Obviously, it appeared differently to me. I didn't intend to imply that it is. I'm sure you can understand how someone who hasn't heard that term might see it as a cheap dig. I'm unfamiliar with the term and stand corrected. Given the passive aggressive tendencies of many of the members of this site, I hope you understand. It sounded pretty much like a cheap shot to me. Incorrect. Read again please, slower this time: "more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society" It's not sixty percent of the whole, but sixty percent of the civilian population at abu grahib. That of course in no way establishes the civilian population's percentage of the total number of prisoners. Perhaps you should reconsider your crack at me about what I should read and understand. And by saying that after having incorrectly interpreted your source, your argument is weakened and credibilty damaged as well. Criticizing each other's credibility and how well our arguments are supported doesn't seem very productive eh? I didn't say I believed they were all not wearing uniforms. I ammended my statement to clarify that they were whom which I was referring. I realize I did state "they weren't in uniform" but at the time I'd simply failed to expand my consideration. I appreciate your assistance in that matter. But it's already been established I was only referring to those not in uniform who were attacking the occupying force. You're incorrect to continue argument along the lines of civilians, as I've conceded your point regarding them. Hence it's not conjecture. If you insist I'll look up the rules I read and post them such that you can see where I got it from. Not since I've conceded your point. I agree that civilians not wearing uniforms are covered by the convention. I think there's a gray area regarding those who are suspected to be spies or in conspiracy to kill members of the occupying force. But I already showed a problem with your interpretation of your source. No need to attempt to discredit it. You're welcome. I agree, but find hypocracy a seemingly unfortunate necessary in politics. Competent by whose standard? There's some gray area for you. I'd imagine lawyers on either side would push the requirements to the extreme to justify their position. Such is the way it seems. Agreed. It seemed to me that the convention states that "major forces" or whatever they call it have to hold themselves to the standard even against a guerilla army. Agreed. To me you seemed to avoid that I addressed it. You agree with me, yet find the answer less than satisfactory? Agreed, but it also doesn't keep them from being a necessity at times. You can't please everyone and to someone it's always going to seem you're using a double standard in politics - even if you aren't. As was said, perception becomes more important than truth. It's good though that there are people more concerned with truth than perception to balance the equation. If it sways too far either way, the system blows up and resets. Much death and despair ensue. I haven't contended otherwise. Is it torture, or is it allowed under the geneva convention? Which are you asking? I see what you stated, but you've changed subjects at a seemingly odd time. But it's generally the nature of man to try to do so. In politics, it's damn near a necessity. Yes that would be good. Agreed. I don't think our agreement will quell the hypocracy though, as saving face is apparently fundamental to politics. If you don't appease your constituency, you don't stay in office. Most politician types won't accept failure and much of the time I'd say the constituencies impression of the real circumstances their politician type has to deal with is horrifically inept. With ridiculous expectations from every direction, it's no wonder politicians play to perception rather than truth. Until the general populous generally has realistic expectations of their representatives, I can't see how things will change except to perhaps blow up and start again through the cycle until it blows up again.
Wes, I just noticed that I did misread my source. As you correctly pointed out, it was 60% of civilians who were not considered a threat, not 60% of prisoners being civilians. My apologies. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyhow, my source does make it clear that many prisoners in Abu Gharib were civilians. I'll snoop around the net to see if I can find a rough estimate of how many prisoners were considered civilians. As for the issue about hypocracy, I see now that we are both in (partial) agreement. You agree that the double-speak is hypocracy, but is necessary. I honestly do not feel it is necessary, and see it as rather deceptive and dishonest (once again, I understand the very purpose of it is to deceive the layman). Mainly, what I am contending is that a policy of 'abuse' to extract confessions is dangerous, and prone to disaster. As we have seen here, where does one draw the line between torture and abuse? And how do we know we aren't abusing an innocent, which is strictly against the Geneva Conventions? The more power you give authorities such as the police/military, the more likely it is to be abused.
It seems another pertinent statistic might be, how many of the civilian prisoners were exposed to 'the treatment' as they coined it in this article. Hey is that the same article? It also contained the quote regarding 60%.
I belive one of the things on mountain's list was long periods of solotry confinment and imprisionment without oversite or limits ummm doesnt 3 years in solotry count as "long"????? ok maybe they wernt in SOLOTRY for that long but how would we know? they certainly were incomunicardo arnt they???? so under US definition guantanimo bay IS torcher
We do extradite terrorists to countries that do torture people. We've shippe doff some innocents that way.
Correct. That is what I was so strongly contending. In the past, America's definition of torture included extended periods of solitary confinement. P.S. Asguard, check your PM's.
I have not read all the posts but generally speaking I will add one thing: Let those without sin, cast the first stone Apparently a biblical quotation which I abhor using in this site but relevant in this one instance.
how about love your nabor as yourself? i find most "christans" fail to even TRY to live up to the basis of there own beliefs. Just look how "christans" treat gays, or "those evil towl heads" everyone LOVES to hate. That is about the only common denomiatior in humanity. Those who are different are fair game
I don't know about you, Red Devil, but I have never tortured anyone and I am delighted to cast the first stone.
I speak figuratively as a member of a certain country. Is there any US citizens out there who think their country has done no wrong, or English, Scottish, German, French, Indonesian, etc etc etc
what makes either of you better than them? really why should you have more rights than they do. This doesnt just go for gays but ANYONE. It NEVER hurts you to see an argument from the other persons point of view and it STOPS alot of hate crimes and genral hatred. Why do you think osama can get people to fly planes into buildings? because your so great? even if you were its because he can demonise you to the people brainwashing them that your not even human anymore so its ok to kill you. The same thing that your millatry does to the "enermy" whoever they happen to be this hour. If you can demonise someone and put a devide between us and THEM then people will think its ok to kill, maim and torcher them because "they dont count". This is the argument bush is using to bich about the US solders being torchered while doing it himself. This is the argument homophobes use to justify beating gays to a pulp and this is the argument that the KKK uses to survive. The sadiest thing is that some of these people proclame that they follow religions of peace but they dont show it
Not too sure who your getting at there, or why, but my dislike of so called "gays" has got nothing at all to do with the thread title. Lets keep on topic eh?
im not saying i hate them... i just hate it when they protest and prance around like their better than normal people... live your life how ever you want to just dont rub it in my face thinking i care or agree.
Are you saying that a country that has done wrong in the past is perfectly entitled to continue doing wrong without condemnation? If not, what are you trying to say?
You said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." This was used as a reason for doing nothing when first it was said. If you didn't use those words to justify inaction against torturers, why did you use them?
Well, i startd this threead. I am Queer, and it upsets me when people say they hate me and people like me.....and Odin'Ism, it shoked me you feel that way too. didn't you pm me a while back with compliments? Asguard is spot on with his/her insights. It all begins when you demonize a group. scapegoat them. call them a label, and then it's easy to want to torture and even kill them. You should rather look at you SELF. what it is about TOU that makes you project your fear and hatred onto other human beings
I like people with artistic skills , so you I respect not to mention agreeing on alot of points. I had a very bad experience with a gay person once in a bar... so im slightly homophobic, other than that let them do what they want aslong as im not involved... i have a few gay friends but we respect eachothers viewpoints making it a non hostile enviroment.
