• 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!

CIA report has new details of prisoner abuse

You are clearly not seeing where I am coming from.

There would be no enemy combatants against US military if we didn't invade a sovereign nation...

There would be no civilian shields if there weren't American bullets aimed at them.

There would be no investigations if the CIA focused on protecting US citizens instead of Iraqi and Afghani ones.

If you lived on a block where bad people lived all around you. Would it be ok for you to kill all your neighbors and be safe? Or put a gate up, walk softly, and carry a big stick.

I'm not scared of a terrorist in Jordan, a terrorist in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or in Canada even. I'm scared of terrorists in the US. And if you think for a second we will kill every terrorist in the world and prevail...you are direly mistaken. So let's protect us here.

I'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to tell you there are better ways.
 
JakeFromWI said:
The protections have already been "divined." The law is the law. And again, many of these KILLERS are suspect. Many of them in fact innocent...

I am talking about the people who never dealt with a terrorist. The family eating at a restaurant blown up by the US because they thought MAYBE Saddam was there. The kids caught in crossfire. The Father taken to Guantanamo because he was forced by a terrorist to pick up a rifle or his wife will be raped and murdered.

No they don't. It is nowhere near implied. There is no excuse - however, if you are convinced it is the job of the US to stop such atrocities, we should bomb Indonesia, Pakistan, and at least a dozen other countries if it is truly your goal to stop such atrocities.

I am entirely serious here. It is not a farcical claim to say many more innocent lives have been lost in the years after Saddam than when Saddam was in power. And I am not blaming the troops. They did not decide to go to war.

It was "a HUGE bi-partisan decision to go to war" based on FALSE premises of such "facts" like their massive munitions depots of WMD's, their ability to make a nuke within 2 years, and an unproven link of Saddam to Al Queda.

If I sound like nonsense to you, my time here is done.
Click to expand...

Response will be forthcoming tomorrow...I have work to do.
 
JakeFromWI said:
You are clearly not seeing where I am coming from.

There would be no enemy combatants against US military if we didn't invade a sovereign nation...
Click to expand...

So, what country had we invaded prior to 9/11?
 
JakeFromWI;1058214483[I said:
]"Carry on! Now perhaps you want to argue that providing these thugs a clean cell, medical care, three meals a day, recreation time, Korans and prayer rugs as being inhumane; but that would require the willful suspension of disbelief."[/I]

NOT ALL OF THEM ARE THUGS. Your assumptions of guilt toward anyone being suspect of anything is the core fault in whatever the hell it is you are trying to justify. If I am in jail because I am on trial for murder, am I guilty? According to you, I am.
Click to expand...

What part of non-uniformed enemy combatants captured on foreign soil do continue to refuse to comprehend or willfully wallow in denial from?

Good lord dude; you're like a broken record! This is like wallowing in a circle of futility where you make a farcical claim, get called on it yet continue to make farcical claims without acknowledging the facts presented.

Again; what part of non-uniformed enemy combatants captured on foreign soil do continue to refuse to comprehend or willfully wallow in denial from?

Let me try this, perhaps then the light will turn on; were any of the "thugs" in Gitmo captured on US Soil committing a crime?
 
Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Kuwait, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Cuba. That doesn't count US gov't backed coups in Bolivia, Guatemala, Chile, Zaire, El Salvadore, Liberia, Chad, and Iran. All those happened in the past 40 years. All for pure political reasons. Iraq and Afghanistan is no different.
 
JakeFromWI said:
Actually, International law does. Read about it sometime. I have yet to find the part of the Geneva Convention that condones torture...
Click to expand...

I've already educated you on the inapplicability of the GC to non-uniformed combatants.
 
dragondad said:
What a fine American you are!

Gleefully supporting the illegal torture of "suspected" terrorists.

[ Want a great example of how degraded and debased this Country has become????..............the right wing has no qualms whatsover about advocating torture for the "right reasons"................in the past someone who said this would be rightly treated as a vile outcast.. no matter what what side you stood on]
Click to expand...

Enough liberal rhetoric.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Whether or not the actions were technically illegal, don't you think it's reprehensible for the US government to engage in actions that it defines as torture?
Click to expand...

It depends on the circumstances because, unlike some bed-wetters I could mention, I don't reflexively label "torture" as being categorically immoral.
 
Truth Detector said:
Let me try this, perhaps then the light will turn on; were any of the "thugs" in Gitmo captured on US Soil committing a crime?
Click to expand...

Look dude, are the rights derived from the creator set forth in our declaration of independence meant only for the privilege of the few while the rest are subjugated to a covenant of works or are these rights for all peoples! maybe you should go and read the original City on the Hill speech by John Winthrop 1630 or documents by the founders rather then just the interpretations by the new Romish princes who as in old would subjugate America into works.

As for the quote on top of this post, the answer is no. No crimes were committed by thugs on US soil. That is my point. They did nothing to me. They commited no crime on US soil, and are being held in non US territory, yet somehow, the US can judge them, and how they shall be treated, and what cause is needed to hold them. We shall not be so quick to judge. Even most of the guilty ones did nothing more than defend their way of life from our occupation. If Canadian troops accidentally killed your son and told you their way of life was "enlightening" would you not protect your home? I would be fighting as hard as they are.
 
Are there no free thinkers or have the princes already swayed not only your thoughts but your tongues as well. Do we need to revisit John Adams disortation on cannon and feudal law 1768 to put the power of these new princes into perspective.
 
Truth Detector said:
I keep seeing this "rule of law" argument; yet cannot seem to find any credible evidence of the CIA or the military having broken laws in their interrogation efforts other than a few isolated cases where abuse did occur and the perps were prosecuted for it.

Apparently you are studying law in an education system that breeds economic and legal ignorance.

But do not worry, the terrorists are cheering the efforts to divine rights for them and desperately attempt to impugn the very Government and employees in that Government that attempted to protect you from them.
Click to expand...

You don't see evidence other than a few cases. Hmm so there is evidence there.

I'm studying law based on the actual laws of our country and past precedence. Waterboarding is torture its illegal so is the threat of death during interrogation. I posted the definition of torture under US Law. The CIA report shows that the conditions were met for torture under US Law. Again your position is based out of irrational feelings and not on the basis of the law itself. I'd say you're taking the liberal position here.

Thus far from you I've seen rhetoric based out of base fears and not based out of anything logical and just shows a loss of control on your part.

Just admit it this has nothing to do with fighting terror but your feel for the need to have revenge. Stop beating around the bush.
 
JakeFromWI said:
Are there no free thinkers or have the princes already swayed not only your thoughts but your tongues as well. Do we need to revisit John Adams disortation on cannon and feudal law 1768 to put the power of these new princes into perspective.
Click to expand...

No "princes" have swayed my thoughts, I can assure you. Just stay on topic.
 
Ethereal said:
No "princes" have swayed my thoughts, I can assure you. Just stay on topic.
Click to expand...

Where have I swayed from topic?

Unless you can tell me why we should have spent millions to investigate a blow job on tax payer dollars, but ignore CIA misconduct to the point of dehumanization of "unlawful combatants," along with the unconstitutional tapping of domestic phone lines, I will continue to state that the information you have chosen to arm yourself with is foolish and unsubstantiated.
 
JakeFromWI said:
Where have I swayed from topic?
Click to expand...

Your nonsensical tangent about princes and John Adams.

Unless you can tell me why we should have spent millions to investigate a blow job on tax payer dollars, but ignore CIA misconduct to the point of dehumanization of "unlawful combatants," along with the unconstitutional tapping of domestic phone lines, I will continue to state that the information you have chosen to arm yourself with is foolish and unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...

What information are you referring to?
 
The topic is rights and responsibilities. The former is a guarantee of the creator to one living in a natural state such as when Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden. However the latter is a willingness to give up or to accept that when in society there is a need for the greater good not just my personal good. In days of old the roman prince directed the thoughts and will for salvation. Martin Luther changed that by writing and printing the bible in common language for all people not just the prince and his Romish guard. Now in present day we have princes with as much zeal as the old, dictating thought with hope enough they will not find for themselves what is available. And as in the old it is still a covenant of works with reward of nothing.

In the posts prior, you will find a mass of opinion stating torture is fine, and no investigating is necessary. They certainly do not believe such with empirical evidences, or by the true words of our forefathers.

They believe this because Glenn Beck says so. Because Rush Limbaugh says so. Because Newt Gingrich says so. I'm just asking that people start thinking with their own minds, not by the ammo provided by our "new princes."

I don't even need an education to know torture under ANY circumstances is un-American and repulsive. No matter by whom: Christians, troops, Bush, CIA, Obama or otherwise. If we feel the need to investigate a blow job, we should investigate the dehumanization of anyone. SUSPECT terrorists included. Eye for and eye doesn't apply in America. That should not even be debated.
 
PogueMoran said:
You don't see evidence other than a few cases. Hmm so there is evidence there.

I'm studying law based on the actual laws of our country and past precedence. Waterboarding is torture its illegal so is the threat of death during interrogation. I posted the definition of torture under US Law. The CIA report shows that the conditions were met for torture under US Law. Again your position is based out of irrational feelings and not on the basis of the law itself. I'd say you're taking the liberal position here.

Thus far from you I've seen rhetoric based out of base fears and not based out of anything logical and just shows a loss of control on your part.

Just admit it this has nothing to do with fighting terror but your feel for the need to have revenge. Stop beating around the bush.
Click to expand...

:rofl That is too funny.
 
JakeFromWI said:
The protections have already been "divined." The law is the law. And again, many of these KILLERS are suspect. Many of them in fact innocent...
Click to expand...

Alas, you cannot provide one single shred of evidence of the innocence of these thugs. Again, almost all of them were captured in battles with US troops. DER.


JakeFromWI said:
I am talking about the people who never dealt with a terrorist. The family eating at a restaurant blown up by the US because they thought MAYBE Saddam was there. The kids caught in crossfire. The Father taken to Guantanamo because he was forced by a terrorist to pick up a rifle or his wife will be raped and murdered.
Click to expand...

How delightful, we have moved from hyperbolic nonsense to outright fabrication now. It truly is getting hard to take anything you fabricate seriously.

JakeFromWI said:
No they don't. It is nowhere near implied. There is no excuse - however, if you are convinced it is the job of the US to stop such atrocities, we should bomb Indonesia, Pakistan, and at least a dozen other countries if it is truly your goal to stop such atrocities.
Click to expand...

Where has anyone ever made the argument that what is happening in Afghanistan or Iraq has to do with atrocities and what does this have to do with your farcical claims that the deaths of innocent Afghans and Iraqis is out fault and not the fault of the despicable tactics of the terrorist thugs who apparently have no qualms blowing up innocents at mosques, schools and markets?

JakeFromWI said:
I am entirely serious here. It is not a farcical claim to say many more innocent lives have been lost in the years after Saddam than when Saddam was in power. And I am not blaming the troops. They did not decide to go to war.
Click to expand...

Once again you fabricate your own version of the historic record in a vacuum of the facts. I would love you to attempt to PROVE this claim with credible evidence rather than boring us with more of your typical “because you say so’s.”

JakeFromWI said:
It was "a HUGE bi-partisan decision to go to war" based on FALSE premises of such "facts" like their massive munitions depots of WMD's, their ability to make a nuke within 2 years, and an unproven link of Saddam to Al Queda.
Click to expand...

I see that you still have not read the Joint Resolution which is typical among Liberals who continue to fabricate their own version of events in a vacuum of the facts. Here is a copy, read it and become informed. The document contains over 1,800 words and only 200+ are devoted to the debate on WMDs.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

But of course, Liberals love to focus on nukes rather than the WMDs that Saddam used and manufactured to gas hundreds of thousands.

JakeFromWI said:
If I sound like nonsense to you, my time here is done.
Click to expand...

Well, carry on then.
:2wave:
 
Last edited:
JakeFromWI said:
You are clearly not seeing where I am coming from.
Click to expand...

Au contraire’; we most certainly see through the veil of nonsense you are postulating in an effort to defend outrageous partisan political witch-hunt.

JakeFromWI said:
There would be no enemy combatants against US military if we didn't invade a sovereign nation...
Click to expand...

Wrong again, but at least you are consistent; we would not have invaded a sovereign nation if that nation had not invaded a weaker neighbor state, pillaged it, then after being defeated, ignored the agreements it had signed and refused to cooperate.

But then, facts and reality never did have much to do with your hyper partisan political hyperbole.

JakeFromWI said:
There would be no civilian shields if there weren't American bullets aimed at them.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, but at least you are consistent; there would be no civilian shields if terrorist thugs who offer NOTHING to the Iraqi people didn’t use them for political propaganda that naïve Liberals worldwide swallow with amazing gusto and then spew the nonsensical vitriol we see from you about our troops and President. I guess these kinds of tactics work best with the mindless few who wallow in self inflicted ignorance.

JakeFromWI said:
There would be no investigations if the CIA focused on protecting US citizens instead of Iraqi and Afghani ones.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, but at least you are consistent; I have no idea what you are even talking about here. Now you’re claiming that the CIA is more interested in protecting Iraqi and Afghans than they are US citizens?

JakeFromWI said:
If you lived on a block where bad people lived all around you. Would it be ok for you to kill all your neighbors and be safe? Or put a gate up, walk softly, and carry a big stick.
Click to expand...

Once again this makes so little sense that I find it impossible to make any sense of. The only one on the block killing his neighbors was Saddam.

JakeFromWI said:
I'm not scared of a terrorist in Jordan, a terrorist in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or in Canada even. I'm scared of terrorists in the US. And if you think for a second we will kill every terrorist in the world and prevail...you are direly mistaken. So let's protect us here.
Click to expand...

Te fascinating thing about this type of illogical logic is that by remaining within our own borders we can stop EVERY possible attack on American interests.

But this simplistic naiveté doesn’t stop there; it also presumes that there are no American interests anywhere else in the world. But alas, many of us live in the REAL world and where the REALITY of stopping every possible terrorist threat against our interests requires our involvement world wide.

Here is a FACT for you; in order to do what you suggest, building a wall around America, our side would have to be correct 100% of the time and have the capability to prevent it. They only have to be right once, or twice or even perhaps three times out of the thousands of attempts they make.

The notion that we do not have to involve ourselves in the part of the world where the terrorists originate requires a naïve and willful denial that defies logic.

JakeFromWI said:
I'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to tell you there are better ways.
Click to expand...

Your notion of what is better is beyond simplistic; it is the same dangerous and absurd notions this inexperienced President has and will only lead to future deaths of Americans and many others who are our allies.
 
Truth Detector said:
Alas, you cannot provide one single shred of evidence of the innocence of these thugs. Again, almost all of them were captured in battles with US troops. DER.

Once again you fabricate your own version of the historic record in a vacuum of the facts. I would love you to attempt to PROVE this claim with credible evidence rather than boring us with more of your typical “because you say so’s.”
Click to expand...

First of all. I must reiterate to you that the US does not work on the idea that I have to prove someone's innocence before they are cleared to be tortured. Really though, did you just ask me to prove a detainees innocence in order to justify my position that US torture is wrong?

And as for the proof you ask regarding my farcical claim that people are dying that wouldn't have otherwise died...I give you this. It is real. Real men, women and children. Dead. Not alive. Unable to vote. Unable to debate politics. Actual people. Dead.

WARNING GRAPHIC LINK: Salon.com Mobile
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom