Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Law of Unintended Consequences
Re: ...
#26
> This is a good point. People are being investigated and put on trial... what more would you ask at this point?
You will note that in several of these incidents the military flat-out lied about what had happened until incontrovertible evidence came to light. So that not happening would be nice, for starters.
An actual admission of wrong-doing with an apology and redoubled efforts to do better from the United States would also help.
So would closing Gitmo and a renunciation of the use of torture. You do know most of your remaining allies, including Britain, have called on you to close it, right?
Most of all, what would help would be more actual interest on the part of the United States on preventing these incidents. What the hell went wrong with military discipline in a warzone such that soldiers could get drunk, spend a couple hours planning and the rape and murder of children, and then do it?
Believe it or not, none of these things are in any way impossible. You can point at many other countries that have had an open and honest process, that have sincerely apologised for atrocities, that have abandoned barbaric practices, and that have kept their troops under control in enemy territory. That's not even getting into other things the US has and is doing wrong in Iraq, like the city they call an embassy... just covering the military/torture angle.
If you think these things make no difference, you are wrong. When you invaded Iraq, 80% of the civilian population believed that it was at least a somewhat good thing. Now, 80% want you out. Public officials have stated Iraq was better off under Saddam. The insurgency that was "in its last throes" two years ago continues to make attacks and gain new adherents. Gitmo cost American soldiers their lives. There are Americans dead because this administration thinks the Geneva Conventions are, and I quote, "quaint". There are Americans dead because your President had to be forced by the Supreme Court to follow your own laws.
If the plight of the hundreds of people charged with no crime in Gitmo doesn't sway you, then perhaps that will strike closer to home. Thousands dead (probably more than you think, as it's been widely reported that only people who die right on the battlefield, as opposed to dying in transit or at hospitals in Europe, are "counted"; to say nothing of the fact that the horrendous, far higher number of veterans crippled for life is not generally spoken about), to say nothing of the fact that soldiers who honourably served their time or have retired are being dragged back in to fight this war, and innocent Americans have suffered attacks over these incidents as well. It seems you may think I'm not supposed to care about Americans being killed and wounded and tortured, but in fact I no more want them to die than I want innocent Iraqis to. This war has already been an enormous tragedy for your country as well as many others.
People being investigated and put on trial is nice. But - especially considering no higher officers have yet been held accountable, much less the administration that at best implicitly condoned illegal acts - there is a hell of a lot more I can ask for.
A sentiment which puts me in line with the mainstream view virtually everywhere in the world, I might add.
Reply
Re: ...
#27
(Note: By "what more would you ask", I was talking about those two specific incidents, not the war in general. Not that there's not plenty of things worth asking other places, I'm just trying to focus on this at the moment.)
Quote:
You will note that in several of these incidents the military flat-out lied about what had happened until incontrovertible evidence came to light. So that not happening would be nice, for starters.
The reports I've heard sounded more like they didn't want to say anything until investigation was finished, but either way it's less important than what's actually being done now.
I don't think this sort of thing has been widespread enough to say that discipline is slack. There will always be times when people crack under pressure, and there will be dangerously broken people who sneak in. It'll have to start happening a lot more frequently before I could say there's a problem there.
Back to a broader issue... Leaving aside whether or not you consider it torture, because that isn't really important to my question... What gain is there in treating prisoners this way? Has any useful intelligence been acquired thereby? Does it benefit the US (or anyone else) at all?
I haven't heard anything to suggest it is, which makes me wonder why so much time and effort is being wasted on it. It's certainly not helpful in the public relations department...
-Morgan.
Reply
***
#28
Quote:
When is it okay for you, Foxboy, to say "this is wrong and must stop"?
The second I think it will do me any good to try. The only way that my opinion matters is at the polls, and even then I have to contend with the opinions of about 2.5 million others. Yes, we have shockingly low voter turnout in the States.
Now, I rant.
I personally am appalled that we could impeach a president for lying about sex and yet calls to impeach a president for lying about a war never even get past a "Why don't you..."
I am terribly cynical these days about the political process in the US, as the parties polarize. Moderates or "middle of the road" folk who have balanced opinions and political views are seen as @#$^ed liberals by the conservatives and dangerous reactionaries by the liberals. It doesn't help that the media is obsessed with finding dirt on everyone.
A simple opinion of mine, since I can't be bothered to cite corroborating sources: there is NO unbiased news source on the planet. FOX News: Republican Bias. BBC: unsurprisingly British Bias, cloaked in apparent neutrality. CNN: Ted Turner bias. al-Jazeera (sp?): Middle-eastern bias.
Journalistic ethics have been cast aside for "ratings." The reporters start thinking, 'the truth must be told!' Early in their careers, they begin to think, 'will this make my news source money?'
Meh, this is just a vent for a grouchy cynic anyway. Feel free to ignore it.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll
Reply
Re: ***
#29
Quote:
Journalistic ethics have been cast aside for "ratings." The reporters start thinking, 'the truth must be told!' Early in their careers, they begin to think, 'will this make my news source money?'
It has always been that way, remember newspapers etc are a buisness and they need to make money. They don't really care about the truth, beyond the fact that being caught lying will probably mean less sales.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Reply
Re: ***
#30
Quote:
I am terribly cynical these days about the political process in the US, as the parties polarize. Moderates or "middle of the road" folk who have balanced opinions and political views are seen as @#$^ed liberals by the conservatives and dangerous reactionaries by the liberals. It doesn't help that the media is obsessed with finding dirt on everyone.
Run for office.
No, seriously.
Don't run as a Democrat or a Republican. Run as an independant. A lot of your political systems current problems can be directly linked to your strange two party system. Organize a third party. Start now. Go to college campuses and speak, eloquently, about how you can form a third "middle ground" party. A party not beholden to extremists on either side. Start with your friends, convince them to help you get on city council. Then start expanding your network.
Do it. You CAN. It's what the political system is designed for. The fact is, that most people don't want to, but that doesn't mean that America can not change, and that one person can not be the catalyst for that change. American history is full of heroes that have changed things for the better (Martin Luther King, for example). You can do it, if you want to badly enough.
If you don't. If you give up. If you vote Democrat even when you know they're as corrupt as the system you hate, you're just supporting the same old problem. If you want change, you must make it yourself. Nobody is going to save the world for you.
---------------
Epsilon
Reply
Re: ***
#31
Quote:
Don't run as a Democrat or a Republican. Run as an independant. A lot of your political systems current problems can be directly linked to your strange two party system. Organize a third party. Start now. Go to college campuses and speak, eloquently, about how you can form a third "middle ground" party. A party not beholden to extremists on either side. Start with your friends, convince them to help you get on city council. Then start expanding your network.
It's been tried. Without serious alterations in the election laws of the United States, any would-be third party is required to essentially catapult itself to parity on the first try, and further must spend absurd amounts of money to even get that far.
That safety valve is firmly tied down, and the Powers That Be - lesser evil and greater, whichever may be which to you - have no intention of letting it be released.
Time will tell whether it's that valve that gives first, or one of the others... or the boiler itself. Either way, though, there's plenty of coal in the firebox.
Ja, -n

===============================================
"Puripuri puripuri... Bang!"
Reply
Re: ...
#32
Quote:
I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks Ayiekie has proven those things about himself as well. '.'
I've known him in real life for a few years. While his personality has some flaws (just like everyone else's), unacknowledged prejudice isn't one of them....

-Rob Kelk
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Reply
Re: ***
#33
Quote:
It's been tried. Without serious alterations in the election laws of the United States, any would-be third party is required to essentially catapult itself to parity on the first try, and further must spend absurd amounts of money to even get that far.
And yet at the moment nobody is voting for the Whig party.
Yes, its hard. Yes, its going to be effort.
But you know what? "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness."
------------------
Epsilon
Reply
Re: ...
#34
Quote:
I've known him in real life for a few years. While his personality has some flaws (just like everyone else's), unacknowledged prejudice isn't one of them....
Hmmm. I'll take your word for it. But still, that's the sort of impression I got from the post-with-many-links-with-non-descriptive-names. Which is part of why it took me so long to even decide to respond to this. (In fact, I still haven't gotten around to responding to the part that caught my interest in the first place... But now it's really just my builtin procrastination.)
