abu gahrib is official american policy. it does not breach any of their new rules. it is the new america.
abu gahrib is official american policy. it does not breach any of their new rules. it is the new america.
At the very least equate something to the other and just don't flat out exaggerate it to the point of lying like you are. Abu Gahrib is not offical American Policy.
No-body's saying torture is nice, sweet and frolicky. It's not. That's the whole point - torture is a terrible practice and has a terrible cost. It is, however, necessary in certain cases, which I and others have mentioned before.
I think this debate is really over. I think saving lives is more important than doubtable moral values and international law, and Cloud Number Nine thinks the two latters are above human life. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because this is too fundamental to compromise on.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
Thank you DarkLadyNyara. Anyways to go further.
What is the percent chance. How eminent is it? How likely is it to resolve though other means. And the catch all phrase for these questions and all other is the word 'reasonable'. Selfdefense and what is acceptable as such changes with time due to what that time sees as reasonable.Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
And anyways nuking is likely to rarely be reasonable. You do realize how much damage those cause? We would damage our freinds the japenese(in the case of korea others in the cases of other nations). We would harm our own enviroment and we could possibly put the planet in a downward spiral that would lead to the end of us all(depending on the number of nukes).
Not exactly... you see it makes it more important to stirke before your enemy can unlease such weapons. If your enemy doesn't exist to use the weapons they won't be there. Making prediction and pre-emption more important in a war. Of course avoiding war altogether is the safest option.
A good number of hours each day. And more when we are getting ready for a meet. Here in Ohio, or at least at my school, the coaches take it seriousally. In practice if you pass out that is a good thing.. you are supposed to push yourself that hard. Asthma attack? Good job, good way to push yourself. Etc... The coach once told us "Wrestling isn't a game, it isn't a sport, it is torture". Torture of course is any from of large phsycial and mental pain. Wrestlers do put themselves through alot. No it isn't torture to the extreme, but it ain't anything nice.
I got a little story for you. A wrestling mate of mine(152 I was 130 and he was my wrestling partner.. I needed to be broke off my strong arm tactic.. and this guy was having trouble when his opponent was faster then him(which I was)) went and joined the military... this was before 9/11 and afghanistan. He called back and told us that if we ever needed any easy money to go join the military. Why we asked? The place is easier then a day of wrestling practice. Talk about a breeze. Etc.
He may have been blowing smoke for all I know. But this isn't the only such instance where I have been told that our practices(other schools in our area generally do more drills rather then phsyical exercises.. so physically we are tougher. we have reasons for that) are tougher then Military training(the only difference being military training lasts longer). Whereas basket ball players that I know that have joined come back and say it is rough. But then again the basket ball players here think our practices are insane as well.
Now why I say this is this; many of the forms you mention bring phsyical discomfort through things that we wrestlers do much of the time. Thus the stuff is definately bearable if you have any form of pain tolerance. Some of those guys with busted limbs I told you about? They would break them in one match and go back out the same match to finish what was started. And some of those bones were broke wiht menace(so they didn't get to wrestle since the other guy was disqualified). One dude who whined about the pain of having a broken bone... he lost all the respect from his team mates. Why? Pain like that is quite endurable. Enough on this. I just think you play that stuff up a bit much, it hurts yes, but it is far from unbearable.
The second way I posted it wasn't entirely comic book quality. The only real thing I am having trouble finding is a likely motive for the criminal to want to force someone to rape another. only thing I can think of is to try and get they guy jailed. But the moment the truth came out, the sentence would be lessened or perhaps removed entirely, I am sure. Thus to me that doesn't make much sense.
Menace... I sorta misused it there compared to the dictionary meaning. Was bound to happen sooner or later, I don't look up every word I write. I was likely meaing it in a sense of its Synonyms. Basically the words that should have been there are tormenting, terrorizing etc.. And remember I am talking about on the actors part(how they feel) not how the victim percieves them. But I do appoligise about the word usage. I should defeinately watch myself about that.
As a last. It is generally better to regulate and control something then to outright ban it(though I guess you can think of banning as the ultimate regulation and control, I am using it in the way it is used when refering to drugs, which means legalize it but put restrictions on it). that in my opinion is how almost all laws should be. Such as say "Torture, being that it many times deprives of humanity should be avoided at all costs, and can be punishable by the highest form of law" or some such. Say you shouldn't do it. Say it can be punished. The rest of the law would state words like 'reasonable' and the such. Giving it flexiblity. Any unflexable law is inherently flawed, unjust, and immoral. The world isn't black and white, we do have the wonderful colors.
STILL Updating the anime list. . . I didn't think I was that much of an anime freak! I don't even want to consider updating the manga list!
abu gharib is american policy. if it isn't why legalise torture to the degree used there?
when i said nuking i meant it kind of metaphorically like destroy.
the theory of mad ruined pre-emptive capabilities. it meant you could wipe out the entire country and the nukes would still keep firing. once the red button is hit MAD is in place. that was the great threat of the cold war. total annihilation of both sides. they both had enough nukes to wipe each other out many times over and had the capability to keep doing it without human command. that was the great fear.
and can be rape be done without torment or terrorizing either? it's not like it's there to cause physical pain (unless you are breaking a glass light in someone). it is there purely to torment and terrorize. and for perverse pleasure of course. otherwise it's just sex.
torture is there to torment and terrorize.
and as someone who used to do judo i know alot about physical pain. a story i will tell for you know is the one that is the reason i now longer do judo. it was the semi finals of the junior scottish championships. and i was in a wrist lock. i broke it unwisely and also broke my wrist. i then went on to complete the match. i with deep regret now went to play the final (i know my wrist was damaged to some extent). i rushed to finish the match and ended it one throw. the throw twisted my wrist and the part of bone closest to my wrist turned. it was the most painful thing i had ever felt. the bone rubbed as it turned. i was told never to participate again. i also have a problem with can openers (lost grip strength) but that is unimportant.
that was justa little story to say i understand about pain. i know how far it can go and when enough is enough.
you say torture can be bearable. is bearable torture a reality? what would bearable torture acheive? if it was bearable why submit. torture by it's very nature has to be unbearable. and that means unbearable levels of suffering.
that is the single requirement of torture. suffering. it's first goal is to make a person to suffer til the can take no more. to make it unbearable.
bearable torture would be an oxymoron. much like the intelligence of people that use it.
They are not legislating torture. Also those people at that prision where punished. You fail...again.
actually they already have. the definition of torture in america was changed to only take into account serious long term physical damage such as maiming, organ failure and death. new law, new legislation. america also has pulled out of the international couirt system
yes they were. i don't believe for what they did. but because they were found out by the media. they were not tried as criminals but as soldiers. it was not done by the hague it was by a military court. it was leniant and half hearted.
telling me i fail smacks of arrogance.
Cloud, let's talk. Just between us boys, you dig.
You fancy yourself as a champion of whatever-the-smurf and think that our disagreeing with you is just proof of how wonderful you are. But notice how everyone is disagreeing with you - even those who agree with you, if you catch my drift. If you want to have people listen to you, save the best for last: if you want us to call America "US Reich" (lolz) then please at least lead up to it. I know, I know, a retarded monkey can see the lack of similiarities, but first convince us. It doesn't come off as poetic; it comes off at best as incorrect or at worst offensive. (Not because we love America no matter what, but because we recognize that National Socialism is not the same as a really crappy psuedo-capitalist-socialist state).
Now. I made this topic, remember? I dislike some of the ideas you're postulating. "Anti-Torture Amendment; Bush disapproves" - I wrote those words. It's horrible, and a smack against human rights. Rather than use it as your hypothesis that America is trying to take over the world and likes suffering, or blame America for not following "international law" (which is a laughable concept), why don't you just explain why you think its wrong? Without using the language. Thanks.
They're in the American Millitary. They should face American Millitary Court Martial. And they were criminal defendants not "soldiers" during their trials. And most of the people involved were sentaced to prison
So the millitary court martials are working. Maybe not perfectly, but they are working.
Any member of the armed forces is tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, no matter what the crime. And the UCMJ is much more strict than any other American law.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
I would rather face the American law than any sort of military tribunal. As for nothing would have happened if the media didn't find out about it...you are probably right. Is it wrong? Yes. Is anyone here going to argue otherwise? I hope not.
As for the definition of torture being redefined...that was not legislation. That is the doing of the Department of Justice. That was not a law that was passed, hence it wasn't legislated.
What does pulling out of the international court system have to do with anything?
Finally, yes, telling you that you fail does smack of arrogance but since when has me being arrogant been news to ANYONE?!?!...also you have re-failed
Exactly. Cloud, you have some valid points, but you tend to make them in a way that pisses people off. Are some American policies screwed up? Well, yes, but that doesn't make the Bush administration the Fourth Reich. Ditch the rhetoric. It just makes you look bad.You fancy yourself as a champion of whatever-the-smurf and think that our disagreeing with you is just proof of how wonderful you are. But notice how everyone is disagreeing with you - even those who agree with you, if you catch my drift. If you want to have people listen to you, save the best for last: if you want us to call America "US Reich" (lolz) then please at least lead up to it. I know, I know, a retarded monkey can see the lack of similiarities, but first convince us. It doesn't come off as poetic; it comes off at best as incorrect or at worst offensive. (Not because we love America no matter what, but because we recognize that National Socialism is not the same as a really crappy psuedo-capitalist-socialist state).
You and me both. Soldiers are generally held to higher standards.I would rather face the American law than any sort of military tribunal.
the only comparison i made to nazi germany in this thread was to do with mengel. mengel was used solely for one reason. famous torturers are rare. he happens to be on famous person who is also guilty of crimes. pol pot, stalin and the like did not take part in torture. the only other person i can think of off the top of my head is uday hussein.
and this is not about america wanting to take over the world. it's about the dehumanising the army commits. and it's not a one off. it's not a sign off the times. it is a constant. but it is not limited to them. but as the supposed world leader. they should be leading. not going back to the middle ages.
and am i to take dig as an insult? (someone please clarify)
military tribunials only try the military. and they were not civillians until they were discharged (done after the trial).
and the court martials convicted yes. but were leniant. you can get more for robbery. 10 years was the maximum sentence. and for what? murder, attempted murder, indecent assualt, rape, sexual assualt, and of course torure. 10 years? it was a joke and white wash.
"Any member of the armed forces is tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, no matter what the crime. And the UCMJ is much more strict than any other American law" they should have never been tried under american law or a military trial. it should have been in the war crimes court. it was a war crime and should have been tried as such.
what do we call the move america made on torture then? a re-classification? a re-writing of the law?
pulling out of the court system is explained above. lindy england and her kind should have been tried in the same dock as milosevic. under international law for war crimes. not a military crime. they are no better than any other war criminal and should have been tried accordingly.
pulling out of the international courts also means american troops don't have to answer to international law.
Now I see where you are coming from on the international court angle. I agree and disagree with it. I would actually have to know something about war crimes other than you get charged with it when you do unmoral acts and lose the war(at least that is how history has worked). So I leave it at that.
As for the redefining of the 'law' as you put it. As far as I know there is no 'law' that defines torture. We have ratified some international treaty appearantly though which makes that law by default. Here is what my research shows.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment...4_leavitt.html
'It's important to note here that the U.S. - as well as all other liberal democracies -- are signatories to the Torture Convention, and that under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.
Here is the Torture Convention's definition of "torture": "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."'
That is a pretty broad definition to me. I would like to see it narrowed and made more sepecific about what severe pain and suffering really is as that is subjective.
If anyone has information to the contray please elaborate and tell me I am wrong because I have not been able to find said information on my own.
in 2002 the justice department gave a memo that defined torture purely as "intentionally causing permanent damage to vital organs or permanent emotional trauma" and "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"
now the hague. the hague is where the internationalc court of justice, and international crimanal court are. they are the modern equivalent of nuremburg. when a person commits an international crime, war crime or a crime of great severity(genocide) they are tried in the international courts. as national law just isn't big enough to try an international criminal. it can also be used against countries as a whole. it's creation and power was by the UN.
what used to happen before is that everytime i war crime was committed like in yugoslavia and rwanda a whole new court would be set up. the ICC is permanant. there are 4 ways you can end up there.
"A country member of the Assembly of States Parties (ratified the Court's Statute) sends the case;
A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
The Security Council sends the case (subject to veto from the permanent five members); or
The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the ICC Prosecutor. "
the us had signed up to it. bush then binned it. but as they are signed up to it the us gets a say and continues to bitch. but they have not ratified it. clever monkeys.
the us is scared it's politicians or soliders could be tried by it. but it's real power comes into extradition.
the us has since tried eveything in it's power to sabotage the ICC. if anymore information is needed ed i will give it. but it seems off topic.
Posting Permissions
:temigi: