Azalin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 So you're using reddogblitz as a source, and I'm somehow the problem? Just shut the !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I would like to try to set the record straight on this s controversy about what the Geneva convention says about torture. If one searches the internet for "Geneva Convention definition torture, as I did, one gets hits with the Article 1 I quoted in my original post. Article 1For 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.This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. After DC Tom disputed it, I dug a little further and found that the 1949 Geneva Convention actually says this about torture: Art 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 followingprovisions: (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;© 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. Yes it's vague. However tying someone down and pouring water on their nose and mouth so they feel like they're drowning or feeding them rectally when it's not medically necessary are still torture even if you give them 3 squares a day, a Koran, and an air conditioned cell. Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I would like to try to set the record straight on this s controversy about what the Geneva convention says about torture. If one searches the internet for "Geneva Convention definition torture, as I did, one gets hits with the Article 1 I quoted in my original post. After DC Tom disputed it, I dug a little further and found that the 1949 Geneva Convention actually says this about torture: Yes it's vague. However tying someone down and pouring water on their nose and mouth so they feel like they're drowning or feeding them rectally when it's not medically necessary are still torture even if you give them 3 squares a day, a Koran, and an air conditioned cell. Sorry for the confusion. Here is a wikipedia link that discusses torture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture The word 'torture' comes from the French torture, originating in the Late Latin tortura and ultimately deriving the past participle of torquere meaning 'to twist'.[54] The word is also used loosely to describe more ordinary discomforts that would be accurately described as tedious rather than painful; for example, "making this spreadsheet was torture!" I hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I would like to try to set the record straight on this s controversy about what the Geneva convention says about torture. If one searches the internet for "Geneva Convention definition torture, as I did, one gets hits with the Article 1 I quoted in my original post. Which ain't from the Geneva Convention. So your google skills suck. [...] Yes it's vague. However tying someone down and pouring water on their nose and mouth so they feel like they're drowning or feeding them rectally when it's not medically necessary are still torture even if you give them 3 squares a day, a Koran, and an air conditioned cell.. It's not vague. It's non-existent. The Geneva Convention uses torture as an example, without defining it. So your reading skills suck as badly as your googling skills. None of which is germane to my point: the definition of "torture" is non-specific and fungible depending on the era. Which is why quoting McCain as some sort of authority on torture at Gitmo (which includes "being forced to listen to people bark like a dog" and "invading one's personal space") is invalid. It's also why your arguments tend to be invalid: you're quoting international agreements on torture (which don't necessarily apply anyway - remember, the prisoners at Gitmo are NOT POWs under the Geneva Convention) as examples of the heinousness of Gitmo, as documented by organizations that use a completely different and much broader definition of "torture" that includes things like "insufficiently palatable vegetarian meal options." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Whatever DC. Since there is no black and white definition of torture in the Geneva Convention and Bush's lawyers did some fine lawyering, it's OK for us to do whatever we want. I get it. So much for being the shining city on the hill I guess. Edited June 17, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Whatever DC. Since there is no black and white definition of torture in the Geneva Convention and Bush's lawyers did some fine layering, it's OK for us to do whatever we want. I get it. So much for being the shining city on the hill I guess. Are all you liberals congenitally brain-damaged? I said it's impossible to discuss coherently when you yourselves can't even use the same definition twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Are all you liberals congenitally brain-damaged? I said it's impossible to discuss coherently when you yourselves can't even use the same definition twice. I don't know, are all you Chicken Hawks congenitally full of false bravery? You have a brain. Use it and stop being a duped shill of the Military Industrial Complex. Has anyone checked to see if the new anti-torture law has a palatable definition of torture? Edited June 17, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I don't know, are all you Chicken Hawks congenitally full of false bravery? You have a brain. Use it and stop being a duped shill of the Military Industrial Complex. Has anyone checked to see if the new anti-torture law has a palatable definition of torture? You know how you'll know you were never a duped shill of the military industrial complex? When your head is rolling down a flight of stairs, that's when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I don't know, are all you Chicken Hawks congenitally full of false bravery? You have a brain. Use it and stop being a duped shill of the Military Industrial Complex. Has anyone checked to see if the new anti-torture law has a palatable definition of torture? People who don't agree with your ass backwards politics don't automatically agree with the other side of the aisle. Try and reconcile the difference, ya !@#$ing twit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) I don't know, are all you Chicken Hawks full of false bravery? I assume that this is you buying into the concept of a Heinleinesque meritocratic philosophy in which only those with military service should be allowed to vote? If not, you're being inconsistent. You have a brain. Use it and stop being a duped shill of the Military Industrial Complex. There are several things in life that are indispuable as known quantities: You can't ever go back again. You can't fake the funk on a nasty dunk You can't possibly counter an argument that begins with "use your brain", and ends with "you're a duped shill of the MIC". Seriously though... that's your real argument? Really? Sure you don't want to try again? Has anyone checked to see if the new anti-torture law has a palatable definition of torture? Law doesn't set the definition of words that are already common to the vernacular prior to the law, laws define words only as they pertain to the law. What any law defines as torture may or may not actually be torture. Edited June 17, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 People who don't agree with your ass backwards politics don't automatically agree with the other side of the aisle. Try and reconcile the difference, ya !@#$ing twit. No he's right. There is no doubt that Tom is a Chicken Hawk shill for the military industrial complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) I assume that this is you buying into the concept of a Heinleinesque meritocratic philosophy in which only those with military service should be allowed to vote? If not, you're being inconsistent. Did I say that? Stop putting words on my keyboard. Non military folks absolutely should be able to vote. However, if you have never been in the military perhaps you should not assume you know what it is or what a war really is like. Perhaps talk to some veterans, especially war veterans to see what they think. Many war veterans think going to war again is a bad idea. Why do they think that? Maybe they know something you don't? Try to gain some of their wisdom. Look back historically at how similar wars were fought and why and what the results were. Similar to if you are thinking of buying a Jaguar, you might speak to people who have owned Jaguars before. Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Edited June 17, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Has anyone noticed a striking correlation between the quality of the poster and usernames with variation of "dog"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Did I say that? Stop putting words on my keyboard. Non military folks absolutely should be able to vote. However, if you have never been in the military perhaps you should not assume you know what it is or what a war really is like. Perhaps talk to some veterans, especially war veterans to see what they think. Try to gain some of their wisdom. Look back historically at how similar wars were fought and why and what the results were. Similar to if you are thinking of buying a Jaguar, you might speak to people who have owned Jaguars before. Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion. With the position you hold, that those who haven't served (and you don't know who has or hasn't), are some how being improper by holding a belief that the United States should take an active role projecting it's military might in order to protect it's interests and the global economy, and to take the lead as a moral actor globally, the only way you can be internally logically consistent is to insist that only those who have served should have a say in the United States geo-political positioning. To further counter your nonsense, the United States has an all volunteer military. We've been actively interventionist since the Korean War, so every single person who enlists knows what they are enlisting to do. It's not like they should be surprised. Hell, it's a mantra they use in order to recruit. You've seen this, before, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I don't know, are all you Chicken Hawks congenitally full of false bravery? You have a brain. Use it and stop being a duped shill of the Military Industrial Complex. Has anyone checked to see if the new anti-torture law has a palatable definition of torture? Pop quiz, ****head: was I for or against invading Iraq in 2003? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Pop quiz, ****head: was I for or against invading Iraq in 2003? Don't know and don't care. You're a few wars behind buddy. What does that have to do with torture again? Edited June 17, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Don't know and don't care. You're a few wars behind buddy. What does that have to do with torture again? Because you involked the MID, and unless you're asserting that Halliburton is making their billions selling thumb screws, then you're the one making war relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Because you involked the MID What's a MID? I don't recall involking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 What's a MID? I don't recall involking it. ... Military Industrial Complex And: in·voke inˈvōk/ verb cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Don't know and don't care. You're a few wars behind buddy. What does that have to do with torture again? Has nothing to do with torture. Has to do with calling me a Chicken Hawk. What did that have to do with torture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts