• 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!

Religious tend to support torture more often

I have no idea what Obama's stance is on the Patriot Act. It would appear he cannot have that much of a problem with it, since it remains in effect and is being abused under his watch.
He's President, not Emperor. It's a law, he has not choice until Congress repeals it. Why hasn't that idiot Pelosi done something about it?
 
Last edited:
I was curious, so I had a closer look at this poll to see if the CNN article was correct. The Pew Research Center states in their publication that "statistical analysis that simultaneously examines correlations between views on torture, partisanship, ideology and demographic variables (including religion, education, race, etc.) finds that party and ideology are much better predictors of views on torture than are religion and most other demographic factors." Now, the CNN article simply states that "The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey", which tends to give the impression that those who are more religious support torture simply because they are religious.

When I looked at the actual numbers, I discovered the following:

1210-1.gif


As you can see, 15% of those who are religiously unaffiliated supported torture as "often justified", which is the exact same percentage as those who are "White Mainline Protestents". However, the sample size for unaffiliated is only 94 people, as opposed to those who are mainline protestants or Catholics (with sample sizes of 150 and 122 respectively). It's highly possible that the unaffiliated percentage would rise if sample size was increased. In addition, the "White Mainline Protestant" group percentage which said that torture can NEVER be justified is greater than the unaffiliated group. Even if the sample size for the unaffiliated religious was increased, it's unknown if this would exceed the percentage of mainline Protestants.

Based on this, I think the CNN article is misleading. Look at the percentage of attendence, and compare it to respective sample sizes. 25% of 336 people who attend church regularly claim that torture is never justified - that's what, 84 people? Among those who rarely or never attend, the percentage is almost exactly the same - 26%, or 43 people.

My guess is that if sample size were increased among the seldom attendees, you'd probably see more of a statistical similarity. But I invite you to look at the numbers and judge for yourself.

Personally, I think those who are religious support torture no more or less than their unaffiliated, non-attending counterparts.

Source: Pew Research Center: The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate
 
Last edited:
I was curious, so I had a closer look at this poll to see if the CNN article was correct. The Pew Research Center states in their publication that "statistical analysis that simultaneously examines correlations between views on torture, partisanship, ideology and demographic variables (including religion, education, race, etc.) finds that party and ideology are much better predictors of views on torture than are religion and most other demographic factors." Now, the CNN article simply states that "The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey", which tends to give the impression that those who are more religious support torture simply because they are religious.

When I looked at the actual numbers, I discovered the following:

1210-1.gif


As you can see, 15% of those who are religiously unaffiliated supported torture as "often justified", which is the exact same percentage as those who are "White Mainline Protestents". However, the sample size for unaffiliated is only 94 people, as opposed to those who are mainline protestants or Catholics (with sample sizes of 150 and 122 respectively). It's highly possible that the unaffiliated percentage would rise if sample size was increased. In addition, the "White Mainline Protestant" group percentage which said that torture can NEVER be justified is greater than the unaffiliated group. Even if the sample size for the unaffiliated religious was increased, it's unknown if this would exceed the percentage of mainline Protestants.

Based on this, I think the CNN article is misleading. Look at the percentage of attendence, and compare it to respective sample sizes. 25% of 336 people who attend church regularly claim that torture is never justified - that's what, 84 people? Among those who rarely or never attend, the percentage is almost exactly the same - 26%, or 43 people.

My guess is that if sample size were increased among the seldom attendees, you'd probably see more of a statistical similarity. But I invite you to look at the numbers and judge for yourself.

Personally, I think those who are religious support torture no more or less than their unaffiliated, non-attending counterparts.

Source: Pew Research Center: The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate

Really nice research for a liberal. ;)

Thanks good stuff and greatly appreciated.
 
:roll:
Obviously you are clueless about what the Patriot Act contains asserting that Spitzer’s illegal use of State Police to spy on political opponents is somehow proper use of the patriot Act.

Here's the entire act; read it and become informed. It is not applicable for any communications within the US between citizens.

USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)

It cannot be applied against any US citizen without a proper warrant and it cannot be enforced unless there is an obvious connection with terrorist organizations operating OUTSIDE of the US.



Do you believe that someone plotting terror against US citizens has a right to privacy?



Nothing but Hyperbolic nonsense here. It is obvious you are allowing your hyper partisanship and emotions here rather than engaging your brains.



Once again this is begging a point and the question; what methods?

You mean that of taking non-uniformed terrorists trying to murder our troops into captivity in prisons like Gitmo because NORMAL rule of law doesn't apply to them?

Do you honestly believe that terrorists caught in foreign lands in battles fighting with our troops can be prosecuted using normal criminal law proceedings and evidentiary rules? What evidence do you think is available to prosecute them as common criminals?

What is obvious from the naive mentality of those making such naive and engaging in such emotional hysterics is that they truly have no comprehension of what we are dealing with here.

Government: "Well your honor, we caught this guy with an AK47 in the battle of Faluja. "

His honor: "is there any evidence that he used the rifle to kill US troops?"

Government: "No your honor. He was captured in the heat of battle but we cannot attribute any particular death to him."

His honor: "Not guilty for lack of evidence. NEXT case!"

Once more it begs the question; where beyond the typical emotional hysterics of the Liberals is there any credible evidence that ANYONE has had their rights removed or suppressed by this act?

The answer is as obvious as the nose on your face; NONE! :2wave:


Obviously, you didn't properly read that comment... "pants down". I'm not talking about Spitzer using police, I'm talking about him getting caught spending 10s of thousands of dollars on hookers.

No, actually I don't believe terrorists have a right to privacy. I have a right to privacy. I rather keep my freedom and not blur the line between who's who in this conflict, thankyou.

I'm a registered Republican. :roll:

I'll give you one method: Waterboarding. Waterboarding has always been considered torture, why you ask? Because it is. It fits every definition of the word. A man like McCain, who was a victim of waterboarding, won't hesitate to tell you that it is torture. You really are making me much more of an antagonist than I am....

I don't even know what your talking about. Terrorists trying to murder soldiers in GITMO? Of course normal rule of law does not apply to them, nor did it to German POW's in WWII yet we didn't waterboard them.

No. Stop putting words in my mouth. My case is this: Torture is wrong. The US has methods of interrogation that are effective and does not need to use torture, which has never provided any vital and actionable intelligence anyway. Should terrorists be treated like human beings? Yes. Remember what country this is.

Actually, I have every idea of what we're dealing with here. I am not completely informed on this particular subject of torture, but you don't seem so enlightened in it either. I'm willing to hear an arguement, and have not made up mind completely... but I do know the US has engaged in torture in GITMO and in countless prison camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. I also know that the Federal government has had substantial extension of powers.... you ever hear of the burning of the Reichstag?

I don't even know what you mean by this. Unless they are a very high profile terrorist in Fallujah, and therefore there would be evidence for a case, then no insurgent in Fallujah would be put in front of a US court(not to mention Fallujah is in Iraqi hands these days and one of the most successful cities in Iraq). Iraqi men are entitled one weapon per household. Actually, I think they stretched that old rule.

Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process :: WRAL.com
 
Last edited:
How do you think Eliot Spitzer was caught pants down? Patriot Act. The Patriot Act allows the government to listen in on phone calls, e-mails, and several other channels of communication as well as allowing agents to write their own warrants. That kind of destroys the purpose of a warrant, no?

Right to privacy is infringed upon everyday.

I think terrorists caught in Iraq and Afghanistan should be brought to justice without reverting to animalistic techniques. America has somehow survived for more than 2 centuries and against countless enemies without using these methods, why do we need to start now? And I am very conservative on foreign policy, just not on the issue of torture.... It is counterproductive to the War on Terror

Your first paragraph was right on target.

Let me bounce some thoughts and ideas off ya TuBub and tell me what you think.

I remember years ago, when the Patriot Act was first coming about, I predicted this almost exact same scenerio, (players unknown at the time,) and lo' and behold, here we are. I would give a dollar bill if I could find that old post of mine. But I digress. But, in a perfect world, we could trust our government to keep the covert intel gathered protected and confidential. Especially any information gathered that was not related to terrorism. But it was inevitable that this would find all forms of abuse.

But in our collective paranoid zeal, to exterminate the terrorists hiding under our bed, some thought it was a small sacrifice to just piss away our rights. Did those terrorists win?

I used to get rubbed raw when the extremo-neo-cons would reply, "If you got nothing to hide you shouldn't mind the government tapping your phones and rifiling through your personal affairs. After all, it's for the good of the country! You socialist liberals just don't "get it!" :roll:

Myself, I am all for going to the Nth degree to protect our children and neighbors against all foes. Truthfully, I admit that I don't know the "real deal" of how the torture thing went down under Bush. I know what we all hear and read. But I wasn't there. And if they did torture those "detainees" and it saved one child's life anywhere in the world, I really don't care. Maybe I need psychological counciling. :rofl

Que for a Seinfeld quote: "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't have feelings. I feel real bad that I don't care. But, I don't care. :mrgreen:

Regarding the part of your post I bolded:

I would not bet a plug nickel in that statement. I know I would like to believe that the US has always been above such tactics of barbarism, after all, in our own self-rightous glory, our country is above such conduct. After all, we ARE America. Right? :roll: Right.

In the past 200 years, long before 24/7 news channels and media moguls, with powerful influence, was calling all the shots, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that our government has dabbled in a little bit of enhanced intelligence gathering over the past 200 years. We just never heard about it. It was much easier to stick out our chests and hold our chins high as we beamed with our American pride.

I just don't buy it bro.
 
I would not bet a plug nickel in that statement. I know I would like to believe that the US has always been above such tactics of barbarism, after all, in our own self-rightous glory, our country is above such conduct. After all, we ARE America. Right? :roll: Right.

In the past 200 years, long before 24/7 news channels and media moguls, with powerful influence, was calling all the shots, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that our government has dabbled in a little bit of enhanced intelligence gathering over the past 200 years. We just never heard about it. It was much easier to stick out our chests and hold our chins high as we beamed with our American pride.

I just don't buy it bro.

IT was never justified or made US policy. The argument usually is that we face a stateless enemy and torture is needed to garner intelligence that will be used to locate and apprehend terrorist leaders yada yada yada. I'm sure there were cases of torture in America's past but nothing like this.
 
I'm a registered Republican. :roll:

Your emotional hysterics on the subject suggest otherwise; I will take your word for it.

I'll give you one method: Waterboarding. Waterboarding has always been considered torture, why you ask? Because it is. It fits every definition of the word. A man like McCain, who was a victim of waterboarding, won't hesitate to tell you that it is torture. You really are making me much more of an antagonist than I am....

There is a reason these methods were called “enhanced.”

The definition of torture is clear; “severe physical or mental distress.”

Here is the dictionary version off the internet:

Main Entry: torture
Pronunciation: \ ˈtȯr-chər \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
Results

1 a. anguish of body or mind : agony b. something that causes agony or pain

2. the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3. distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining


http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?invocationType=topsearchbox.refcentre&query=torture

Here let me pull the UN Convention definition:

Part I
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.


UN Convention Against Torture
I don’t see anything here that suggests that torture is Tubub says it means.

I don't even know what your talking about. Terrorists trying to murder soldiers in GITMO? Of course normal rule of law does not apply to them, nor did it to German POW's in WWII yet we didn't waterboard them.

Of course you don’t know; because based on your farcical arguments here, you think we are dealing with common cases of evidence.

READ the synopsis I gave you slower; there is NO “traditional” evidence to prosecute these animals with. They were captured by coalition troops or intelligence agencies not in the act of any crimes, but while being associated with the terrorists we are fighting.

That is why prisons like Gitmo exit and why the Bush Administration CORRECTLY wanted to use “tribunals.”

Giving the access to civil courts and Constitutional protections is beyond stupid; but this is the argument of the Liberals.

No. Stop putting words in my mouth. My case is this: Torture is wrong. The US has methods of interrogation that are effective and does not need to use torture, which has never provided any vital and actionable intelligence anyway. Should terrorists be treated like human beings? Yes. Remember what country this is.

I quote your exact words:

QUOTE=Tubub "I think terrorists caught in Iraq and Afghanistan should be brought to justice without reverting to animalistic techniques."

Again, your OINION is hardly a substitute for relevance and facts. FACT; the US does not treat ANYONE with animalistic techniques; that is offensive beyond the pale and indicates someone more prone to emotional hysterics than facts.

Actually, I have every idea of what we're dealing with here. I am not completely informed on this particular subject of torture

Good lord dude, you have every idea but not completely informed?

I'm willing to hear an arguement, and have not made up mind completely... but I do know the US has engaged in torture in GITMO and in countless prison camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. I also know that the Federal government has had substantial extension of powers.... you ever hear of the burning of the Reichstag?

How do you KNOW US soldiers have tortured their charges? Because you say so? Because you HEARD it from the ACLU speculations on the subject? Because you HEARD it from the Red Cross speculations on the subject?

You’re hardly willing to HEAR any arguments; your just gullibly swallowing the Leftist swill being dished out about Liberal notions of what is torture without even comprehending they are for purely hyper partisan purposes.

I also know that the Federal government has had substantial extension of powers.... you ever hear of the burning of the Reichstag?

You’re kidding me right? With such asinine assertions, I suggest that you correct your politically confused registration and make it “Democrat.”


What can one say here but; you’re kidding me right? You think this is a credible story with a credible case regarding the Patriot and your warped perceptions about your civil rights being abused?

Once more, I suggest that you correct your politically confused registration and make it “Democrat.”
 
IT was never justified or made US policy. The argument usually is that we face a stateless enemy and torture is needed to garner intelligence that will be used to locate and apprehend terrorist leaders yada yada yada. I'm sure there were cases of torture in America's past but nothing like this.

I ran a fact check on this comment and couldn't find any FACTS to support them.

Enhanced methods were indeed US Policy and they were indeed useful after 9-11 in saving American lives.

You do remember 9-11 right? :roll:
 
I was curious, so I had a closer look at this poll to see if the CNN article was correct. The Pew Research Center states in their publication that "statistical analysis that simultaneously examines correlations between views on torture, partisanship, ideology and demographic variables (including religion, education, race, etc.) finds that party and ideology are much better predictors of views on torture than are religion and most other demographic factors." Now, the CNN article simply states that "The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey", which tends to give the impression that those who are more religious support torture simply because they are religious.

When I looked at the actual numbers, I discovered the following:

1210-1.gif


As you can see, 15% of those who are religiously unaffiliated supported torture as "often justified", which is the exact same percentage as those who are "White Mainline Protestents". However, the sample size for unaffiliated is only 94 people, as opposed to those who are mainline protestants or Catholics (with sample sizes of 150 and 122 respectively). It's highly possible that the unaffiliated percentage would rise if sample size was increased. In addition, the "White Mainline Protestant" group percentage which said that torture can NEVER be justified is greater than the unaffiliated group. Even if the sample size for the unaffiliated religious was increased, it's unknown if this would exceed the percentage of mainline Protestants.

Based on this, I think the CNN article is misleading. Look at the percentage of attendence, and compare it to respective sample sizes. 25% of 336 people who attend church regularly claim that torture is never justified - that's what, 84 people? Among those who rarely or never attend, the percentage is almost exactly the same - 26%, or 43 people.

My guess is that if sample size were increased among the seldom attendees, you'd probably see more of a statistical similarity. But I invite you to look at the numbers and judge for yourself.

Personally, I think those who are religious support torture no more or less than their unaffiliated, non-attending counterparts.

Source: Pew Research Center: The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate
CONCLUSION: CNN reporter and editor are partisan hacks.
 
The only thing laughable here is yours, and others, desperate hysterics suggesting that Stalin was not an atheist and his purge of religion and destruction of churches was just the act of someone devoid of theism and not an atheist; which of course are one and the same. :rofl
Your feeble attacking of strawmen is truly amusing. First you misrepresent my position by substituting "someone" for "something" in my argument and now this? I have never claimed Stalin was not an atheist. Keep up the good work, champ. :lol:
 
He's President, not Emperor. It's a law, he has not choice until Congress repeals it. Why hasn't that idiot Pelosi done something about it?
Don't play dumb. We both know that there are measures Obama can take to make sure the Patriot Act is not abused.
 
Your emotional hysterics on the subject suggest otherwise; I will take your word for it.



There is a reason these methods were called “enhanced.”

The definition of torture is clear; “severe physical or mental distress.”

Here is the dictionary version off the internet:

Main Entry: torture
Pronunciation: \ ˈtȯr-chər \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
Results

1 a. anguish of body or mind : agony b. something that causes agony or pain

2. the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3. distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining


http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?invocationType=topsearchbox.refcentre&query=torture

Here let me pull the UN Convention definition:

UN Convention Against Torture
I don’t see anything here that suggests that torture is Tubub says it means.



Of course you don’t know; because based on your farcical arguments here, you think we are dealing with common cases of evidence.

READ the synopsis I gave you slower; there is NO “traditional” evidence to prosecute these animals with. They were captured by coalition troops or intelligence agencies not in the act of any crimes, but while being associated with the terrorists we are fighting.

That is why prisons like Gitmo exit and why the Bush Administration CORRECTLY wanted to use “tribunals.”

Giving the access to civil courts and Constitutional protections is beyond stupid; but this is the argument of the Liberals.



I quote your exact words:

QUOTE=Tubub "I think terrorists caught in Iraq and Afghanistan should be brought to justice without reverting to animalistic techniques."

Again, your OINION is hardly a substitute for relevance and facts. FACT; the US does not treat ANYONE with animalistic techniques; that is offensive beyond the pale and indicates someone more prone to emotional hysterics than facts.



Good lord dude, you have every idea but not completely informed?



How do you KNOW US soldiers have tortured their charges? Because you say so? Because you HEARD it from the ACLU speculations on the subject? Because you HEARD it from the Red Cross speculations on the subject?

You’re kidding me right? With such asinine assertions, I suggest that you correct your politically confused registration and make it “Democrat.”



What can one say here but; you’re kidding me right? You think this is a credible story with a credible case regarding the Patriot and your warped perceptions about your civil rights being abused?

Once more, I suggest that you correct your politically confused registration and make it “Democrat.”


mhmmm... i read the comment and it is loaded. So I'll break it down for you

1- I always pour emotions into arguements. I also have a tendency to argue a lot, probably based on the fact I like to argue....since you wanted to know :lol:

2- Yeah, it is very clear why they are called enhanced: Because beaucratic ******s are being politically safe. John Yoo and his butt pirate friends bend laws and regulations to their will, enhanced could mean anything he reconstructs it to mean. Maybe it means they are better or newer techniques. Maybe it means they are quicker. Maybe it is just a pseudonym for "torture". No? Fine, pretend that since the US is commiting it it is no longer torture, but keep in mind we prosecuted Japanese soldiers as war criminals after WWII for waterboarding.

3- Really? So waterboarding, cold cell, or long time standing do not cause any mental or physical distress?

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours.

The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

I take back everything I said. This cannot be torture, actually IT SOUNDS LIKE FUN! WOOHHH I WANNA BE WATERBOARDED!!!

Wow, you really think this is the first war with scant evidence available to prosecute suspects? And that is what they are, SUSPECTS. Lets go beyond the fact that torturing suspects is completely immoral and enlighten the simple fact that torture has provided no actionable intelligence. Okay, okay that's arguable. How about this: Torture has been far more counterproductive than it has been productive. I don't know if you understand that winning over the people in Iraq or Afghanistan is essentially the key to winning the war. If you have instances like Abu Gahraib, the first battle of Fallujah, or the simple fact that the US tortures, you really think muslim men on the sidelines are going to be supportive of US influence? The US MUST exude a positive image. I guess you have learned no lessons, the most simple being that the US cannot win the War on Terror solely through force. (Torture isn't needed anyway, there are other methods used that are just as effective but not as immoral)

Why do we need to use tribunals? We have a perfectly good court system that can prosecute enemies of the state. If we want to emit an image of the ideal free state and democracy, then we don't go back to military tribunals to try enemies. Even if they are enemies and not criminals... you clearly don't comprehend the complete political picture and impact.

"Beyond stupid"... Pretty soon you'll want to cut their heads off. No, we're the guys that aren't nuts and don't cut people's heads off. We believe in human rights and individuals entitlement, no matter who you are. Acting overly agressive just wins them the support they'd like. But noooo, we must step down to their level of human indecency in order to fight them, right? Great logic.

Yeah, I think I just clarified that the US has commited animalistic techniques on prisoners.

Well let me think, how would I learn these things? Books, papers, magazines... have you ever heard of these silly things? You know, I like you so much Imma grab out Fiasco and turn to the page where he details torture that was recorded in prisons and Iraq or individual cases by soldiers. THATS HOW MUCH I LIKE YOU

"In the following nights, detainees were kept naked, with some forced to masturbate in front of female soldiers. On November 4 a detainee was hooded and placed on a box, and had wires attacted to him that he was told could electrocute him if he stepped off the box. On the same night a CIA detainee died in custody on Tier 1B, having been beaten by the Navy SEALs who had captured him. One detainee later described to Army investigators being made to "bark like a dog, being forced to crawl on his stomach while MPs spit and urinated on him, and being struck causing nconsciousness." Investigators found it "highly probably" that his allegations were accurate" (Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco 292)

"'I saw the chief throw them down, put his knee in the neck and back, and grind them into the floor," one witness stated. "He would use a bullhorn and yell at them in Arabic and play heavy metal music extremely loud; they got so scared they would urinate themselves'"[anonymous soldier](Ricks, Fiasco 271)

I can't find the page detailing a known incident where CIA agents rolled a former Iraqi general into a sleeping bag and sat on him. He subsequently suffered from a heart attack.

"One day in the spring of 2004...[Abu Gahraib becomes a huge media story] 'What's going on' Mattis asked...A nineteen-year-old lance corporal glanced up from the television screen and told the general, 'Some assholes have just lost the war for us"'(290)

"It was a tragic moment for a military with a long and proud heritage of treating its prisoners better than most--especially one that had come Iraq thinking itself as a liberation force, again solidly in the American tradition. During the Revolutionary war, the history David Hackett Fischer noted, Gen. George Washington had "often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extent even to their enemies." This compassion toward prisoners was extended by Washington expressely in the face of the cruel British handling of American captives. Washington order Lt. Col. Samuel Blachley Webb... 'Treat them with humanity, and Let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren'"(297)


Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions states:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

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

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

I won't even bother, this comment has taken enough time and effort.


I'm a conservative therefore I am a realist. This is the reality of the situation, whether its told by a liberal or by a conservative. THIS is the party of the Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower; not Dick Cheney, John Yoo, and George W. Bush. I'm staying, you can leave.


PS: try reading some news once in a while

CIA torture techniques : "waterboarding"
BBC NEWS | Americas | CIA admits waterboarding inmates
Harsh interrogation techniques ineffective,' former FBI agent testifies - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com
Military's Interrogation Techniques: A History - The Atlantic Politics Channel
FreeB.E.A.G.L.E.S.: Police Interrogation

Try some books and documentaries too: 1- Cobra II 2- No True Glory 3- Assassin's Gate 4- No End in Sight 5-Fiasco and so on and on

Cheers!
 
I ran a fact check on this comment and couldn't find any FACTS to support them.

Enhanced methods were indeed US Policy and they were indeed useful after 9-11 in saving American lives.

You do remember 9-11 right? :roll:


"Abed Hamed Mowhoush [was] a former Iraqi general beaten over days by U.S. Army, CIA and other non-military forces, stuffed into a sleeping bag, wrapped with electrical cord, and suffocated to death," Human Rights First writes. "In the recently concluded trial of a low-level military officer charged in Mowhoush's death, the officer received a written reprimand, a fine, and 60 days with his movements limited to his work, home, and church."

That's what I was looking for. Got it a little wrong but you get the idea... Sadly I found it on Michael Moore's website :3oops:

No. What's 9-11? I have no idea what that is.

And no, torture didn't save any lives. That can't be proved by anything, what the hell did you look up to find all the majical answers to a subjective question like that? Did you look in the bible?! :rofl It agitated Muslim youths though, I guess if thats what your aiming for. This is a crusade afterall :doh
 
"Abed Hamed Mowhoush [was] a former Iraqi general beaten over days by U.S. Army, CIA and other non-military forces, stuffed into a sleeping bag, wrapped with electrical cord, and suffocated to death," Human Rights First writes. "In the recently concluded trial of a low-level military officer charged in Mowhoush's death, the officer received a written reprimand, a fine, and 60 days with his movements limited to his work, home, and church."

That's what I was looking for. Got it a little wrong but you get the idea... Sadly I found it on Michael Moore's website :3oops:

No. What's 9-11? I have no idea what that is.

And no, torture didn't save any lives. That can't be proved by anything, what the hell did you look up to find all the majical answers to a subjective question like that? Did you look in the bible?! :rofl It agitated Muslim youths though, I guess if thats what your aiming for. This is a crusade afterall :doh
Are you Bub's brother, or just a second Bub?
 
I usually find the religious tortuous
 
Cummon, folks, it says right there in Leviticus:

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. And whosoever weareth turbans of mixed fibers shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because they are not free. Bring those who trespass unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the prison, and there you will strip them naked and stack them like legos. Set upon their flesh with snapping teeth of unclean dogs and immerse them in freezing water. Beseige their nostrils with water until their lungs fill as if the Red Sea, and conduct lightning to their genitals. Arrange their bodies as if induging in hot, sweaty man sex, and when they cry out "no more" the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be aforgiven him.
 
Cummon, folks, it says right there in Leviticus:

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. And whosoever weareth turbans of mixed fibers shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because they are not free. Bring those who trespass unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the prison, and there you will strip them naked and stack them like legos. Set upon their flesh with snapping teeth of unclean dogs and immerse them in freezing water. Beseige their nostrils with water until their lungs fill as if the Red Sea, and conduct lightning to their genitals. Arrange their bodies as if induging in hot, sweaty man sex, and when they cry out "no more" the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be aforgiven him.
Sounds like a great night out lackers.

Is it members only, or can you pay on the door:)
 
Sounds like a great night out lackers.

Is it members only, or can you pay on the door:)

Promise the bouncer some special favors and you're in.
 
I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm hesitant to assume religion somehow causes people to support torture.

I'm more inclined to believe that it has more to do with political affiliation than religion.

In the good-ole-days, if you wanted to get into a heated battle over ideologies, you only needed to log on to AOL CHAT,...From the right chat,...from the left chat, or ...religeous chat. There were more lunatics in the religeous chat rooms but no shortage of insanities in the political sites.

DP cleans house often enough to alow for a free exchange of ideas based on many different sets of values. DP is more like the floor of the US Senate, or perhaps the beloved United Nations. Ok....OK..., I know I`ve made my point. Torture is insane. :cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom