chuckakers 370 #1 June 9, 2009 Oops - did I say "American"? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6466430.eceChuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #2 June 9, 2009 The big difference is that this is an alligation of illegal behaviour by alleged rouge coppers, not a high level government decision to torture. If these coppers are found guilty they'll face heavy prison sentances, the Americans who did this got a pat on the back from both the last and current POTUS one of whom approved and the other is playing the 'its all in the past card'.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #3 June 10, 2009 QuoteOops - did I say "American"? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6466430.ece So you are basically going with a "But MOM the British do it TOO" approach? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #4 June 10, 2009 I thought the right didn't believe in moral relativism. Guess that's true only when convenient. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #5 June 10, 2009 Quote The big difference is that this is an alligation of illegal behaviour by alleged rouge coppers, not a high level government decision to torture. If these coppers are found guilty they'll face heavy prison sentances, the Americans who did this got a pat on the back from both the last and current POTUS one of whom approved and the other is playing the 'its all in the past card'. The other big difference is that one set of watwerboarders was doing it to run-of-the-mill criminals, while the other was doing it to highly trained members of an armed and very dangerous terrorist extremist group on a mission, with information that could save many thousands of lives if devulged. Uh yeah, there is a difference.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #6 June 10, 2009 >while the other was doing it to highly trained members of an armed >and very dangerous terrorist extremist group on a mission . . . Right! Who can forget Dilawar, who we tortured to death to find out what evil fares he was collecting with his Taxi of Mass Destruction? Compare him to, say, a run of the mill US mass murderer, who deserves a comfortable cot and three square meals a day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #7 June 11, 2009 Quote>while the other was doing it to highly trained members of an armed >and very dangerous terrorist extremist group on a mission . . . Right! Who can forget Dilawar, who we tortured to death to find out what evil fares he was collecting with his Taxi of Mass Destruction? Me. I have to admit I've got no idea who Dilawar is (was?). Can you provide a link to more information? Thanks!-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #8 June 11, 2009 > Can you provide a link to more information? You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(human_rights_victim) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #9 June 11, 2009 Quote>while the other was doing it to highly trained members of an armed >and very dangerous terrorist extremist group on a mission . . . Right! Who can forget Dilawar, who we tortured to death to find out what evil fares he was collecting with his Taxi of Mass Destruction? Compare him to, say, a run of the mill US mass murderer, who deserves a comfortable cot and three square meals a day. Whatever. And "deserves" is pushing it.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #10 June 11, 2009 >And "deserves" is pushing it. Why? You yourself said we should be treating run-of-the-mill criminals better than potentially innocent people we find on a battlefield. Here's a shocking idea - justice for all. (You may recognize that phrase from somewhere.) Use the same justice system that we think works for Timothy McVeigh for all those foreigners you are so afraid of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #11 June 11, 2009 Quote>And "deserves" is pushing it. Why? You yourself said we should be treating run-of-the-mill criminals better than potentially innocent people we find on a battlefield. Here's a shocking idea - justice for all. (You may recognize that phrase from somewhere.) Use the same justice system that we think works for Timothy McVeigh for all those foreigners you are so afraid of. I would have no problem treating McVeigh like an enemy combatant. Setting off a monster bomb on US soil with the intend of killing innocent people is an act of war and should be treated like one. Not that it matters in the context of this reply, but Timothy McVeigh wasn't part of an organized global army. He was a loner nutjob. The people we waterboarded were soldiers whose nation is Radical Islam and whose war is Jihad. They are truly soldiers of a foreign force and are absolutely committed to our destruction. And contrary to your post, I'm not "so afraid" of them. The destruction they are capable of has been made clear and their intent has been well announced. I'm just observing the obvious. Or did you miss that on the network news?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #12 June 11, 2009 >Not that it matters in the context of this reply, but Timothy McVeigh >wasn't part of an organized global army. Neither was Dilawar. >The people we waterboarded were soldiers whose nation is Radical >Islam and whose war is Jihad. Actually, most of them were innocent. >And contrary to your post, I'm not "so afraid" of them. You seem to be so afraid of them that you are terrified that our justice system will work - and find that they are not guilty of the crimes they are accused of. It's not a new fear. There are millions of people who are terrified of just that - that these people that we have tortured for years will be released with their newborn hatred of the US intact. I think it's time people put on their big boy pants and living with the results of their mistakes. >The destruction they are capable of has been made clear and their >intent has been well announced. I'm just observing the obvious. So have the "pro-lifers" and the "birthists." (Again, I am just observing the obvious.) Shall we detain and torture them without a trial, then? Or should we just let them murder doctors and Jews? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #13 June 11, 2009 QuoteNot that it matters in the context of this reply, but Timothy McVeigh wasn't part of an organized global army. He was a loner nutjob. The people we waterboarded were soldiers whose nation is Radical Islam and whose war is Jihad. They are truly soldiers of a foreign force and are absolutely committed to our destruction. Going by your terminology, the Geneva Convention should then apply to "soldiers" of an "organized army". I was under the impression that one of the justifications by the administration of the treatment of these guys is that they were NOT "soldiers of an organized army" and that therefore the Geneva convention would not apply... Which is it? "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #14 June 11, 2009 Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(human_rights_victim) Wow. What a shocking example of incompetence, lack of integrity and failure of compassion. Let's put those guys in charge of healthcare, too!-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #15 June 11, 2009 Quote Wow. What a shocking example of incompetence, lack of integrity and failure of compassion. Let's put those guys in charge of healthcare, too! That could equally well apply to the people who ran Chrysler, AIG, Lehman Bros, Indymac, Tyco, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom, GM... The government does not have a monopoly on incompetence and lack of integrity - there's plenty in the private sector too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #16 June 11, 2009 QuoteQuote Wow. What a shocking example of incompetence, lack of integrity and failure of compassion. Let's put those guys in charge of healthcare, too! That could equally well apply to the people who ran Chrysler, AIG, Lehman Bros, Indymac, Tyco, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom, GM. Absolutely. Which is why I'm out on the streets advocating that we put Enron in charge of healthcare!-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #17 June 11, 2009 >Which is why I'm out on the streets advocating that we put Enron in >charge of healthcare! Well, that's what you're basically doing. Your model is that the market forces that shaped Enron should be used to shape health care as well. To play devil's advocate, the free market gave us Enron, the government gave us the Apollo Program. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