-Morgan.
Reply
Re: ...
#35
I'm not sure why you think posting a variety of news articles illustrating the point I was making (and putting holes in the point Necratoid was) is prejudice, or an ad hominem attack, or an inability to see flaws in my own reasoning.
Reply
Re: ...
#36
The Guardian, at least, is not a credible news source. Just like the Daily Mail, on the other side, it has an openly admitted political agenda which makes its articles unreliable guides to the truth.
Overall, both sides of this debate appear to be preaching to the converted. Neither is presenting the kind of rhetoric-free argument that might actually convince someone.
Ayiekie, Necratoid, if you're open-minded you should have no trouble saying what evidence would be needed to prove you wrong. Do that, and you might actually get somewhere
Reply
Re: ...
#37
Even if that is so, I posted 11 articles, only one of which was from the Guardian.
How to prove me wrong? Okay, please show how the US administration has respect for the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law, as opposed to utter contempt for them. Show that they do not in fact torture people in secret prisons, despite the plethora of reports, eyewitnesses and documented photographic evidence showing they do just that. Since that's likely impossible, instead show that the United States has taken a firm stand against the acceptability of torture, that they have issued strong public statements condemning both the acts (and not just one, but ALL such acts) and the culture that led to them, and show me there is political will and movement towards punishing the people responsible, all the way up to the top as necessary. Show that there is serious investigation into what went wrong in Iraq that has allowed these atrocities to occur. And show me how the US is making restitution for the atrocities that have occured on its watch.
Incidentally, equating:
"The alleged torture doesn't exist, and what they call 'torture' is high school pranks."
with
"Uh, no. (post long list of articles from multiple different sources showing otherwise)"
...as equal examples of "preaching to the converted" is, quite frankly, BS. The simple fact is I had significantly more evidence on my side than Necratoid before I posted a damn thing. Have you actually gone and LOOKED at the Gitmo photos? Men stripped naked and stacked in human pyramids, given electric shocks, threatened by dogs? Is that what you call "high school pranks"? It is what anybody calls it other than torture apologists?
I posted articles specifically for the reason of showing that yes, these things are still going on, not to convince fricking Necratoid. Necratoid's position is not even worth dignifying with a debate on its merits. You can disagree with me if you like, but I'm both posting evidence in my favour and not stating a position which was proven a laughable lie two years ago, so equating the two of us is flatly insulting.
Reply
Re: ...
#38
Including the Guardian in the list renders all the others questionable.
Utter contempt for rule of law and the Geneva convention would mean ignoring the US Supreme Court and execution of all prisoners. Bush has accepted the Court's ruling against him, and the prisoners have not been executed.
The very existance of secret prisons is still open to reasonable doubt. Remember, there are many people with ample incentive to lie and fake evidence.
People are being prosecuted for the torture that did happen. The courts will decide who is guilty, and how far up the chain the rot goes, but until they've decided, we must assume everyone is innocent - that's one of the foundations of the rule of law.
As for restitution, what would you consider sufficient?
Everyone is well aware of the content of the articles you linked to. If they were the conclusive proof you claim, no reasonable person would disagree with you - and that should be a warning bell. Assuming your political opponents are not reasonable people is a dangerous habit.
Citing those articles does a fine job of whipping the faithful into a frenzy, but nothing to convince the doubters - the very definition of preaching to the converted, and then there's your strident tone.
If you want to convince anyone at all that your're right, you need to reason with your opponents, not just restate your own position. Consider the anti-creationist sites. They don't just say 'creationism is not worth dignifying with a debate when its been proven utterly wrong for 150 years', they examine each piece of creationist logic and evidence, and they counter it. That is the way to convince the undecided, and it is what you are failing to do.
Reply
Re: ...
#39
I'm sorry, Custos, but you're wrong.
I know this is threading close to Godwin but here's an example: We do not argue with Holocaust Deniers on the merits because to do so dignifies the position with a response.
For example: Creationism. People have been refuting it with evidence of all kinds for decades. IThe amount of evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. But Creationism is being taught in schools now because arguing it on the merits has legitimized it in many peoples eyes.
There is a orgy of evidence supporting the idea that the US tortures prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere. There is evidence that they kidnap people illegally, hold them without trial and otherwise repeatedly break the Geneva Convention.
There is none for the other side.
If you are saying that torture is not being done by the US or with the express consent of the US government then you are being deliberatly ignorant. An ignorance on par with saying that there is no such thing as global warming. The evidence for this exists, it has been presented repeatedly. The fact that one article was from the Gaurdian does not mean that the others aren't accurate. Go. Look. If you come back saying that this torture doesn't exist, then yes, I will assume you are not reasonable.
If you want to use the legal example in this, then fine. We have presented our evidence. We have made our case. In a court of law, this would be more than enough to convict. Now the onus is on the defense. THEY must counter our evidence. THEY must prove us wrong.
So, if Necratoid has any research that shows that torture, illegal kidnapping and so on aren't happening in Iraq, I suggest he pull it out now.
---------------
Epsilon
Reply
Re: ...
#40
>Including the Guardian in the list renders all the others >questionable.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. In 11 articles, you find one source questionable (without any evidence other than your own say-so), and that is what you need to consider the rest to be not worth anything, despite them not coming from that source? Then you were looking for an excuse to ignore the evidence.
>Utter contempt for rule of law and the Geneva convention >would mean ignoring the US Supreme Court and execution >of all prisoners. Bush has accepted the Court's ruling >against him, and the prisoners have not been executed.
Bush was forced by the Supreme Court to obey the law of the country he professes to serve, after years of arguing he did not have to. That is not a respect for law. Nor does it indicate anything but contempt for it, or the Geneva Conventions which prominent members of his administration have spoken out against (and has that been publically recanted? I haven't heard of it, if so).
>The very existance of secret prisons is still open to >reasonable doubt. Remember, there are many people with >ample incentive to lie and fake evidence.
No, by god, it is NOT open to reasonable doubt. It has been investigated and admitted to and reported about. As well say the moon landings are open to reasonable doubt, the Holocaust is open to reasonable doubt, the theory of gravity is open to reasonable doubt.
If you want to believe in a massive conspiracy - including reports from all over the world, scores of former prisoners, and photographic evidence - to show the US is torturing people rather than simply accepting that they do, then there is no burden of evidence that can convince you.
In the rest of the world, the question is on how prevalent the practice is, who specifically authorised it, and mostly how to get the US to stop it, not whether it exists.
>People are being prosecuted for the torture that did >happen. The courts will decide who is guilty, and how far >up the chain the rot goes, but until they've decided, we >must assume everyone is innocent - that's one of the >foundations of the rule of law.
Wrong. The sentences for the first Abu Ghraib incident were already handed down, and all of seven soldiers were convicted. This, in response to a facility where human rights abuses had been reported for a YEAR before the release of the photos caused any action to be taken, and well after an honourably-discharged US veteran had reported that war crimes were going on.
Let me remind you of exactly what the official Tagupa report on the abuses of Abu Ghraib cited as having happened:
* Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
* Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
* Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
* Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
* Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
* Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.
* Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
* Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.
* Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
* Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
* A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee
* Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.
* Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
* Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
* Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
* Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
* Threatening male detainees with rape.
* Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
* Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
* Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.
This is what the person you equated to me calls "high school pranks".
And seven lousy people got prosecuted for this. The military contractors accused of abusing prisoners continued to work there afterwards. Despite consistant testimony that this occured with everything from indifference to congratulations from higher-ups, the only high-ranking officer to be punished was the one in charge of the camp, and she was demoted, not court-martialed or dishonourably discharged.
People were killed there as well as tortured. One that's been admitted to by the military, others from testimony of both former prisoners and former American military personnel at Abu Ghraib. Other abuses, such as rape, were also reported.
Donald Rumsfeld, in his speech about the affair before the Senate Armed Services Committee, spent half of it complaining that people with digital cameras had illegally passed the incriminating photos to the media.
That's ONE incident. Not the only one, just the most famous. Not the only one where prisoners have been murdered or tortured in American custody, and despite protests by apologists that it was an "isolated incident", there have also been incidences of the same thing in Afghanistan (including the two prisoners savagely beaten to death in 2002, before the Abu Ghraib scandal even came out). Reports have continued to surface since.
Perhaps you ought to give your opinion, using actual facts and citations, as to why you think the United States government and military are taking sufficient steps to stop this.
>As for restitution, what would you consider sufficient?
How about officially issued apologies and monetary restitution to the families of those tortured and killed by American forces?
That is, you know, how OTHER countries have tried to make up for war crimes.
>Everyone is well aware of the content of the articles you >linked to. If they were the conclusive proof you claim, no >reasonable person would disagree with you - and that >should be a warning bell. Assuming your political >opponents are not reasonable people is a dangerous >habit.
I was responding to someone who considers being sodomised with a chemical lightbulb a high school prank. Why should I assume he's reasonable?
And no, I don't think many people are well aware of the content of the articles I linked to at all. For instance, earlier in this same post you called them all "suspect"; now they're common knowledge?
>Citing those articles does a fine job of whipping the >faithful into a frenzy, but nothing to convince the doubters >- the very definition of preaching to the converted, and >then there's your strident tone.
As has already been proven by you and Necratoid, people absolutely determined to believe they are right will do so in the face of any amount of evidence, and will seize upon any excuse to discount evidence presented to them.
As for strident tone... you're damn right I have a strident tone, when responding to patently offensive people. You'll notice I also made polite responses. But when confronted with an apologist for state-sanctioned torture, I give them as short shrift as I'd give, say, a racist.
>If you want to convince anyone at all that your're right, >you need to reason with your opponents, not just restate >your own position. Consider the anti-creationist sites. >They don't just say 'creationism is not worth dignifying >with a debate when its been proven utterly wrong for 150 >years', they examine each piece of creationist logic and >evidence, and they counter it. That is the way to convince >the undecided, and it is what you are failing to do.
Ironically, your own example disproves your point, in two ways.
1) Despite the fact that there is ample on- and off-line factual sources that utterly disprove Creationism, adherents of it (or Intelligent Design, or other similar nonsense) continue to believe in it and have successfully mounted campaigns to get it taught in many US schools as if it were a theory with any intellectual backing.
2) It is well-known that most scientists in the field shun Creationists and have ignored "public forums" Creationists have tried to lure them into, for precisely the reason that dignifying Creationism by responding to it is precisely what Creationists want.
You do not convince people the moon landings were faked by engaging in public debates on the issue. Engaging in a public debate gives the impression that the opposing view had validity. NASA does not have open forums with people who take this view; they dismiss them, as they should be dismissed.
Aside from that, it's not as if Necratoid has posted a single shred of evidence or logic to be debated, a fact you apparently are determined to ignore in your attempts to equate the two of us. Much like you are determined to ignore all evidence presented by me on the basis that you find one of many sources suspect.
Reply
Re: ...
#41
Ayiekie, shut up. No that is all that needs to be said to you. You are a thread killers. End of story.
I ask you guys honestly... how many remember the original topic of this thread?
This was a thread on Sci-fi ideas for corrupt courts. Then you came in. Now its a "Crucify unbeliever Necratoid!!! And the U.S. military is a barbarian hoard!!!" thread. Oh wait, your a Muslim nutball, not a Christian nutball, that should be "Stone the infidel, Necratoid!!! And the U.S. military is a barbarian hoard!!!" thread!!! My bad.
You come into a politics thread, topic regardless, and turn it into a the "U.S. MUST BURN!!! BURN FOR THE COLONY!!!" thread. Everything since your first post is half-related, increasingly distant garage. Just like every thread you come into here. Besides psycho-rants you post links that aren't on topic then play start mud slinging.
I've tried arguing rationally with you, if fails. Badly. You can't 'remember' anything said 3 posts up and I have had to repost everything over and over again. It still gets ignored.
Your linkfest is all basically unrelated to the spirit of the thread... its mostly the same story on different sights and theories and alligations (that accuse half of Europe of holding 'secret' prisons outside the U.S. so Torture of the worst kind can be used)... then you start in on how the U.S. military is evil for wanting to check if the incident has any proof of happening in the first place, before commenting.
