mech wouldn't take him away for three years and subject him to torture/ not torture.

Innocent until proven guilty; not tortured until forced into a confession or released after negotiations with the UK government.

 

[Hapless]

Difference is; many people there weren't found fighting, they were just found. And if you said Jacques Chirac is such-and-such, Stern or Mech wouldn't take him away for three years and subject him to torture/ not torture.

Innocent until proven guilty; not tortured until forced into a confession or released after negotiations with the UK government.

The Chirac statement was an extreme, fictitious example of some of the baseless claims I've seen posted on this board.

You are still making the mistake of equating that situation with civilian law enforcement. Who wins if we afford Al Qaeda members, trained in techniques for resisting interrogation, bent on killing as many Americans as possible, the same due process and civil rights we afford someone who may or may not have killed their wife? There may be question as to whether someone killed their wife, but to be captured in battle, with no uniform, fighting alongside Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan would seem to me to be prima facie evidence that one is an unlawful combatant. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Civilian justice and military justice are two different things.

 

[Edcrab]

Fighters are one thing- what about the British citizens forcibly removed from non-combat situations and imprisoned indefinitely with no trial or hope for defence? 3 years, then released on the condition that we continue the investigation. Why not do that in the first place as most-everyone demanded?

 

[CptStern]

It's not a matter of whether we like or don't like them. Those people were found on the battlefield in Afghanistan, fighting our forces on behalf of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

ummm not all:

Wazir was arrested in mid-2002 by local men at a checkpoint in Gardez, Afghanistan, when he went to inquire about what had happened to his friend and fellow taxi driver Sayed Abbasin, who had been arrested at the checkpoint earlier. In fact, Sayed Abbasin had been handed to US custody, arbitrarily labelled as a member of al-Qa’ida or the Taleban. He was subsequently transferred to Guantánamo Bay. The same thing happened to Wazir Mohammad. Sayed Abbasin has since been released, having not been charged or provided compensation for his apparently arbitrary arrest. Wazir Mohammad remains in custody.


....21-year-old student earning extra money for his family drove a taxi out of a stand in Kabul.

As CBS News Correspondent Allen Pizzey reports, three hours later he rolled up to a roadblock outside the town of Gardez and then disappeared.

A few days later, his father, Sayed Roshan, learned he had been handed over to U.S. troops. And then heard nothing more.



Mr Habib was arrested in Pakistan in October 2001, accused of aiding the al-Qaeda terrorist network


The 12 captives contend they are not members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but charity workers who were assisting refugees of Afghanistan's harsh regime when they were caught up in the chaos of the war last fall and winter. In attempting to flee across the Pakistani border, they say, they fell into the hands of Pakistanis who "sold" them to U.S. troops, collecting a bounty that American forces were offering for Arab terrorism suspects captured in the region.

there's a ton more, but I wont bore you with the details

Of course I can't deny it could be happening. .

it is happening ....why else would the US release 119 prisoners? some after almost 2 years! if they're all terrorists why did they release them?

 

[burner69]

The Chirac statement was an extreme, fictitious example of some of the baseless claims I've seen posted on this board.

You are still making the mistake of equating that situation with civilian law enforcement. Who wins if we afford Al Qaeda members, trained in techniques for resisting interrogation, bent on killing as many Americans as possible, the same due process and civil rights we afford someone who may or may not have killed their wife? There may be question as to whether someone killed their wife, but to be captured in battle, with no uniform, fighting alongside Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan would seem to me to be prima facie evidence that one is an unlawful combatant. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Civilian justice and military justice are two different things.

I think the two posts above make the point I was trying to show.

 

[seinfeldrules]

what evidence? every single point I bring up is either nicely sidestepped or ignored ...the only person here who's even admitted that some of the issues I've pointed to are correct is Scoopnfl ...and he's new. There'll never be an admission of guilt from you guys, that much is true ...bush could have a signed affidavit saying he lied and people died and you still wouldnt admit it ...it's tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "blahblahblah" to drown out the truth

When have you ever conceded to us Stern? I love it how it is only the Conservatives who are ever wrong. This is the exact "I'm more intelligent than God" attitude he was referring to. Face it stern, you're no better than the rest of us. The sooner you realize this- the sooner these debates will be more about debate than name calling.

 

[CptStern]

When have you ever conceded to us Stern? I love it how it is only the Conservatives who are ever wrong. This is the exact "I'm more intelligent than God" attitude he was referring to. Face it stern, you're no better than the rest of us. The sooner you realize this- the sooner these debates will be more about debate than name calling.

concede to what? you're trying to justify a war that's not justifiable ..and what's this bogus "I'm more intelligent than God" attitude you seem to think I have? I've said it before I'll say it again: it's not that I'm more intelligent than you it's the fact that the evidence is stacked against you ...the facts speak for themselves ..I really dont have to add too much extra wordage, cuz it's unnesessary

 

[seinfeldrules]

concede to what? you're trying to justify a war that's not justifiable ..and what's this bogus "I'm more intelligent than God" attitude you seem to think I have? I've said it before I'll say it again: it's not that I'm more intelligent than you it's the fact that the evidence is stacked against you ...the facts speak for themselves ..I really dont have to add too much extra wordage, cuz it's unnesessary

There you go again. "You guys make no points, I have nothing to concede to, but you must concede to every point I bring up". Its ridiculous that you call upon others to concede, without doing so at all yourself. You're attempting to merge a two lane highway into a one way street.

you're trying to justify a war that's not justifiable

Saddam killed over 200,000 people directly and hundreds of thousands of more citizens indirectly while pocketing aid money. Maybe we should have waited until the number hit 6 million? Is that acceptable?

 

[Hapless]

ummm not all:

Wazir was arrested in mid-2002 by local men at a checkpoint in Gardez, Afghanistan, when he went to inquire about what had happened to his friend and fellow taxi driver Sayed Abbasin, who had been arrested at the checkpoint earlier. In fact, Sayed Abbasin had been handed to US custody, arbitrarily labelled as a member of al-Qa’ida or the Taleban. He was subsequently transferred to Guantánamo Bay. The same thing happened to Wazir Mohammad. Sayed Abbasin has since been released, having not been charged or provided compensation for his apparently arbitrary arrest. Wazir Mohammad remains in custody.


....21-year-old student earning extra money for his family drove a taxi out of a stand in Kabul.

As CBS News Correspondent Allen Pizzey reports, three hours later he rolled up to a roadblock outside the town of Gardez and then disappeared.

A few days later, his father, Sayed Roshan, learned he had been handed over to U.S. troops. And then heard nothing more.



Mr Habib was arrested in Pakistan in October 2001, accused of aiding the al-Qaeda terrorist network


The 12 captives contend they are not members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but charity workers who were assisting refugees of Afghanistan's harsh regime when they were caught up in the chaos of the war last fall and winter. In attempting to flee across the Pakistani border, they say, they fell into the hands of Pakistanis who "sold" them to U.S. troops, collecting a bounty that American forces were offering for Arab terrorism suspects captured in the region.

there's a ton more, but I wont bore you with the details





it is happening ....why else would the US release 119 prisoners? some after almost 2 years! if they're all terrorists why did they release them?

So let me get this straight. First, you complain about the U.S. holding detainees forever, then you complain that they released 119? It sounds to me like the job of sorting out who is a terrorist and who is not is being done. Can you tell me a better, more effective way to do this which guarantees with absolute certainty that no dangerous Al Qaeda members make their way back to society and no unfortunates are accidentally caught up in it?

In brief messages Abassin has said he is in good health and well-treated, but it doesn't help his father.

Doesn't that detract somewhat from the argument these people are being mistreated?

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last spring it is possible that some were "victims of circumstances and probably innocent.... If we find someone's an innocent and shouldn't have been brought there, they would be released."

I'm sure nobody here could argue with that statement.

The 12 captives contend they are not members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but charity workers who were assisting refugees of Afghanistan's harsh regime when they were caught up in the chaos of the war last fall and winter. In attempting to flee across the Pakistani border, they say, they fell into the hands of Pakistanis who "sold" them to U.S. troops, collecting a bounty that American forces were offering for Arab terrorism suspects captured in the region.

Is it possible this may be the case? Entirely. Is it possible they are also Al Qaeda or Taliban members who are attempting to use our own legal system against us? Entirely. You can't deny that could be happening. It's well known Al Qaeda's training program includes such tactics.
See this:http://cryptome.org/alq-terr-man.htm#18

This is actually very close to the tactics professional protesters attempt to use against police here in the U.S. Interesting....

 

[Hapless]

concede to what? you're trying to justify a war that's not justifiable ..and what's this bogus "I'm more intelligent than God" attitude you seem to think I have? I've said it before I'll say it again: it's not that I'm more intelligent than you it's the fact that the evidence is stacked against you ...the facts speak for themselves ..I really dont have to add too much extra wordage, cuz it's unnesessary

Which war are we talking about here? I'm talking about Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. It's well known also that you believe no war to be justifiable, so how is it possible for any of us to argue successfully against that? Comfortable in your blief, you can just sit back and say, "Nope, not good enough," to any evidence we throw at you while posting links to bogus war crimes tribunals and other such tripe.

Here's the facts, in case you forgot:

--On September 11, 2001, the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda. Any doubt of that has been removed by OBL's own admission.

--Afghanistan and the Taliban harbored OBL and served as a training ground for these and other terrorists. This is well documented and incontrovertible.

--Prior to 9/11, we had been attacked on several occasions by Al Qaeda, although not on our own soil.

--In October, 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and the Taliban/Al Qaeda went underground. The U.S. began rounding up suspected Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters and eventually housed them at Gitmo.

--On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait.

--The U.N. Security Council authorized the use of force to expel Saddam's troops from Kuwait.

--Saddam's troops tortured and murdered numerous Kuwaiti
civilians.

--On February 27, 1991, coalition troops, led by the U.S., succeeded in expelling the troops from Kuwait.

--Members of Iraq's armed forces signed a cease fire agreement, agreeing to certain conditions which they later reneged on. A cease fire is not an armistice. This agreement did not end the conflict, it only ceased active hostilities.

