US sends wrongfully accused suspects to Syria to be Tortured.

Such a double standard. You have this strange tendancy to act like you're some wisened sage around me, and then act suprised when I call you out on it.

Let me know when you feel like just responding to the post, as opposed to your SOP of avoidance, insult, and illogic.

 

So Bush on on hand calling Syria sponsor of terrorism, on the other hand ask Syris to do his dirty work?

What does it make Bush administration? Another sponsor of "terrorism"?

 

Hayes, come on... I'm asking if you think it is a coincidence that Bush is frantically trying to get passed through Congress a bill that has buried in it provisions that would make everyone, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, as well as intelligence operatives, immune from prosecution for conducting torture outlawed under the Geneva Convention. Don't tell me you weren't aware of that. Why do you think Bush has been practically foaming at the mouth regarding the Republicans that have finally developed a backbone and are making a stand against the bill? Including Colin Powell? Hell, he's especially angry at Powell, because the letter Powell gave to McCain, in support of McCain's version of the bill, is one of the most damning things written to date regarding Bush and Bush's policies, particularly Bush's policies in support of torture, and in my opinion, Bush's entire policy towards his "War on Terror."



Keep D&D Civil.

 

You weren't making reasonable or rational points, unless you can explain how in response to my post 'lol' and 'you make me sick' is either of those. Unsuprisingly you have the gall to make such declarations and then accuse me of 'avoidance, insult, and illogic.' Labelling me isn't going to hide your loss of self control, nor magically turn your ranting into logical debate. I guess you didn't see the Jon Stewart piece about FoxNews and questions marks, lol.

Stewart
"Your mother is a w****?"
"I'm not saying it, I'm just asking."

 

Is it a coincidence with what? Bush is pressing for these provisions - yes. Is it directly related to this case? I doubt it. Has he sent people to other countries to be interrogated? It certainly appears so. But he's pressed for all kinds of exceptions to prosecution (like with the World Court) so I think its just a matter of continuing policy with him, and not in relation to this case. Do I think they are 'sending (as in currently) wrongfully accused suspects (plural)' to be tortured in other countries? No idea. This article doesn't give me any warrant to conclude that. My objection didn't deny such a conclusion. Nor did I say it was ok that this happened. My objection was that the article did not support such a conclusion and hence the title was purposely or otherwise incorrect/misleading. The conclusion that since it happened to this guy the title is correct since it must be happening to others is an example of the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. The article certainly doesn't provide any information as to make it a valid conclusion. As such my objection is neither unreasonable nor irrational.

 

Anyone who supports Bush through this should be ashamed. And I am an ashamed Vet because of Bush. This is NOT what America is about, and this is why every man should be entitled his day in court. For all to see and know.


If you advocate Bush's terrorism (I dont give a crap how you slice it, torture advocated by the gov't is terrorism), and trying to cover his ass by striking the Geneva Convention you are saying its ok for our OWN troops to be treated the same, or even our own civilians abroad.


Bush will single handidly destory this nation. And it has NOTHING to do with his party affiliation. Shame on him and all Republicans who sit around making excuses for him and his sh!tstorm.

 

What do you mean, "Is it a coincidence with what?" What did you not understand about my post? I'm not busting your chops about whatever you wrote in this thread, previous to that, anyway. I want to know if you are unaware that Bush is pushing for this bill to cover his ass under the Geneva Convention because he knows, in my opinion, and I feel strongly about it, that he broke the provisions in it against torture, knows it, and has suddenly become freaked out about it because the courts appear to be unwilling to roll over for him on the issue, thank god. The GOP Congress was supposed to pass this horrific bill for him so that Bush and the rest of the torturous bunch could keep from being prosecuted. The United States signed the Geneva Convention(s), and it has the force of law. That's why Bush is trying to change the law, Hayes.

You seriously had no idea?



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Ok, now I understand what you're saying. Normally when someone says 'do you think its a coincidence' there are two actions referenced. Now I got it. Sorry. Yes, of course he is trying to pass the legislation to validate his policy. I seriously doubt he fears personally in danger of prosecution. That would never happen IMO, but certainly this push is directly related to the policy of allowing such action. Sure. I was just confused because I'm not sure what impact that has on this particular thread. It doesn't mean he is purposely sending wrongly accused suspects out of the country to be tortured.

 

I'm glad you understand what I was saying. Sorry, but it's a current interest of mine, and is in several threads, in one form or another.

I disagree with, "It doesn't mean he is purposely sending wrongly accused suspects out of the country to be tortured." He has admitted to sending prisoners to secret camps in other countries. Those prisoners have been kept from legal counsel, have not had a trial, so certainly could be purposely sent, wrongly accused, out of the country to be tortured. In our system of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you are a prisoner of war, you are entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. By taking these actions, Bush is holding himself open to prosecution. He is not above the law. He seems to think he is. Discovering that he may, in fact, have been breaking the law has put him, in my opinion, in a panic.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Sorry I missed it the first time.

You may be correct in that regard but that throws some further complications regarding extraordinary renditions as having US personel present during torture in a foreign country like Syria would mean that we are complicit of torture, not just the waterboarding sleep deprivation kind, in violation of what is supposed to be stated US policy. Its one thing to send someone to a country with the suspicion that they will be tortured but another to actually be there when the torture is happening.

Not saying you (SM) are advocating or agree with that policy since it sounds like you don't agree with sending people to Syria but just making a general point.

 

My understanding of this would mean an effective withdrawl from the Geneva Conventions.

Treaties ratified by the US Senate have the force of law but since its a treaty it isn't up to the US Government to unilaterally decide how it applies to US conduct during wartime. While the US could decide that it is legal for the US to not abide by the Geneva conventions I don't see how any other country could still consider the US a part of the conventions or feel bound to abide by them in regard to US soldiers and citizens.

 

I agree that your objection is neither unreasonable nor irrational and I think its way off base to call you an "idiot." The inference that US still might be sending wrongfully accused suspects to Syria to be tortured isn't totally off base either though since precedent has already been established that such a situation has happened before.

Think about it this way a sex offender is convicted of a sex crime and at the parole hearing arguments are presented whether this offender won't offend again. The fact that sex offender had once committed a sex crime is a valid basis for arguing that there is likely hood that they might commit such crime again. While yes nothing in the article states that such behavior is ongoing or will happen again a precedent has been established that can't be ignored.

 

You're upset about "lol"? Get over yourself, and quit with the double standard. Or should I dredge up the 4,000 instances that you have used such a caustic acronym in response to me?

Arrogance. Followed by disbelief that it breeds contempt...

I'll just walk you through it then because it's early and I'm a sucker:

I know in the crazy world of hayesian logic, a statement of the type above has no implied meaning whatsoever. In fact, even though it "makes quite a bit of difference", it's not for us to ask why. That would be far exceeding the imaginary boundaries you have presupposed for the point you were making.

So when I had the gall to ask why it mattered within the guise of feigning to understand the point of your silly game:

you got all pissed. I apologize if your delicate emotions were pinged by my use of "lol" and "you make me sick". But you really need to get over this irrational fear of (what most people would call) minor conflict.

Nevermind all that, lets talk something more intriguing:

Avoidance: Have you yet answered my question, or even hinted at why the distinction matters to you?

Insult: Grow up? (I guess here I am failing my own standard wrt shaking off "minor conflict")

Illogic: If we presuppose (god forbid) that I was correct in the implication of your comment, you're left in the same spot I usually find you in: Unable to point to any data that would make you less ignorant than me with regard to the implication. Which of course is why you never come out and say something meaningful, but instead nitpick words.

Can you prove to me Hayes that the title of this thread is inaccurate?

Certainly there are several instances supporting the accusation, but I'd like to see your own data first.


EDIT: I noticed you did make some reponses similar to what I was looking for Hayes - not bad. I also cannot help myself; 2 seconds and google dredged up:

And that's just the first source.

 

The point is that I never said such a conclusion was off base. I said the article certainly doesn't provide any evidence of that, and as such the title of the thread is incorrectly applied. How many times have we seen basso get called out for titles not matching the article that follows? In this case, however, the majority of the board agrees with the sentiment and therefore have no problem skipping over the discrepancy.

 

That your own presuppositions are incorrect and subsequently cause rise to 'contempt' and loss of control is neither my fault nor really my concern other than to feel sorry for you. If you thought that your response that I 'make you sick' was engaging in logical debate I'm afraid you were mistaken. I guess that is another of your presuppositions that we can file away as'incorrect.'

Yes, I'm crrrraaaaazy Hayes for thinking that the claim (in this case the title of the thread) should match the warrant (the article that followed the thread). Of course, your ruse holds no water as you clearly indicate that your response was not actually a question but a reply to (what you apparently thought) was the implied meaning of my post. Keep chasing your tail, buddy.

Irrational fear of? That hardly goes in the 'fear' category. It's just a waste of time and a clear sign you aren't mature enough to sit at the adult table. Maybe next Thanksgiving.

As I indicated earlier your ruse of putting a question mark at the end of your remarks is as transparent as FoxNews following the same practice. A practice for which they were taken to task recently.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that responses such as 'you make me sick' are, at best, immature.

Presupposing is what got you in trouble in the first place. As I indicated earlier I never said anything like 'it is ok if it is just one person.' But 2 is more than 1 and 10 is more than 2. I'm not sure what is difficult to grasp about that concept. If many people are innocent and being treated this way that is worse than 1 person having endured it. Equally important 1 doesn't mean more than one. It is a logical fallacy (hasty generalization) to take an example of 1 and apply it to the larger situation. It isn't complicated. As far as data backing my point, the article on which the thread is based does not provide any data other than that one person was involved. Therefore the title does not match the article. That is my point.

Yes. Read the article. There is no indication in the story about more than one person. Easy enough.

Well, read the article.

Which affects my point not at all. Glad you only wasted 2 seconds looking it up. Maybe you can spend some time working on your rage issues.

 

The bottomline is: if you sink as low as the terrorists, then you are no different than the terrorists.

Secondly, an international treaty is a promise. You break your promise, you loss people's respect. Bush administration has no respect whatsoever to international treaties thus international community has no respect to his administration. The fact that traditional allies look at US as the #1 thread to the world says A LOT.

I don't believe how Bush can ignore the reality to keep talking crap that the international community doesn't give a **** about. Is this just a show for domestic audience?

 

I would say we are complicit whether we bear witness to the acts themselves or not. There may be some way to dodge the legal responsibility, but morally I see no difference in sending someone off to be tortured out of sight, as opposed to sending someone off to be tortured with an agent in tow. Either way, you are sending someone off to be tortured, and saying you didn't see the torture would not make it any better, in my book anyway.

 

I will be forever mystified by the fact that people are still supporting a President actively lobbying for the use of torture. That's what Bush is doing. That is not America. How this man can be our President is a national disgrace. How anyone can continue to make excuses for him... well, in my opinion, they are disgracing themselves.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I have to say you do raise a good point here.

 

I understand what you are saying and am not arguing the morality or immorality but rather the legal implications. The argument behind renditions is that the US is never directly torturing anyone and has plausible deniability. If US personal are actually present then there is no deniability.