Congress apologizes for rendition and torture of innocent man - Page 17

Binary_Digit · 10-22-07, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akyron

I did not say the US was free of guilt merely following the current legal policy right or wrong. Bureaucracy is a pain in the you know what.

Ooh, I see where you're coming from. I guess it hinges on whether or not there were reasonable grounds to believe he'd be tortured. Given Syria's track record, that seems like a no-brainer to me.

GottaHurt · 10-23-07, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

I am not a lib.

Hmmm, it says Libertarian under your avatar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Well you didn't exactly dispute it. Would you like to try again with something better than "You've proven nothing"?

I've called it in to question, the onus is on you to prove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

See the OP for a link. I referred to the original article and I was quite clear in pointing that out.

I read the OP and the link. No where does it state that the United States ordered Syria to torture this guy. We deport people all the time to countries that are known to torture, doesn't mean we're ordering it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

The rest of my point requires a bit of logic, so bear with me here.

No, show proof. I've seen enough failed formulas and fvcked up attempts at lib logic this week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

IF Syria has been known to torture its prisoners
AND The United States extraordinarily renditioned a man to Syria
THEN The United States knowingly renditioned a man to Syria where he may be tortured, in violation of the Geneva Conventions Articles and the UNCAT.

This link proves my first premise by showing that the United States has known that Syria tortures its prisoners:

"The [Syrian] Government prevented any organized political opposition, and there have been few antigovernment manifestations. Continuing serious abuses included the use of torture in detention, which at times resulted in death; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; prolonged detention without trial; fundamentally unfair trials in the security courts; and infringement on privacy rights."

Hopefully you agree with my second premise, that the United States renditioned this man to Syria.

So the conclusion is: The United States knowingly renditioned a man to Syria where he may be tortured, in violation of the Geneva Conventions Articles and the UNCAT.

Now the way this works is, instead of dismissing the argument out of hand with bull**** like "you've proven nothing", you should do one of 3 things:

1. Refute one or both of my premises.
2. Refute the logic behind my conclusion.
3. Admit you're wrong.

Think you can you manage that?

See the bold underlined, where he may be tortured, well, he may be treated to a steak dinner. We don't know now do we.

You can assume all you want, you can apply all the logic you want.

I'm asking you to show me proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this man was tortured by the Syrians at the direct request of the United States.

Think you can manage that?

independent_thinker2002 · 10-23-07, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt

Hmmm, it says Libertarian under your avatar.

Libertarians aren't liberals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt

See the bold underlined, where he may be tortured, well, he may be treated to a steak dinner. We don't know now do we.

How you can file this under intellectual honesty I don't know.

GottaHurt · 10-23-07, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Libertarians aren't liberals.

Never said they were, deliberatly said lib, not liberal.

I believe there's a lesson awaiting you in the basement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

How you can file this under intellectual honesty I don't know.

Because you haven't had your daily lesson. You seem to think you can get away with the words "may, suggests, suggested, could have, maybe or perhaps" and make your speculations into truth.

Not here, not with me. I will call you to the mat everytime you try to pass off your speculation as fact.

That's called plain simple english.

independent_thinker2002 · 10-23-07, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt

Never said they were, deliberatly said lib, not liberal.

I believe there's a lesson awaiting you in the basement.

Because you haven't had your daily lesson. You seem to think you can get away with the words "may, suggests, suggested, could have, maybe or perhaps" and make your speculations into truth.

Not here, not with me. I will call you to the mat everytime you try to pass off your speculation as fact.

That's called plain simple english.

You didn't honestly believe that he would be given a steak dinner. I am done with your trolling too.

Binary_Digit · 10-23-07, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt

I'm asking you to show me proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this man was tortured by the Syrians at the direct request of the United States.

Think you can manage that?

Well, either you're shifting the goal posts or I misunderstood the question from the beginning.

I showed you that the U.S. knew Syria was notorious for torturing its prisoners. And I showed you how the U.S. violated international regulations by extraditing a man to a country where there were reasonable grounds to believe he'd be tortured.

Now if you want proof that the U.S. specifically requested for this man be tortured, I'm not sure what else to give you except these facts and the hope that you can draw a reasonable conclusion from them.

The "proof" you seem to be looking for is undoubtedly nonexistent; I'm pretty sure no transcript of the conversation would ever exist. But have you asked yourself why the U.S. didn't just hold him in Gitmo? Why did we extradite him to Syria, except to have them get some answers out of him??

GottaHurt · 10-23-07, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Well, either you're shifting the goal posts or I misunderstood the question from the beginning.

I showed you that the U.S. knew Syria was notorious for torturing its prisoners. And I showed you how the U.S. violated international regulations by extraditing a man to a country where there were reasonable grounds to believe he'd be tortured.

Now if you want proof that the U.S. specifically requested for this man be tortured, I'm not sure what else to give you except these facts and the hope that you can draw a reasonable conclusion from them.

The "proof" you seem to be looking for is undoubtedly nonexistent; I'm pretty sure no transcript of the conversation would ever exist. But have you asked yourself why the U.S. didn't just hold him in Gitmo? Why did we extradite him to Syria, except to have them get some answers out of him??

From my understanding, Gitmo is for enemy combatants, this guy was on a terrorist watchlist and wasn't a combatant. Canada gave us the false information on him, so how does this make us liable?

Since when is Syria our allie? Since when have we outsourced our intel gathering to Syria?

I guess you draw reasonable conclusions on this instance, much the same way I draw reasonable conclusions that Saddam had WMD's and let AQ conduct training camps in Northern Iraq.

But without absolute proof, both of our reasonable conclusions are nothing more than speculation.

Binary_Digit · 10-23-07, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt

From my understanding, Gitmo is for enemy combatants, this guy was on a terrorist watchlist and wasn't a combatant. Canada gave us the false information on him, so how does this make us liable?

I don't think we're liable for false intelligence from Canada, I think we're liable for extraditing him to a country where he might be tortured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt

Since when is Syria our allie? Since when have we outsourced our intel gathering to Syria?

You tell me, since when do we extradite terror suspects like this man to non-allied "state sponsors of terror" such as Syria? Why was Maher Arar extradited to Syria?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt

I guess you draw reasonable conclusions on this instance, much the same way I draw reasonable conclusions that Saddam had WMD's and let AQ conduct training camps in Northern Iraq.

Assuming that pre-Iraq intelligence didn't have the credibility problems it did, those were reasonable conclusions to make at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt

But without absolute proof, both of our reasonable conclusions are nothing more than speculation.

Of course, but which is more reasonable?

1. We extradited a terror suspect to Syria for no apparent reason, knowing that he might be tortured, and he just happened to be tortured contrary to what we intended to happen, or,

2. We extradited a terror suspect to Syria so he could be interrogated in a way that the CIA couldn't do here.

GottaHurt · 10-23-07, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

You didn't honestly believe that he would be given a steak dinner. I am done with your trolling too.

Your village is calling..

GottaHurt · 10-23-07, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

I don't think we're liable for false intelligence from Canada, I think we're liable for extraditing him to a country where he might be tortured.

We're not liable. See below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

You tell me, since when do we extradite terror suspects like this man to non-allied "state sponsors of terror" such as Syria? Why was Maher Arar extradited to Syria?

Since he was Syrian born:

Maher Arar

So what he became a Canadian citizen, Canada threw the ball in our court. We sent him back to his country of origin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Assuming that pre-Iraq intelligence didn't have the credibility problems it did, those were reasonable conclusions to make at the time.

There were no credibilty problems.

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war.

U.N. inspectors counted, inventoried, tagged, then sealed the bunkers that contained the WMD's hours before the onslaught of the war.

US intel confirmed the WMD's.

British intel confirmed the WMD's.

Israel confirmed the WMD's.

Saddam buried weapons, ammo, artillery shells and equipment in bunkers throughout Iraq.

When we captured Saddam, he had buried himself.

Reasonable conclusion here?

Just because we haven't sent massive teams out to dig up the entire country means, we haven't found WMD's, yet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Of course, but which is more reasonable?

1. We extradited a terror suspect to Syria for no apparent reason, knowing that he might be tortured, and he just happened to be tortured contrary to what we intended to happen, or,

2. We extradited a terror suspect to Syria so he could be interrogated in a way that the CIA couldn't do here.

You didn't list #3.

3. We sent him back to Syria to show others if they make our terrorist watch list, they too could be denied a safe haven in our country, free from retaliation from their own governments.