--Over the ensuing 12 years, Saddam repeatedly violated U.N. Security Council resolution after resolution, fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones, and allegedly (note I said allegedly) played host to Al Qaeda members. Intelligence was obtained from several sources which suggested Saddam was building up supplies of WMD, which we knew he had possessed and used previously on both Iranian troops and his own people. Since Saddam often played cat and mouse with inspectors, and ultimately booted them out, the U.S. had no way of knowing for sure if he had them or not.

--I personally served with a combat engineer line unit in Saudi/Iraq/Kuwait, and observed and destroyed numerous stockpiles of Iraqi weapons and military vehicles. None of the weapons were American made, or had American markings on them. The majority were Soviet/Russian and some were marked "Kingdom of Jordan", who happened to be an alleged ally.

--After the 9/11 attacks, it became clear that to, "wait and see," was to invite large-scale devastation. The Bush Administration, recognizing this was a new kind of conflict, decided that pre-emption was necessary. The case was made for an invasion of Iraq, and part of the case was the presumed presence of WMD. This was based on intelligence as well as past behavior of Saddam Hussein. Iraq was invaded, Saddam deposed and eventually captured, and no WMD were found.

Now to some, this is apparently evidence that Bush lied. I ask you this: If I suspect someone is selling crack out of a house, and I stop people leaving the house who I find to have crack, and those people tell me they got the crack from the people in the house, and I know the people in the house have several past arrests for narcotics possesion, and I develop probable cause for a search warrant which is executed and I am unsuccessful in finding crack cocaine in the house, does this mean I lied?

 

[burner69]

So let me get this straight. First, you complain about the U.S. holding detainees forever, then you complain that they released 119? It sounds to me like the job of sorting out who is a terrorist and who is not is being done. Can you tell me a better, more effective way to do this which guarantees with absolute certainty that no dangerous Al Qaeda members make their way back to society and no unfortunates are accidentally caught up in it?

Doesn't that detract somewhat from the argument these people are being mistreated?
Is it possible this may be the case? Entirely. Is it possible they are also Al Qaeda or Taliban members who are attempting to use our own legal system against us? Entirely. You can't deny that could be happening. It's well known Al Qaeda's training program includes such tactics.
See this:http://cryptome.org/alq-terr-man.htm#18

This is actually very close to the tactics professional protesters attempt to use against police here in the U.S. Interesting....

These people have been locked up for 1, 2, 3 years without trial - then released. I'd start complaining after a week or so, personally. How would you like it?
How can we stop these terrorists? Two ways; One, stop giving them a reason to attack us, and two stop giving them money, weapons, and training to attack us with.
OK, for now we're stuck in a bit of a mess - and I appreciate that unfortyunatley civvies will get caught up in the process - but the thing is this is gunna keep on happening because of Bush's stupid war on terror. Pre-emptive strikes where they aren't needed. Pi**ing off millions of already anti-west people. Blowing up a country with promise of rebuilding, then just kinda leaving it while we go and invade another.

Oh, and there have been multiple accounts of abuse, and detainees who've been released have come back with deep cuts, bruises from rifle butts etc etc.

Is it possible that it is terrorists trying to use our legal system against us? Yes, it is.
But there are thousands, possibly even millions of terrorists out there. Do you really think one who get's released is going to make that much of a difference in the run of things? Do you think putting pro-west people behind bars and beating them is justifiable because they might be a terrorist, even though all the evidence points to them NOT being one. And besides, how does beating someone help? You're just as likely to extract a confession from Joe public than Barry Terrorist if you take them away for three years and slap them about.

Oh, and is a terrorist really someone in Iraq, or wherever, fighting the coalition? Are they really likely to be a national threat if they're in that country fighting for what they believe in? Just a question, I'm undecided on the answer myself.

 

[burner69]

Here's the facts, in case you forgot:

--On September 11, 2001, the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda. Any doubt of that has been removed by OBL's own admission.

Why? Because of our actions overseas. Pi**ing many people off, and killing quite a few too thank you very much.

--Afghanistan and the Taliban harbored OBL and served as a training ground for these and other terrorists. This is well documented and incontrovertible.

True.

--Prior to 9/11, we had been attacked on several occasions by Al Qaeda, although not on our own soil.

Again, it was hardly without motive.

--In October, 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and the Taliban/Al Qaeda went underground. The U.S. began rounding up suspected Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters and eventually housed them at Gitmo.

Then they pulled out as soon as they could get to Iraq letting many of them escape. Currently we only hold Kabul, and that's only just. The taliban, Al Quaeda could well be regrouping somewhere else in the country.

--On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait.

--The U.N. Security Council authorized the use of force to expel Saddam's troops from Kuwait.

--Saddam's troops tortured and murdered numerous Kuwaiti
civilians.

Evil bastard. But wait. What are there reports of in our prisons at the moment? Erm... torture and murder. Not on as large a scale, but it hardly makes us the most loveable invaders now does it?

--On February 27, 1991, coalition troops, led by the U.S., succeeded in expelling the troops from Kuwait.

--Members of Iraq's armed forces signed a cease fire agreement, agreeing to certain conditions which they later reneged on. A cease fire is not an armistice. This agreement did not end the conflict, it only ceased active hostilities.

--Over the ensuing 12 years, Saddam repeatedly violated U.N. Security Council resolution after resolution, fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones, and allegedly (note I said allegedly) played host to Al Qaeda members. Intelligence was obtained from several sources which suggested Saddam was building up supplies of WMD, which we knew he had possessed and used previously on both Iranian troops and his own people. Since Saddam often played cat and mouse with inspectors, and ultimately booted them out, the U.S. had no way of knowing for sure if he had them or not.

How did we know? Checked the receipt? Many of them were sold to him by us. Firstly - we should never have sold them. Secondly - we were well aware he had no plans to use them on us. Seriously, why would he do that? He had no reason at all, and if he had he'd have known damn well he'd get annihilated by either an invading force or a stream of bombs or both.

--I personally served with a combat engineer line unit in Saudi/Iraq/Kuwait, and observed and destroyed numerous stockpiles of Iraqi weapons and military vehicles. None of the weapons were American made, or had American markings on them. The majority were Soviet/Russian and some were marked "Kingdom of Jordan", who happened to be an alleged ally.

So I guess America never sold anything to Saddam now?

--After the 9/11 attacks, it became clear that to, "wait and see," was to invite large-scale devastation. The Bush Administration, recognizing this was a new kind of conflict, decided that pre-emption was necessary. The case was made for an invasion of Iraq, and part of the case was the presumed presence of WMD. This was based on intelligence as well as past behavior of Saddam Hussein. Iraq was invaded, Saddam deposed and eventually captured, and no WMD were found.

Actually they had plenty of evidence that 9/11 would happen, they just ignored it. On september the 10th, despite numerous precise warnings, with OBLs name mentioned, the CIA had two people tapping suspected terrorist lines, and ten on drugs lines... the whole drugs argument comes streaming back at us.
He decided pre-emption was necessary. And what have we got now? F**king thousands of people willing to kill themselves to defeat us. Hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. Given many terrorist factions a common enemy to gang up on. Etc etc.
9/11 was one thing, Iraq is another entirely. I'm sorry, but Saddam gave no intention of wishing to attack us. Bush lied about that bit, made us think he was the biggest threat in the world - when quite clearly there were many bigger fish to catch - and we still had work to do in Afghanistan.
[/QUOTE]

Now to some, this is apparently evidence that Bush lied.

Yup

I ask you this: If I suspect someone is selling crack out of a house, and I stop people leaving the house who I find to have crack, and those people tell me they got the crack from the people in the house, and I know the people in the house have several past arrests for narcotics possesion, and I develop probable cause for a search warrant which is executed and I am unsuccessful in finding crack cocaine in the house, does this mean I lied?

Nope.
But having weapons and having drugs are two seperate things. The point was, we were told he was intent on using them. He was "addicted to Weapons of mass destruction". He would not hesitate to use them against us - and could do so in 45mins! Aaaah! He's a terrorist harbourer! He's giving them away!
With drugs you sell them, or take them. With weapons you sell them (a little like the west does to poorer countries before it goes over to blow the crap out of them), you use them in an aggressive manner (a little like we're doing now, blowing up countries) or you use them as means of defense.
Perhaps Saddam wanted them to kill his own people. Perhaps he wanted them to defend... oh wait... nope... he didn't have them after all.

I find it ironic that we, the west, are hammering on at people "Ooo, your country is evil, it attacks other countries, you have terrorists in it, you have WMD.." We're guilty of all of that, and our policies abroad kill millions a year - is it any wonder we're hated? Seriously? We're a greedy bunch of a**eholes, we f**k countries in the ass on a regular basis for profit. We arm maniacs for money for godsake.
I just wish we weren't ruled by such a bunch of greedy f**kers, then so many people wouldn't hate us enough to blow themselves us at us. Seriously.

 

[Bodacious]

This ends the argument on detaining unchargend prisoners for inderterminate amounts of time.


From the link:

The ruling (by the supreme court) said that the Executive Branch shall be accorded wide latitude in conducting this so-called war, but that the Guantanamo "terrorists" as well as all those held on related charges, or lack there of, in the U.S. may bring writs of habeas corpus in U.S. federal courts. The Supreme Court stated that these matters shall be dealt with on something of a case-by-case basis unless Congress finally acts on the matter, bringing us into sync with our European allies. This is essentially where the matter stands.

 

[CptStern]

So let me get this straight. First, you complain about the U.S. holding detainees forever, then you complain that they released 119?

you're putting words in my mouth ...you know full well I was countering your point that all the prisoners at guantanamo bay are terrorists. Nice attempt at steering it in your favor

It sounds to me like the job of sorting out who is a terrorist and who is not is being done.

the bigger point is that the dragnet they're using to capture these people may be too wide ...seems kinda funny that days after 9/11 the US turned into a nation of people reporting on suspiscious people who fit a certain racial characteristic ...yet the family of bin laden is allowed to return to saudi arabia without being questioned/incarcerated/tortured ...what does this have to do with what we're discussing? read my response below

Can you tell me a better, more effective way to do this which guarantees with absolute certainty that no dangerous Al Qaeda members make their way back to society and no unfortunates are accidentally caught up in it?

ummmm capture the man responsible for 9/11? how's that coming along?

Doesn't that detract somewhat from the argument these people are being mistreated?

that's one case ...do you want links to prisoners who've said they were tortured?

I'm sure nobody here could argue with that statement.

? after 2 years? how many more innocent prisoners will be there for years to come? how many may never leave american prisons?


more later when I have the time, I'm not done with you yet :E

Is it possible this may be the case? Entirely. Is it possible they are also Al Qaeda or Taliban members who are attempting to use our own legal system against us? Entirely. You can't deny that could be happening. It's well known Al Qaeda's training program includes such tactics.
See this:http://cryptome.org/alq-terr-man.htm#18

all 119 released prisoners? 50/50? 40/60? 20/80? how many of those are innocent?

This is actually very close to the tactics professional protesters attempt to use against police here in the U.S. Interesting....

you mean the less than 1 % who are there to cause trouble? Didnt know singing anti-protest songs originated with Al queda How many protests have you attended? How many have attended out of uniform?

 

[Hapless]

Innocent detainees like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

or this:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040705-080713-4578r

More to come....

 

[Hapless]

You mean the less than 1 % who are there to cause trouble? Didnt know singing anti-protest songs originated with Al queda How many protests have you attended? How many have attended out of uniform?

I've attended several, actually. Including some with the socialists or communists or whatever they are, who wear bandannas or gas masks on their faces and attempt to provoke us into doing something they can use for propaganda. I've also attended several large union rallys where members would try to provoke us by getting up in our faces and screaming at us, etc. Once, they went too far and got pepper sprayed, then took the 18 second incident and stretched it out to about a minute and a half, complete with dubbed in spraying noises and an Irish folk song, in a propaganda video. Then they lost their federal lawsuit. So I'm WELL aware of what that "1%" is capable of. I've never attended a protest out of uniform because, well, that's not my thing. And why would you sing anti-protest songs at a protest? Isn't that an oxymoron? :naughty: BTW, the link in the quote doesn't work for me for some reason.

Another quick question....how come you don't apply the "1%," theory to the police, the military, etc. anytime something comes up about them?

 

[burner69]

Innocent detainees like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

or this:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040705-080713-4578r

More to come....

Wow, ten people.

Out of how many? Is it 300? Something like that?
And I'll say again - what harm are those people doing to our public? This public we're told needs protection from all these swarms of terrorists. Fighting back in on foreign soil where YOU took the fight (that was aimed at Bush, not you personally ) If it's our idea to protect civvies, imprisoning and torturing possibly 280 innocents don't seem to be helping.

Oh, and out of however many people they've detained they've released 10 who're out fighting again... so obviously this scheme is not only highly effective in getting terrorists, but also keeping them detained.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I agree; it is effective. Lets keep doing it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

For the sake of brevity and since I'm currently tired, I'm just going to address the meat of the post. Mostly just skipping over the repeated mention that I'm superior and dismissive which, I'll tell you now, I'm utterly unappologetic for, as I really do think my opinion that international law shouldn't be violated so frivolously is a superior stance, and I am not going to bother trying to conceal my disdain towards someone who I honestly believe should know better.

And just to start things of: if you think 'sticking something up another's 'bottom'' isn't a reference to homosexuality than obviously there's enough confusion to warrant your comment being dropped from further discussion.

While I don't recall if I ever had to stay up for exactly a week straight, everything the military does to it's recruits is calculated for the sole and express purpose of causing the recruit psychological anguish. This breaks the recruit down so they can be built back up. This includes sleep deprivation, verbal abuse (including threats), AND staying in one position until it becomes uncomfortable.

Such things are entirely voluntary though, unless there's a draft going on. (Drafts being another thing I'm opposed to for similar reasons.) Members of the military can choose to join or quit. Luxuries that the Guantanamo prisoners certainly don't have.

Why would I, or anyone, want a hobo in my cellar?

The point was less to do with the specifics of the conditions than with the generalities involved.
The prisonners at guantanamo haven't been faced with any formal convictions, making them more-or less random and potentially innocent strangers who have been confined for extremely lengthy periods of time simply because they are 'terrorism suspects'. It's a similar situation to capturing any random pedestrian and locking them away in your basement in the name of 'citizen's arrest'.
These are people being given harsher punishments than many murderers, simply for being suspects. Sure, some of them could be guilty, but any number of them could be innocents wishing to return home to see their families.
North American law is specifically designed to prevent such things, to preserve the rights of the innocent. Innocence being what our superior legal systems assume people are, until proven guilty.
But, for vague reasons concerning "mumble mumble terrorism investigation mumble mumble national security" the american legal system is being turned on its head and kicked out the door in these remote places, and I don't think anyone can really say if it's worth it.

Unlawful restraint wasn't the focus of my point though, being more concerned with the morality (or lack thereof) behind sleep deprivation torture.

WAR is morally reprehensible. But, unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary. Any moral ground would be higher than that upon which Saddam and the gang stand.

The problem in this case is that I see no indication whatsover that the actions at Guantanamo bay actually serve any purpose, let alone one which justifies the ethics violations behind them.
"At least we're better than Saddam Hussien" is a rather poor excuse given that, as you said, most everything is better than Saddam Hussein.
If I were charged with some quadruple homicide, that defence would laugh me straight out of court and into a life sentence, or death sentence, were I a resident of select states.

Since a signifigant rationale behind the war on terror is that it is introducing american ethics standards to the mid-east, it seems extremely counter-productive to go very lax with those same standards at the same time. Using torture and threatened violence to rescue people from torture and the threat of violence is just a plain horrible plan for all involved.
Being moderately less awful than Saddam is only going to make the people you're trying to ally yourselves with hate you moderately less than they hated Saddam.
The end result is growing anti-american sentiment in the mideast and around the world, and thus more terrorists.
At best, it makes the entire 'war on terror' an effort in self-defeat.

The single best weapon against terrorists is to stop painting the target on yourselves. Terrorists don't 'hate our freedom'. They hate western society because they believe extremely strongly that america is a threat to their people everything they hold dear.
So these tortures are just like kicking the hornet's nest to prevent yourself from being stung. You might stop a couple of them, but the end result is that you've made things worse than ever.

And that's just looking at things logically. There's also the moral issues involved.

As I explained above, sleep deprivation breaks people's defenses down. It helps the war effort, if effective, by providing us with information helpful to the war effort.

Such as? I don't think anyone can mention a single piece of information obtained through this torture that has helped the war effort. Certainly nothing to outweigh the ethics violations and the possibility of rallying the mideast against yourself.
Osama found? Nope. WMDs? No.

I have yet to see indication that they are even attempting to obtain information through these acts. i can';t name a single beneficial result, and I assume the same could be said for you.

So if these actions are illegal, in almost every sense of the word, and serve no visible purpose, why do they continue to happen?

Remember, in america you cannot treat a suspect anywhere close to how these people are being treated, because such things are considered assault, harassment, and abuse, and therefore are not worth the risk of potentially harming an innocent person, as suspects very often turn out to be.
Admissions or testimony extracted in these ways are inadmissable in court, because on top of being illegal in and of themselves, coererced testimonies are usually unverifiable and unreliable, often to the point of being useless. Certainly not the quality of evidence you'd want protecting your country.
So why would these laws suddenly be repealed just because you're dealing with a slightly different sort of murder conviction?

How about a change of pace, where my nationality is actually relevant in the form of an example.

None of those things involve the security of the U.S., or U.S. forces abroad.

Fictional scenario: As a part of Canada's ongoing anti-terror investigations, 400 american citizens are apprehended, and sent to a military base in Greenland. Your neighbour, your best friend, and maybe family members are amoung the strangers. No explanation is given, as it's a 'classified matter of national security.'
These 400 americans are kept there for five years, or even longer, in squalid conditions. They are kept awake with intensely loud music and flashing lights for weeks at a time, until they mentally break down. Terrified people are stripped nude and forced to do handstands, told that they will be lashed with a whip if their arms give out. This weakened state is accompanied with threats and hate-filled jeers designed specifically to terrify and demean them further. this continues for years, and possibly decades, until they have all finally been given trials. In the end, only 200 of the 400 americans are found to have actually been terrorists. All in the name of 'making the world safe for canadian citizens and canadian soldiers abroad.'

It's a lot different when they're not just iraqis. It's easy to pay lip service to the situation and say it's worth harming innocent people when your neighbours aren't the ones being 'broken down' in camps. It's definitely not just small lies designed to give the suspect a false sense of security. It's more the polar opposite.

Let alone the longer-term effects. You better believe Canada would be put on the axis of evil and bombed the next day, were this scenario true.
Well, your country is on the 'axis of evil' to an even ever-growing segment of the mideast's population now. They might not be as strong as you, but they're still armed and determined to do as much damage as they can.

These are things that you would never legally be allowed to do, but you're saying it's okay just because they are taking place on the international scale.

Here you are equating what I do with what soldiers do. THere is a huge difference between civilian law enforcement and the prosecution of a war. The ethics that apply to my profession are not applicable to soldiers. My job is to protect life whenever possible, even the life of a suspect. This is why I have all manner of non-lethal weaponry at my disposal. A soldier's job, at it's most basic level, is to kill people and destroy things. Morally reprehensible? Maybe, but sometimes necessary.

The difference isn't as huge as you might think.
Both police officers and soldiers are tasked with protecting the good of their country. They are issued special weapons, training and equipment to combat threats and actions taken against their society.

These threats are described through laws, designed to limit the police/soldier's punishing actions only to those who deserve the punishment. The purpose of this is to minimize the amount of harm to the innocent, the civilian population.

The only real difference between you and a soldier is that a soldier is forced through circumstance to use lethal force far more often.
If the city you patrol were as bad as Iraq, you'd probably be issued a machine gun and tank support too.
To the same extent, a contingent of soldiers sent into LA wouldn't be able to blow up buildings in an attempt to take out the drug dealers.
Soldiers are simply cops who are tasked with combatting more dangerous and prevalent sorts of danger, and are equipped accordingly.

And just as the law tells you you can't kill a suspect because you might be harming an innocent person, laws tell soldiers that they can't just harm anyone in the pursuit of an enemy, in order to limit as much as possible any civilian casualties.

And as there are laws which tell civilian prison guards not to harm suspects through acts which are described as torture, the same applies to military jails.
There are only two differences:
-Military jails are much more sensitive operations, as they must factor in diplomacy and international standards.
-Military jails are, counterintuitive to the first point, held to much, much lower ethical standards by people such as yourself.

Just because soldiers are subject to different laws, they are not somehow allowed to break them. These are laws designed specifically to prevent innocent people from being harmed. breaking them puts the innocent at risk, and they are aparently being broken on a regular basis, in the name of 'security'.
One-word oxymoron.

And it's not even a case of a few iraqis citizens being harmed in exchange for saving american lives.
I'm going to have to repeat the assertion that these acts at Guantanamo have no proven usefulness whatsoever, especially a use that would justify their moral reprehensibility.
In fact, what good deed do you think would justify this treatment to hundreds of people?

I'm also opposed to going to jail. Yet I put people in jail almost every day. Does that make me a hypocrite as well? I'm opposed to being placed in handcuffs, yet I place other people in handcuffs every day. Does that make me a hypocrite?

My point was that it'd be hypocritical to support 'bending the rules' to harm innocents in the name of a greater good when you wouldn't want it to happen to you. The simple fact is that hundreds of the people who were kept in these conditions were no different than you or I, or our families. Throwing these people to the dogs (almost literally in some cases) in order to give our families some vague security just isn't right. No-one wants the system to be perverted against them, but it's all too easy to 'get over it' when it's someone else imprisoned indefinitely without trial or even charges.

Of course, no activist group would ever exaggerate things to prove their point. Never happens. And I'd like you to point out where in any of my statements I said "Hey, you guys, torture is good. Really. No, I'm serious." I simply don't agree that certain things some consider to be torture, are torture. Especially when compared with, say, slicing someone's head off with a dull knife.

If you had some evidence that that group of physicians is incorrect in their definition of torture, I would buy that.
But it doesn't matter what the word for it is, you've said yourself how these things would be illegal if they were committed on US soil, but you support them nonetheless because they aren't technically torture by your personal definition.
Your definition, however, is below the international standard.
And until there is some concrete reason why that standard should be lowered only in cases where it's a muslim who might be a terrorist, but not in those where it's a white guy who might be a murderer, this shit shouldn't be happening.
We don't ignore laws just because it's more convenient to.

If you want to do crazy shit to a suspect, try and pass a bill and hope it gets voted into law. But until the standard of decency drops that low, it's not going to happen.
So the legal system is officially in the right, and if the legal system tells you to stop, you can't just plug your ears and sing a song when you suddenly don't like what you hear.
You stop.
You don't say "But there's terrorism! But there's september 11th!"
You stop.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin

And he's right. But in this case, you're not even giving up your own freedoms. You're giving up other people's. And I'd warrant that's much, much worse.

 

[Hapless]

Hey, calm down. I agree with everything you say whole-heartedly. Really. I'm a changed man. To argue with you could potentially offend you, and I wouldn't want to do that. Let's you and me be friends. :cheers:

Spoiler

At least for the next 30 days......

 

[CptStern]

/me does the sidestepping jig

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Stern, whats the score say?

Mechagodzilla 204960967904?

 

[Hapless]

/me does the sidestepping jig

Yep, I'm agreeing with you too. I've come to see the error of my ways. Engaging in arguments only tempts me to cross the line and do things like use absurdity to illustrate the absurd, which I now understand is unacceptable on this forum. Say hello to the new Hapless. :angel:

 

[CptStern]

meh, dont blame others for what you said

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I don't like the 'new hapless' any more than the old one, to be honest.

And again, if you had any actual precedent to back up your 'illustrative absurdity', you just might come across as less obnoxious.
In the meantime, your arguments are at best unconvincing and, at worst, offensive.

I've got the legal system, popular opinion and logic on my side.
All you have is the weak assertion that soldiers are above the law because you want them to be.
It would seem the new hapless' absurdist admissions of defeat are only funny because they're true.

So, I repeat my original conclusion:
Yours are the worst misconceptions here.
Get over that.

 

[burner69]

I love a good old fashioned debate.

 

[Hapless]

I don't like the 'new hapless' any more than the old one, to be honest.

And again, if you had any actual precedent to back up your 'illustrative absurdity', you just might come across as less obnoxious.
In the meantime, your arguments are at best unconvincing and, at worst, offensive.

I've got the legal system, popular opinion and logic on my side.
All you have is the weak assertion that soldiers are above the law because you want them to be.
It would seem the new hapless' absurdist admissions of defeat are only funny because they're true.

So, I repeat my original conclusion:
Yours are the worst misconceptions here.
Get over that.

Wow, you're right again!! Great job! I bow to your massive intellect. :cheers:

 

[Hapless]

I don't like the 'new hapless' any more than the old one, to be honest.

And again, if you had any actual precedent to back up your 'illustrative absurdity', you just might come across as less obnoxious.
In the meantime, your arguments are at best unconvincing and, at worst, offensive.

I've got the legal system, popular opinion and logic on my side.
All you have is the weak assertion that soldiers are above the law because you want them to be.
It would seem the new hapless' absurdist admissions of defeat are only funny because they're true.

So, I repeat my original conclusion:
Yours are the worst misconceptions here.
Get over that.

Wow, you're right again!! Great job! I bow to your massive intellect. :cheers:

meh, dont blame others for what you said

I'm not blaming others for anything. It was all my fault. Seriously. If I was a religious man, I might call this a "revelation."
But I'm not, because that's just bad. Anyway, you guys make some great points. Bravo, I say! :thumbs:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Great, thanks for wasting my time. Even though I had very little respect for you in the first place, I still expected more than willfully devolving into incoherence.

If you kill your own thread, does that count as a suicide? Or just stupid?
Either way, the thread is dead.
G'bye everyone. I'm off to greener pastures. Hopefully ones with less bullshit.

 

[burner69]

You Ok Hap?
Seriously.

 

[Hapless]

You Ok Hap?
Seriously.

Never better. Although I am upset that my friend Mech is mad. What can I do to cheer him up? ;(

 

[Absinthe]

Well, I guess that somebody's made their concession speech.

 

[brink's]

I find it odd how mech argues his opinion( which I totally agree with) on almost a daily basis and rarely gets anywhere with it due to other people's closed mindedness, but when someone says " hey you're right, thx"( and it's doubtful that he's kidding) he calls it a waste of time.

 

[CptStern]

...when someone says " hey you're right, thx"( and it's doubtful that he's kidding) he calls it a waste of time.

huh? you dont know Hapless very well now do you? he was being sarcastic ...although a complete about face would be pleasant, it's not going to happen

 

[brink's]

Then I take it back.

 

[bliink]

Never better. Although I am upset that my friend Mech is mad. What can I do to cheer him up? ;(

Your attitude needs serious thought.
Just because you're being totally sarcastic about absolutely everything does not mean you aren't being abusive.

 

[Hapless]

Your attitude needs serious thought.
Just because you're being totally sarcastic about absolutely everything does not mean you aren't being abusive.

Sarcasm like this?

wow you really push the envelope on stupidity

Or maybe this?

/me does the sidestepping jig

How about this?

too bad you dont put much effort in actually dealing with the issues I bring up

These?

sorry but I dont think you'd be an asset to the profession

you really are an idiot

welll I seem to know a lot more than most cops

But wait, there's more...

Sickening.
You claim to be a police officer?
What kind of police officer do you think you are?

Someone call the poli- oh, wait. Nevermind.

If you want to be a nazi about semantics (you know damn well how the word "racist" is used), then go ahead and rub some more sand in your vagina.

As for the uninteresting nature of your assumedly sob story, I can't really say, because I wasn't interested enough to read it completely.

So let's begin this post with that divergence starting off your average with .000 for maturity and accuracy (both good qualities for a cop to have, by the way).

And I'm not just purely making fun of you. I really do think that you have no place in the legal system, and that there should have been some sort of screening process that stamped the word 'REJECTED' on your face and cast you into the unemployment line long ago.

I'm not one to judge your lifestyle choices, but just because you might not mind being stripped down to your underpants, masked, and forced to do tricks under threats of injury and death doesn't mean everyone else does.

...add some more mentioning of my nationality for some reason, and trying to prop up your weak jokes, and you're done.
At the very least you've decided to stop trying to be funny.
Gotta be thankful for that.

I am not going to bother trying to conceal my disdain towards someone who I honestly believe should know better.

In my opinion, most of the last few quotes from Mech, are not sarcastic. They are abusive. Utterly so. There are many, many more examples, but I don't want to be accused of violating yet another forum rule.

I did find it interesting while reading through Stern and Mech's posts, there were many examples of them, 'Using absurdity to illustrate the absurd." Or what they believed to be absurd. On occasion, both have even played devil's advocate. Let's ask Webster what that means:

dev·il's advocate (dvlz)
n.
One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.


But hey, it's Stern and Mech we're talking about here, they can do no wrong.

And before you guys say I'm overreacting, I don't really have a problem with most of the examples I posted here. With the exception of the rather abusive comments regarding my fitness to do my job. If I were to say that, "based on the opinions Mech has posted on this board, I can tell he is a terrible artist," I'd probably be banned for life. My problem is with the apparent double standard evidenced by the subtle warning that I quoted to start off this post as well as my warning level of 3. :hmph:

 

[bliink]

Hapless:
I'm not going to argue with you. Either shape-up or ship-out.
The only reason you were acting like that was because another mod warned you and you disagreed, so you decided to act without showing any maturity.
If you have a problem with a particular comment because it breaks a rule, then report the post. I did not give you your original warning, I don't care about your original warning. What I do care about is your behaviour right now.
The other members you allege are misbehaving are sarcastic, yes, but contextually, they are also participating in discussion, rather than making posts that are 100% sarcastic attempts to rebel against the warnings given to you previously.
I think I've made it clear enough that theres going to be no debating the issue.
I don't know about what you do in real life, I don't care what you do in real life, at this site, Halflife2.net makes the rules.