US Torture is wrong.

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

You did a good job...... in displaying how to write a confusing, ridiculously redundant paragraph.

That is very true and you rightly caught me on that one.

I needed the wording to take up space on the webpage and so I babbled it.

That webpage was created just to add any extras and even the silly webcam pic of myself was just put into the page to take up empty space.

So you caught me on that one but it is not that serious of an infraction, IMO.

 

[hvp05]

So you caught me on that one but it is not that serious of an infraction, IMO.

That was but one example of your rambling, pointless, circular logic.

How you present your case is nearly as important as the content thereof.

But you are right in one aspect, it was not that serious of a misstep... because you are not a serious political contender.

 

[High EGT]

The USA doing and promoting torture is commented on by a Marine Corps Commandant,

click HERE for link.

It is a sad situation indeed.

The real experts for torture (American style) are our college students conducted mostly during frat parties.

 

[aps45819]

What does the GC have to do with terrorists/insurgents?

 

[Pushrod]

Why don't you tell it to the families of thousands of dead U.S. soldiers killed by insurgents, insurgents who joined out of sympathy for their friends and family that we have tortured. At this point, because we lost our moral legitimacy at a crucial point, to beat them we have to kill them all (let allah sort them out).

Most of what you wrote is hysterical drivel, but I do agree with the last line of your sentence!

Now you and JPC can crawl back into your cave and finish grooming each other!

 

[Tinkerbell]

Oh, this is just GREAT...

JPC AND Forestool in the same thread...

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

What does the GC have to do with terrorists/insurgents?

Because an invading army is the greatest threat against any Country and "terrorist" and "insurgents" are just criminals.

Thus the Geneva Convention was meant for and designed to treat a Country's worst of the worst of enemies.

The terrorist and insurgents are to be treated like common criminals under the rule of the Country's laws.

It is a big degradation to the Geneva Convention to consider a small band of criminals to be a worst enemy deserving of torture but not the soldiers of an attacking army.

What Bush is saying is we can torture them but others must follow the Geneva Convention for American soldiers and thus he destroyed the Geneva Convention for any practical application.

I can see those 3 American prisoners now over in Iraq telling their captives only their name, rank and serial numbers based on the Geneva Convetion.

 

[aps45819]

Because an invading army is the greatest threat against any Country and "terrorist" and "insurgents" are just criminals.

Thus the Geneva Convention was meant for and designed to treat a Country's worst of the worst of enemies.

The terrorist and insurgents are to be treated like common criminals under the rule of the Country's laws.

It is a big degradation to the Geneva Convention to consider a small band of criminals to be a worst enemy deserving of torture but not the soldiers of an attacking army.

What Bush is saying is we can torture them but others must follow the Geneva Convention for American soldiers and thus he destroyed the Geneva Convention for any practical application.

I can see those 3 American prisoners now over in Iraq telling their captives only their name, rank and serial numbers based on the Geneva Convetion.

First, you're an idiot.
The GC details the treatment of prisoners of war. It applies to soldiers in uniform captured by enemy forces. What do you not understand about that?
If we treated them as "Common Criminals" are treated in their country, we would be chopping off hands and raping their families in front of them.

 

[Lenny]

Because an invading army is the greatest threat against any Country and "terrorist" and "insurgents" are just criminals.

Thus the Geneva Convention was meant for and designed to treat a Country's worst of the worst of enemies.

The terrorist and insurgents are to be treated like common criminals under the rule of the Country's laws.

It is a big degradation to the Geneva Convention to consider a small band of criminals to be a worst enemy deserving of torture but not the soldiers of an attacking army.

What Bush is saying is we can torture them but others must follow the Geneva Convention for American soldiers and thus he destroyed the Geneva Convention for any practical application.

I can see those 3 American prisoners now over in Iraq telling their captives only their name, rank and serial numbers based on the Geneva Convetion.

Listen, azzface. I gave you a link to the Geneva Accords and you have obviously not read them yet. Until you do, stop posting as if you are a friggen authority on the subject. What you have been posting only shows how little you know.

 

[MMDad]

First, you're an idiot.
The GC details the treatment of prisoners of war. It applies to soldiers in uniform captured by enemy forces. What do you not understand about that?
If we treated them as "Common Criminals" are treated in their country, we would be chopping off hands and raping their families in front of them.

He's as likely to read the Geneva Convention as he is to read the Iraq war resolution, the Constitution, or Maryland child support law. He'd much rather spew his misguided interpretation of what someone told him it says.

The bottom line is that you can look at the people we are fighting there and read the Geneva Convention to see that they are specifically excluded from the provisions.

There is a valid argument as to the morality and definitions of torture beyond the Geneva Convention, but anyone who invokes the Geneva Convention as being valid in a terrorist discussion has shown they are too ignorant to take seriously.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

He's as likely to read the Geneva Convention as he is to read the Iraq war resolution, the Constitution, or Maryland child support law. He'd much rather spew his misguided interpretation of what someone told him it says.

The bottom line is that you can look at the people we are fighting there and read the Geneva Convention to see that they are specifically excluded from the provisions.

There is a valid argument as to the morality and definitions of torture beyond the Geneva Convention, but anyone who invokes the Geneva Convention as being valid in a terrorist discussion has shown they are too ignorant to take seriously.

I said that terrorist need to be treated as criminals under the law of the land.

The Geneva Convention is for prisoners outside the law of the Country.

Thus we have laws that cover all prisoners in the Country and outside the Country.

The Bush administration is a criminal gov that tortures prisoners against all laws.

 

[aps45819]

I said that terrorist need to be treated as criminals under the law of the land.
The Bush administration is a criminal gov that tortures prisoners against all laws.

Who's land? Their law allows a hand to be cut off for stealing.

 

[appendixqh]

I said that terrorist need to be treated as criminals under the law of the land.

The Geneva Convention is for prisoners outside the law of the Country.

Thus we have laws that cover all prisoners in the Country and outside the Country.

The Bush administration is a criminal gov that tortures prisoners against all laws.

So the Bush administration condones a little torture, perhaps a little law-breaking...in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY!

You on the other hand, have no problem breaking the laws...ie. vandalizing courthouses because you don't want to pay for a child you fathered...yet you want to shift focus to the governments shortcomings.

Try this...get a grip on yourself, and once you accomplish that monumental task, then you might be half-way believable in your rants.

 

[MMDad]

I said that terrorist need to be treated as criminals under the law of the land.

So we should stop holding prisoners and just kill them as their law allows? Good answer, JPC! You're finally seeing the light!

JPC! Yay! Kill all the terrorists! Yay!

 

[Mikeinsmd]

to beat them we have to kill them all (let allah sort them out).

I knew you'd eventually see things my way.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

So the Bush administration condones a little torture, perhaps a little law-breaking...in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY!

You on the other hand, have no problem breaking the laws...ie. vandalizing courthouses because you don't want to pay for a child you fathered...yet you want to shift focus to the governments shortcomings.

The difference is that Bush doing torture is based in fear and cruelty, but my action was based in justice and self sacrifice.

Big difference indeed.

 

[appendixqh]

The difference is that Bush doing torture is based in fear and cruelty, but my action was based in justice and self sacrifice.

Big difference indeed.

Take the blinders off...if this administration was acting based on your premise of fear and cruelty...I think the list of recepients of these actions would be a VERY long one, and most likely begin at home. But it's not, so don't confuse a little interrogation tactic that may cause some discomfort, with the previously mentioned "glass tube in the Pee Pee" technique...that my friend, is an example of cruelty. Beheading is cruelty and a fear tactic.

As for you...civil disobedience does not lead to justice. Your crusade against the child support system, and the torture tactics, bears no merit when you are not willing to be a law abiding citizen yourself. Your behavior resembles that of a child throwing themselves on the floor in protest. Regroup your strategy if you want public support for your cause.

 

[Papi4baby]

JPC I’ll give you credit, you do have what seems like a lot of patience with some of the response people give you (which I would give you too). But honestly how do you think you will win anything if your points of view if so far off what people want?
And sometimes bad things must be done to maintain the greater good, yes I believe on that.

 

[Vince]

This thread is only one more reason to add JPC to your ignore list.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

JPC I’ll give you credit, you do have what seems like a lot of patience with some of the response people give you (which I would give you too).

Thank you for noticing, I do work on my patience here very much. On a few occassions they do get to me though.

But honestly how do you think you will win anything if your points of view if so far off what people want?

Because I am a Christian and that means I must give the message and give witness and testimony against the injustices and the wrongdoing and if it fails then I did my duty. Like John the Baptist or even Christ was executed for telling the infidels that they were wrong. The old Sanskit scriptures (I like all religions) in the Bhagavad-Gita it says to do right regardless of the consiquences or the threats and I like that. To turn the other cheek means to provoke the infidels to slap it again. These election campaigns let me put all my wild religious ideals to the test, I got to do the same in jail of testing the principles and it was a wild adventure indeed. Gandhi called it "experimenting with truth."

There are many ways in which to win, one can even win by loosing per the Tao Te Ching.

And sometimes bad things must be done to maintain the greater good, yes I believe on that.

That concept has some truth to it but we must not race to do wrong. We must give the right way the full chance. And if at some point it feels that some wrong must be done then do it only in small doses and with great care.