• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

In addition to innocent detainees who have been tortured to death, in CIA custody, or in military custody, and an unknown number of additional prisoners who are held by the United States in various undisclosed locations around the world, the US currently house 131 detainees in their Guantanamo Bay gulag who are not party to any criminal charges or investigations whatsoever, (innocent), a facility in which the United States have since admitted they used torture.

So you think detaining someone against their will is in fact torture?

The "battlefield" does not constitute the whole world. In fact, a "battlefield" as its name implies, is where armed combat occurs. Combatants are those engaged in armed warfare. Abducted persons from non-belligerent countries do not classify, in any definition, as a "combatant" or a POW. Nevertheless, contrary to assertions made by the executive branch, the Supreme Court have ruled that their prisoners in Guantanamo Bay shall at least be afforded protections under the Geneva Conventions Common Article III, while they have not however broached the topic of the other prisoners in other locations.

A battlefield, as its name implies, is where a battle takes place. On 9/11, lower Manhattan became a battlefield along with a field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon. With the jihadi scum, the whole world has become a battlefield and we will kill them where ever we can find them.

Additionally, the "War on Terror", while making a great buzzword and catchphrase, is not legally classified as an "armed conflict" per any of the Hague or Geneva Convention treaties, nor is it a war legally declared by the US congress pursuant to Article I of the US constitution.

That is mere legal parsing, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

The continued policy for these unlawful detentions undermine US credibility, especially in their aim to preach human rights to other nations, breed continued resentment towards the United States which can lead to further recruitment in terrorist organizations, and of course, most importantly, constitute an egregious moral outrage, in my opinion.

I partially agree with you here. Rather than continued detention, the detainees should be hanged (or ritually beheaded on videotape, according to their custom) forthwith - as permitted by the GC.

Most importantly, these unjustified incarcerations violate the fifth amendment of the US bill of rights, which states that "No person...shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

That's for US citizens, not the war criminals currently detained.
 
Some sects of the Catholics, which I was raised, practice self-flaggelation.

Sounds shaky but that is "self" flagellation. They are not shooting little girls through the head or hanging Gays from lampposts.
Most christians today in the US condone torture.

Do you have evidence of this, and what sort of torture you might be talking about? Have you ever heard of Muslims torturing and/or beheading innocent people?

How much violence do you want?
None. But i would certainly approve of responding to it.
No, the Inquisition is over, I know, but the history of war in the name of religion is as old as religion.

We are in the present and have to deal with that. Rationalizing the murder of innocent people only advances the cause of extremism.
 
So you think detaining someone against their will is in fact torture?

No.

A battlefield, as its name implies, is where a battle takes place. On 9/11, lower Manhattan became a battlefield along with a field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon. With the jihadi scum, the whole world has become a battlefield and we will kill them where ever we can find them.

I'm referring to the places where the detainees are abducted from. They weren't taken from ground zero.

That is mere legal parsing, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

That's the point. The "war on terror" signifies nothing. It is neither an armed conflict as recognized by international law or a legally sanctioned war approved by the US congress.

I partially agree with you here. Rather than continued detention, the detainees should be hanged (or ritually beheaded on videotape, according to their custom) forthwith - as permitted by the GC.

It is not at all permitted by the GC.. Again, common article 3 strictly prohibits:

"(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;"

to those "hors de combat" (no longer engaged in combat).

That's for US citizens, not the war criminals currently detained.

It says "no person" not "no citizen". The constitution clearly distinguishes when they refer to a person, or a citizen, such as in the right to become president or vice president in Article II.
 
Sounds shaky but that is "self" flagellation. They are not shooting little girls through the head or hanging Gays from lampposts.


Do you have evidence of this, and what sort of torture you might be talking about? Have you ever heard of Muslims torturing and/or beheading innocent people?

None. But i would certainly approve of responding to it.


We are in the present and have to deal with that. Rationalizing the murder of innocent people only advances the cause of extremism.

No, 'round here we drag gays behind pickup trucks.

Yes, beating oneself is bizarre behavior and violence, but it harms no other person. It merely demonstrates the crazy behavior inspired by our Judeo Christian extremists.

When I say that christianity here condones torture, I say that because of the absolute SILENCE from the pulpits and printing presses of churches in this country. With the possible exception of the Unitarian branch churches, no pastor, no church board has condemned the torture practiced by the federal government. As far as I'm concerned, if one does not condemn any immoral practice, one condones that practice.
 
No, 'round here we drag gays behind pickup trucks.

Is that supported and encouraged by the laws where you live?

Yes, beating oneself is bizarre behavior and violence, but it harms no other person. It merely demonstrates the crazy behavior inspired by our Judeo Christian extremists.

Of course the most important part of this is that it does no harm to others. This is not the case in Islam.

When I say that christianity here condones torture, I say that because of the absolute SILENCE from the pulpits and printing presses of churches in this country. With the possible exception of the Unitarian branch churches, no pastor, no church board has condemned the torture practiced by the federal government. As far as I'm concerned, if one does not condemn any immoral practice, one condones that practice.

So because you have read nothing on the issue, and apparently have not done any research, you feel the Christians support torture? You will not even give them the benefit of any doubt?

These attempts at comparing Christianity and Islam is as foolish as comparing Islam with Atheism or Buddhism. Islam stands alone and you should recognize that.
 
Is that supported and encouraged by the laws where you live?



Of course the most important part of this is that it does no harm to others. This is not the case in Islam.



So because you have read nothing on the issue, and apparently have not done any research, you feel the Christians support torture? You will not even give them the benefit of any doubt?

These attempts at comparing Christianity and Islam is as foolish as comparing Islam with Atheism or Buddhism. Islam stands alone and you should recognize that.

What does the law matter? It is against the law to torture, if one considers the Nuremberg Principle to be valid, yet lawyers in the highest office in the land, and some posters, say that ain't so.

Oh, but there IS harm done to others, but maybe it's just that you are not aware of it. Generalizing here, but it's amazing how many of the nutcases eventually caught with bodies buried in their backyards are religious zealots. The history of religious zealots of all persuasions waging wars for crazy religious dogma reasons is well documented. Ignore it at your own peril.

I have observed that no church has come out condemning torture. I have personally asked several members of several different churches what they think about torture. Does that count as research? The silence and body language tells the whole story. Perhaps you could reference or link a public statement condemning the practice by any church in the last 10 years?

Islam does not stand alone. You have been conditioned to believe that nonsense, but that does not make it so.

I will say that in general the Eastern (oriental) religions stand out distinctly different from the Judeo Christian varieties, but Islam falls in with the violent histories of the Judeo Christian traditions. It does not resemble any of the eastern religions. The judeo-christian-muslim religions pay lip service to nonviolence and peace and harmony, but their actions do not often match their words.

The eastern religions seem to follow their philosophy with their actions.
 
What does the law matter? It is against the law to torture, if one considers the Nuremberg Principle to be valid, yet lawyers in the highest office in the land, and some posters, say that ain't so.

Oh, but there IS harm done to others, but maybe it's just that you are not aware of it. Generalizing here, but it's amazing how many of the nutcases eventually caught with bodies buried in their backyards are religious zealots. The history of religious zealots of all persuasions waging wars for crazy religious dogma reasons is well documented. Ignore it at your own peril.

I have observed that no church has come out condemning torture. I have personally asked several members of several different churches what they think about torture. Does that count as research? The silence and body language tells the whole story. Perhaps you could reference or link a public statement condemning the practice by any church in the last 10 years?

Islam does not stand alone. You have been conditioned to believe that nonsense, but that does not make it so.

I will say that in general the Eastern (oriental) religions stand out distinctly different from the Judeo Christian varieties, but Islam falls in with the violent histories of the Judeo Christian traditions. It does not resemble any of the eastern religions. The judeo-christian-muslim religions pay lip service to nonviolence and peace and harmony, but their actions do not often match their words.

The eastern religions seem to follow their philosophy with their actions.

Not quite true concerning churches:


Pope denounces torture during Guatemala mass / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
 
What does the law matter?

You made the claim that "No, 'round here we drag gays behind pickup trucks". I asked if that was encouraged or supported by the State and you say. "What does the law matter?"??

It is against the law to torture, if one considers the Nuremberg Principle to be valid, yet lawyers in the highest office in the land, and some posters, say that ain't so.

What does the Nuremberg trials have to do with dragging people behind pickup trucks?

Oh, but there IS harm done to others, but maybe it's just that you are not aware of it. Generalizing here, but it's amazing how many of the nutcases eventually caught with bodies buried in their backyards are religious zealots. The history of religious zealots of all persuasions waging wars for crazy religious dogma reasons is well documented. Ignore it at your own peril.

Yes, and speaking of Muslims, let's not forget their treatment of women, little girls and Gays.

I have observed that no church has come out condemning torture.

How did you observe a negative?
I have personally asked several members of several different churches what they think about torture. Does that count as research?

No, it doesn't

The silence and body language tells the whole story.

Yes, they were hoping to politely ignore you.

Perhaps you could reference or link a public statement condemning the practice by any church in the last 10 years?

Perhaps, but don't wait up.

Islam does not stand alone. You have been conditioned to believe that nonsense, but that does not make it so.

Who or what does it stand with?

I will say that in general the Eastern (oriental) religions stand out distinctly different from the Judeo Christian varieties, but Islam falls in with the violent histories of the Judeo Christian traditions. It does not resemble any of the eastern religions. The judeo-christian-muslim religions pay lip service to nonviolence and peace and harmony, but their actions do not often match their words.

I can see you put a lot of study and thought into this.
The eastern religions seem to follow their philosophy with their actions.

Yes, it seems so.
 
Grant

No, it is against the law to drag people behind pickup trucks. It is also against the law to torture. We have at least 1 prosecution for the former offense, and a few for the latter at Abu Ghraib. But for the most part, nobody is prosecuted for torture. Bradley Manning was tortured and is also being prosecuted for exposing the crimes of government. The President had found him guilty before a trial.

So the rhetorical question still stands: what does the law matter?

Yes, muslims treat gays and women poorly too. Christians burns heretics and witches at the stake. Remind me of which is the more civilized group, please.

It is not difficult to observe a negative. For example, today I observe there is not a hurricane in the Bahamas. How difficult is that? I have observed that the christians I associate with are most uncomfortable discussing torture. That is a positive. Nor are they comfortable dealing with what appears to be absolute silence on the matter by their pastor from the pulpit. He may rage on about political candidates, but not a word about man's inhumanity to man. Nobody was politely ignoring me, they simply wished the subject to be changed.

Is that a negative or a positive?

No sir, I will not hold my breath, waiting for you to provide any quotes from churches condemning torture. Boo Radley did, and I'm happy to stand corrected on that matter, but from a Pope who condones child abuse by his priests, I find his single comment to be a bit more like lip service than any strenuous objection.

With whom does islam stand? Depends upon the qualifications to be counted in whatever group one is trying to define. If one talks about lip service to peace and humanity, it stands with all the other religions. If one is talking about practicing violence and torture, it certainly stands with our Judeo Christian heritage, but it is interesting that of the few people captured by islamists and held as ransome or otherwise, including Richard what's his name of NBC that was captured last month, or Jessica Lynch, or numerous others over the years, they are not treated badly. Certainly not as badly as our prisoners.
 
Grant

No, it is against the law to drag people behind pickup trucks.

Then why bring it up as well as mislead?

It is also against the law to torture. We have at least 1 prosecution for the former offense, and a few for the latter at Abu Ghraib. But for the most part, nobody is prosecuted for torture. Bradley Manning was tortured and is also being prosecuted for exposing the crimes of government. The President had found him guilty before a trial.

You will need to supply evidence of whatever you claim you make
So the rhetorical question still stands: what does the law matter?

If it didn't matter you probably wouldn't be sitting at your computer.

Yes, muslims treat gays and women poorly too.

Too? Who else treats women and Gays the way Muslims do?

Christians burns heretics and witches at the stake. Remind me of which is the more civilized group, please.

You have to go back hundreds of years for your example whereas I only need refer to todays news. There is nothing we can do about history but there are things we can do today. The first is to face reality.

It is not difficult to observe a negative. For example, today I observe there is not a hurricane in the Bahamas. How difficult is that? I have observed that the christians I associate with are most uncomfortable discussing torture. That is a positive. Nor are they comfortable dealing with what appears to be absolute silence on the matter by their pastor from the pulpit. He may rage on about political candidates, but not a word about man's inhumanity to man. Nobody was politely ignoring me, they simply wished the subject to be changed.

Is that a negative or a positive?

I will positively ignore this. It is too silly for comment

No sir, I will not hold my breath, waiting for you to provide any quotes from churches condemning torture. Boo Radley did, and I'm happy to stand corrected on that matter, but from a Pope who condones child abuse by his priests, I find his single comment to be a bit more like lip service than any strenuous objection.

The Pope condones child abuse?? Again, leftists always have to have unbiased sources for whatever they claim, otherwise, like you, they will lie.

With whom does islam stand? Depends upon the qualifications to be counted in whatever group one is trying to define. If one talks about lip service to peace and humanity, it stands with all the other religions. If one is talking about practicing violence and torture, it certainly stands with our Judeo Christian heritage, but it is interesting that of the few people captured by islamists and held as ransome or otherwise, including Richard what's his name of NBC that was captured last month, or Jessica Lynch, or numerous others over the years, they are not treated badly. Certainly not as badly as our prisoners.

He's one of your own, Lefties. How can you explain this?
 
What I want to know is when we decided that terrorists were supervillains that can't be trusted to our normal justice system.

....

So why can't we put them on trial and toss them in prison alongside every other murderer? They don't deserve special treatment. Treating them specially just gives the impression that they are special.

The government wouldn't want them airing the dirty laundry of multiple administrations going back decades. That was where the real "security threat" resided.
 
Then why bring it up as well as mislead?



You will need to supply evidence of whatever you claim you make


If it didn't matter you probably wouldn't be sitting at your computer.



Too? Who else treats women and Gays the way Muslims do?



You have to go back hundreds of years for your example whereas I only need refer to todays news. There is nothing we can do about history but there are things we can do today. The first is to face reality.



I will positively ignore this. It is too silly for comment



The Pope condones child abuse?? Again, leftists always have to have unbiased sources for whatever they claim, otherwise, like you, they will lie.



He's one of your own, Lefties. How can you explain this?

I was raised in the Roman Church and was still serving mass at age 21. Never once was I bothered by any priest, but if one reads the papers enough, it appears I may have been the exception rather than the rule. If you personally happen to be unaware of the crisis within the Church, that sir is a personal problem, not mine.

And you may be also uninformed about the actions of the US government regarding human rights and wars of aggression. Uninformed, or in denial. Either way, I've better things to do than make small talk with you. :peace
 
I was raised in the Roman Church and was still serving mass at age 21. Never once was I bothered by any priest, but if one reads the papers enough, it appears I may have been the exception rather than the rule. If you personally happen to be unaware of the crisis within the Church, that sir is a personal problem, not mine.


Was it during this period that you were informed about "the Pope who condones child abuse by his priests"?

I have never heard of such a thing. Where is your source, please.
 
Was it during this period that you were informed about "the Pope who condones child abuse by his priests"?

I have never heard of such a thing. Where is your source, please.

In order to understand that statement Grant, you must understand that for decades, or perhaps longer, the Church (the Pope is its head) has not punished pedophiles and sexual predators. Indeed, some have been promoted, while others are simply moved to other locations within the church.

In my book, if one does not punish criminal behavior when one is in a position to do so, with a presumed obligation to do so, then one condones and enables such behavior. Now maybe I'm just a bit strange in holding to that position....:confused:
 
In my book, if one does not punish criminal behavior when one is in a position to do so, with a presumed obligation to do so, then one condones and enables such behavior. Now maybe I'm just a bit strange in holding to that position....:confused:

You should fit right into this administration, then. Have you applied for a position with the ATF yet, so you can condone and enable criminal behavior?
 
In order to understand that statement Grant, you must understand that for decades, or perhaps longer, the Church (the Pope is its head) has not punished pedophiles and sexual predators. Indeed, some have been promoted, while others are simply moved to other locations within the church.

In my book, if one does not punish criminal behavior when one is in a position to do so, with a presumed obligation to do so, then one condones and enables such behavior. Now maybe I'm just a bit strange in holding to that position....:confused:

You said the Pope condones such behavior and that is completely false, untrue and a lie.

These sorts of lies are not all that strange though, if you mean uncommon. In fact lying is far too common, on these boards and elsewhere. You should find a new book.
 
Do Christians in this country demand that you either convert to Christianity, pay a tax, or be killed?

Not since the 1930s in Spain, but in what country today is this practiced by any religion? Even Iran and Saudi Arabia don´t do this.
 
Not since the 1930s in Spain, but in what country today is this practiced by any religion? Even Iran and Saudi Arabia don´t do this.


I am not saying that any government per se is practicing these tenants of Islam.....Yet....But, clearly with Aminajihad speaking of a Caliphate, and the radical factions of the religion that are at war/jihad with the Christian west, it is a concern.

To deny that this doesn't exist in the writings of the Islamic holy books is to place ones head in the sand.
 
You said the Pope condones such behavior and that is completely false, untrue and a lie.

These sorts of lies are not all that strange though, if you mean uncommon. In fact lying is far too common, on these boards and elsewhere. You should find a new book.

You wish it were that simple and sweet, but it's not.

If a man is aware of criminal behavior, immoral behavior, amongst his underlings, does he have an obligation to punish or at least end said behavior?
 
I am not saying that any government per se is practicing these tenants of Islam.....Yet....But, clearly with Aminajihad speaking of a Caliphate, and the radical factions of the religion that are at war/jihad with the Christian west, it is a concern.

To deny that this doesn't exist in the writings of the Islamic holy books is to place ones head in the sand.

Well that would depend which Caliphate you where talking about, neither the Moors nor the Ottomans forcibly converted anyone as a matter of state policy. Also see

Constitution of Medina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You said the Pope condones such behavior and that is completely false, untrue and a lie.

These sorts of lies are not all that strange though, if you mean uncommon. In fact lying is far too common, on these boards and elsewhere. You should find a new book.

Actually there may be some truth to that, just look at Democracy Now!. The movie Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence In The House of God "uncovers documents from secret Vatican archives that portray the Pope as both responsible and helpless in the face of this abuse." Alex Gibney, director of the film stated that

I think one of the most interesting things about Pope Benedict, the current pope—and there’s a lot about both him and the previous pope, John Paul, in this film—one of the most interesting things about him was, before he was pope, he was Cardinal Ratzinger, and he ran what was called the Congregation [for] the Doctrine [of] the Faith, formerly known as the Inquisition. After 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger got all sex abuse cases sent to his office. So Cardinal Ratzinger actually knows more about clerical sex abuse than any human being on the planet. And then he became pope. But it was while he was Cardinal Ratzinger that the case of Murphy was brought to the Congregation [for] the Doctrine of the Faith.

Interestingly enough, you know, instead of moving quickly to defrock him, they took pity on the priest himself, who wrote a very poignant letter saying, "Look, I’m an old guy now. This was so long ago. I’m so sorry. Please let me die as a priest." And that is the wish that was granted by the Vatican. And so there was no justice for the deaf victims.​

So, there is some truth to the fact that the Pope does have knowledge that sexual abuse did occur.
 
Well that would depend which Caliphate you where talking about, neither the Moors nor the Ottomans forcibly converted anyone as a matter of state policy. Also see

Constitution of Medina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I prefer to stick to the here and now if you don't mind...You want to defend Islamic Jihadist killing of today by comparing it to Christian crusades of hundreds of years ago...Sorry dude, that doesn't even make sense to do that....Try again.
 
You wish it were that simple and sweet, but it's not.

If a man is aware of criminal behavior, immoral behavior, amongst his underlings, does he have an obligation to punish or at least end said behavior?

Show me where the Pope did as you accused.

And I apologize for suggesting you were a liar. It was uncalled for.
 
Actually there may be some truth to that, just look at Democracy Now!. The movie Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence In The House of God "uncovers documents from secret Vatican archives that portray the Pope as both responsible and helpless in the face of this abuse." Alex Gibney, director of the film stated that

I think one of the most interesting things about Pope Benedict, the current pope—and there’s a lot about both him and the previous pope, John Paul, in this film—one of the most interesting things about him was, before he was pope, he was Cardinal Ratzinger, and he ran what was called the Congregation [for] the Doctrine [of] the Faith, formerly known as the Inquisition. After 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger got all sex abuse cases sent to his office. So Cardinal Ratzinger actually knows more about clerical sex abuse than any human being on the planet. And then he became pope. But it was while he was Cardinal Ratzinger that the case of Murphy was brought to the Congregation [for] the Doctrine of the Faith.

Interestingly enough, you know, instead of moving quickly to defrock him, they took pity on the priest himself, who wrote a very poignant letter saying, "Look, I’m an old guy now. This was so long ago. I’m so sorry. Please let me die as a priest." And that is the wish that was granted by the Vatican. And so there was no justice for the deaf victims.​

So, there is some truth to the fact that the Pope does have knowledge that sexual abuse did occur.

I don't look to movies for history. I thought only Europeans did that.
 
Back
Top Bottom