Quote:
The simple fact is I had significantly more evidence on my side than Necratoid before I posted a damn thing.
Actually, no no you didn't and still dont. You posted conspiracy theories... and mentioned cases of roughly 30 people out of 250-300 thousand people are psycho (something in the nature of 1/75 th-1/100 of a percent of the troops involved)... then said:
Quote:
You will blame the media or the Democrats or the Europeans when the last American soldier retreats from Baghdad.
And you will never understand why you are hated.
Or as I'm use to it being phrased: "The streets will flow with the blood of the unbelievers!!!"
You already know any response I can give and have discredited it, because I said it and I'm a long list of adjectives that are all bad and if you can't you'll forget about it (even though it is in print a few posts up and ignore anyone pointing to said posts, even in direct quote. Usually in mocking one liners that twist things to ignore the original point of the statement) if you don't want to deal with it... then post and post and post. Until its to much effort to reread the thread and people read one or two posts up and forget the rest.
Thats what you come across as to me. Rabid and proud of it. I mean you declared me a member of the Baptist Church(I'm not a worshiper of the Jewish tribal war god) in previous threads and then fly into slathering rants. That is what you do mostly... fly into slathering hate filled rants.
Quote:
I posted links to respected news sources. I expressed outrage at these things going on, and by the denial of jingoistic self-satisfied people like Necratoid that they do.
Your outrage is shown towards America's existence and mine as well... Those guys on trial facing the death penalty are little more that easy example you have decided are cover ups that slipped through the cracks. Basically proof of what you 'know' is going on. I could bother pointing out your chosen sie thinks playing goblin sapper on civilians, rounding up and executing neighborhoods in Baghdad, and decapitating people on camera for publicity sound bites... but you will declare those things false.
So Cogradulations... you've offed a thread again. A sacrifice to your ego. Even when Foxboy tried to kill it with 'Godwin' your hate continued it. Also, you ignored the question so I'm taking that as a preliminary 'No it is an imaginary event'. I got bored reading your hate speach and dodging digital saliva, so I gave up reading your rants.
Oh and to Epsilon on his : "Oh, and as for the courts stepping in an deciding legal precedent like they are supposed to in the consitution of your country". They can order laws off the books. They can validate laws. They can't pass laws by Divine fiat. Passing laws is the main point of the legislature. That and taxes... at least in America.
Morganni thanks for noticing that point of mine about them being criminals on trial. At least someone caught some of what I said... rather than what they want me to have said.
Reply
Re: ...
#42
Okay. I'm the original poster of this thread. A few small things I want to point out.
- I already noticed the "rabidness" of Ayiekie's posts and the pointlessness of responding a few weeks ago.
- I was tempted to jump in and ask for the thread not to be derailed like that, but then I became curious how it would go. (Like a train wreck)
- I've really seen enough of that, frankly. And it's really starting to go in circles now.
- You may as well let Ayiekie have the last word. That's the only way to let this thread die.
- If you really feel like continuing this, you may as well start a new thread with a new subject line, because it surely has been derailed that far anyway.
Lastly -
I've noticed that Ayiekie has not participated that I can tell in any other board here at Drunkard's Walk. Either s/he came in purely for the politics or is a sock puppet. And even keeping the politics seperated as it is in its own board, I've decided that I don't want to deal with anyone on this board who isn't interested in being a part of the larger community here. At least with the rest of you, I we have something in common despite our politics. Ayiekie may be a totally reasonable person on any other topic, but I don't have that example to go on, so s/he gets mentally lumped in with the lunatic fringe in my mind. Which perhaps is unfair. But oh well. I can only go with what I see/read.
Having had my say, this is my last post on this particular thread.
(edit for a clumsy bit of grammer)-Logan
-----------------
"This kind of thing tends invariably to devolve into the kind of "No, Nakajima, THIS is true power!!" argument that only really works if you're yelling it from the cockpit of a giant robot . . ."
-----------------
Reply
Re: ...
#43
Hi, Logan, sweetie?
1) I posted to the General Chatter and Other People's Fanfiction boards within the last week. I'm here because I'm an author whose fanfic got commented on here.
I will now expect your apology for your false accusation.
2) My first post in this thread was in response to Necratoid, and covered only points he had raised. Before that, Catty and hmelton had already dragged it "off-topic" (because that never happens in a message board, right), as was even said by hmelton.
I will now expect your apology for your false accusation.
Incidentally, both of these facts were easily verifiable by looking at this thread for the latter, and looking at the General Chatter front page for the forum (since I was the last poster in a thread).
I hope insulting me made you feel like a big man!
Reply
Re: ...
#44
Quote:
hmelton[Image: mad.gif]:"> Actually the court making a ruling on this is wrong in at least two counts...
The constitution gives the courts no say in the way the president makes war. Congress controls the purse strings and can stop voting money, but the courts can only act on the laws passed by the other branches of government.

Quote:
Catty[Image: mad.gif]:"> When a treaty is ratified it does become in effect law, and interpretation of the treaty is generally left to the courts, though sometimes congress makes 'clarifications' on how it should be read.
Quote:
hmelton[Image: mad.gif]:"> I didn't Quote your good argument's back, but here are my counter arguments and some of my reasoning for my positions.
Quote:
Catty[Image: mad.gif]:"> There have been 759 source prisoners in Guantanamo and only 10 of them have been charged with a crime. The release of 100 or so is planned because they are innocent. That is too big of a miss rate to cassualy trample the rights of the people there.

Quote:
hmelton[Image: mad.gif]:"> I don't have a high opinion of most lawyers or judges, but I also am applying a feeling.
Good article I can see the constitution being applied to legal non-citizens, but illegal immigrants, which are criminals(see below criminals losing rights.) and prisoners of war shouldn't have the full benefit of our constitution.
Quote:
Necratoid[Image: mad.gif]:"> First you have to remember that these guys all got picked up on the battle grounds... armed. They are enimy combatants not Random J. Citizen picked up off the streets of some Amish convent. POWs are able to be held until the war is over, without being charged. Its in the international rules somewhere.
But hey, Ayeikie pulled this discussion off topic by talking about the Geneva conventon, Gitmo , Prisoners of War and whether its right or not to hold them prisoner without trail or to put them on trail in ilegal military tribunals! He was totally off topic. 100%
Logan. Please read the thread before replying. Ayiekie did not pull this off topic. Lots of people had made this topic before he felt the need to participate.
But hey, tribalism! Stand up for your own! Ayiekie isn't a regular here and Necratoid is! Therefore, when Necratoid calls him a racist, accuses him of hating America and of wanting to kill all of its citizens and so on, you can let that slide. But if Ayiekie accusses Necratoid of iignoring facts or implicitly supporting torture and then posts actual evidence that this is happeing, HE is the bad guy.
You know what Logan? Fuck you.
--------------------
Epsilon
Reply
Re: ...
#45
Quote:
-Gullible: Im baffled on the point of this Are you pointing out that the concept of SECRET is beyond the Red Cross for a reason? They want access to places that may or may not exist here I find it ironic that this one is under gullible. WE, of the Red Cross, demand access to secret places holding secret prisoners that we havent provided proof of the existence of. This article lacks mention torture at all and kind of declares U.S. military doctors as incompetent
I know from their posts some people think this means I'm all for secret torture bases around the world, run by the U.S. ... I skipped a blunt trama line between "For a reason?" and "They want acess to" that should have read "Bases so 'SECRET' not even the U.S. government or U.S. Military knows about them". Sorry for any confusion resulting from this previously unwritten line I thought I wrote in.
I was pointing out that indicating that a claim that has no supporting evidence even attempted to be shown, is not worth getting worked up over. Unless your wondering why the International Red Cross is making claims they don't even attempt to back up in the first place. For some odd reason this has been bugging me.
And for those still not getting it... When I said 'SECRET' I meant that as a code word for 'imaginary'.
Reply
Okay, people....
#46
That's enough.
Topic closed.
-- Bob
---------
...The President is on the line
As ninety-nine crab rangoons go by...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)