Waterboarding

[thegamerslink]

Would you be surprised to find out that those that are in charge of doing the water boarding have themselves been put through the process?

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Yes, indeed, I see how your uneducated mind works.

I don't suppose you're going to show any proof of that.
Nah. Didn't think so.
You expect others to backup what they say with proof, yet you throw out lies like this?
Do you really believe the people reading this are that stupid?
You've been caught a number of times using dishonest debate tactics like this by more than one person and called on it.
If you are going to continue making wild claims like that without any proof then this discussion is pointless.

Remember Ferre?
Ferre opposed you. He's no longer a mod here.
In fact, he can't post in the political forums anymore, nor can he even see them.
He had some really good posts too.

Brian used to be a mod here too. Hasn't he disagreed with you a few times here?
I wonder what happened to him. Hmmmmm.

Seriously, why bother to call it debate?
I studied debating in school and this ain't it.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

I don't suppose you're going to show any proof of that.

Formatted as a syllogism:

You did not know what socialism is.
All educated people know what socialism is.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that you are not educated.

Originally Posted by Zap

Nah. Didn't think so.

I just provided you with syllogistic proof. You shouldn't jump to conclusions, because it's a sign of lack of education.

Originally Posted by Zap

You expect others to backup what they say with proof, yet you throw out lies like this?

No, I demand others be ready to back up what they write, and I in turn am ready to back up what I write as well.

Originally Posted by Zap

Do you really believe the people reading this are that stupid?

I don't know exactly who is reading, and I wouldn't make generalizations if I did know.

As for you, yes, I think you are stupid. You don't know logic. You don't know what socialism is. You seem to not know the historical record of socialism and other collectivists policies, and perhaps because of that you spout off uneducated support for totalitarian policies like smoking bans.

Your posts show an ignorance for concepts like positive rights and negative liberty. All in all, I think you're a lazy thinker. I think you could be smart if you actually thought things through, but you are too lazy to educate yourself and too lazy to think things through.

All in all, I suppose you could be stupid and incapable of intelligent thought, but in my experience, most people aren't stupid so much as they simply have their preconceived notions and refuse to think them through because of sheer laziness.

Originally Posted by Zap

You've been caught a number of times using dishonest debate tactics like this by more than one person and called on it.

Name one.

Originally Posted by Zap

If you are going to continue making wild claims like that without any proof then this discussion is pointless.

Any claim I make - or anybody else makes - must be supported by logical reasoning. If the poster refuses to provide such after a demand has been made, then he will no longer he allowed to post in this forum.

Originally Posted by Zap

Remember Ferre?
Ferre opposed you. He's no longer a mod here.
In fact, he can't post in the political forums anymore, nor can he even see them.
He had some really good posts too.

He had a lot of shrill posts. But I made him a super mod anyway, because of his opposition to me. Sort of a "balance".

He is no longer a mod because he hadn't modded in months. And he is no longer posting in this forum for the reason I stated above - namely, that anybody posting here has an obligation to back up their statements upon demand. I made several requests for him to back up a specific claim he refused, and lost his politics forum permissions.

The same policy applies to everybody here, myself included.

Originally Posted by Zap

Brian used to be a mod here too. Hasn't he disagreed with you a few times here?
I wonder what happened to him. Hmmmmm.

That assuming thing happening again. That really does out you as a sloppy thinker. Sloppy. Very sloppy.

Brian was actually an admin in the beginning of the forum. Then he resigned. Then he came back and was an mod. Then he resigned again. Sorry to disappoint your sloppy conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by Zap

Seriously, why bother to call it debate?

Who's calling it debate? You posting sloppy and uneducated claims that you cannot back up with logic - no, nobody would call that debate.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

So are you saying that no innocent individuals have been tortured by US personnel?

Who said that?

[thegamerslink]

StrongInTheArm you still haven't answered the question....Do you honestly think that American Personnel are randomly walking the streets of the world and arresting anyone they see they don't like the look of and then immediately taking them to the water boarding chamber??

[jdspc]

Originally Posted by m42

Do you feel waterboarding is a justified measure in protecting the lives of millions of people?

I still have an AI sticker on my gtr...but when I placed it there I really didn't get it...

I was goin to go off on this thread but it is really a simple issue

To catch a thief...

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

StrongInTheArm you still haven't answered the question....Do you honestly think that American Personnel are randomly walking the streets of the world and arresting anyone they see they don't like the look of and then immediately taking them to the water boarding chamber??

Ah my apologies, the world turns and I'm on a different continent, you caught me too late!

And I ask of you more understanding. I was trying to understand John's position but he has left me all confused. If you re-read this thread you will see all I have done is asked questions and not expressed my own thoughts.

To answer your specific question simply, I would say no. Normally I would go on and explain my own thoughts but I still feel as though I am in the middle of a conversation with John at present. I'm a simple soul, so can I get back to you on this question at a later date? This is a complex issue and I would like to give it my full attention and not confuse the matters unduly.

[thegamerslink]

ok :-) It's just in your attempts to equate John's position you are at the same time implying your own position it seems. Sorry to interrupt the conversation.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Formatted as a syllogism:

You did not know what socialism is.
All educated people know what socialism is.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that you are not educated.

While I appreciate the effort you put into your reply, I take issue with the content.

You did not know what socialism is. False
You have no idea what I know and do not know.
All educated people know what socialism is. Also False
There are many educated people with gaps in their education. Some of them know how to split an atom. Some don't. Some of them know what socialism is. Some don't. Some of them will even point to Australia on a map when asked where Iraq is.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that you are not educated. Also False
A conclusion based on two incorrect assumptions? I don't think so. And you've repeatedly incorrectly stated that I don't know logic. Tsk. Tsk.

Originally Posted by John Scott

I just provided you with syllogistic proof. You shouldn't jump to conclusions, because it's a sign of lack of education.

See directly above this sentence.

Originally Posted by John Scott

No, I demand others be ready to back up what they write, and I in turn am ready to back up what I write as well.

Glad to hear it. See below.

Originally Posted by John Scott

I don't know exactly who is reading, and I wouldn't make generalizations if I did know.

You make generalizations about Canadians frequently in your posts. Why hold back now?

Originally Posted by John Scott

That assuming thing happening again. That really does out you as a sloppy thinker. Sloppy. Very sloppy.

Brian was actually an admin in the beginning of the forum. Then he resigned. Then he came back and was an mod. Then he resigned again. Sorry to disappoint your sloppy conspiracy theory.

Assuming? Theory?
I neither stated, nor made any assumptions nor any theory regarding Brian's departure.

*pulls John closer and whispers in his ear*
Better be careful, John.
There are some people around here, opportunists, who would use this opportunity to falsely point out that you have no idea what an assumption is, nor what a theory is. They might even go as far as asking you what the hell you're doing in the Politics forum when you are completely clueless regarding the definition of the word "theory".

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

So are you saying that no innocent individuals have been tortured by US personnel?

Originally Posted by John Scott

Who said that?

Forgive my confusion, post 38 is the problem for me. You did me the courtesy of answering the three questions I put to you in post 33 in post 38. To re-iterate (the questions and your answers):

Question 1
Would you agree with me that the President of the United States is NOW aware that torture is carried out by those working for him?

Of course. I believe he explicitly or implicitly authorized the use of waterboarding against terrorists and their collaborators.

Question 2
Is the President not responsible for the continued use of torture if he has not ordered that the use of torture be discontinued?

Obviously. Why would he order it to be discontinued?

Question 3
And if one innocent individual is tortured by US personnel, should the President not be prosecuted for the crime as well?

No. Did the president authorize the use of waterboarding against innocent individuals? No. He authorized it's use against terrorists.

I initially thought you meant no innocent individuals had been tortured, but you said something different, I was leaping to conclusions.

'He authorized it's use against terrorists', which of course implies that it is a crime to torture someone before you can prove that individual is a terrorist. Thus every tortured individual must have been proven to have been a terrorist before being tortured.

Is that what you meant in answer to question 3, I just want to make sure I'm not accusing you of something you did not mean.

[thegamerslink]

'He authorized it's use against terrorists', which of course implies that it is a crime to torture someone before you can prove that individual is a terrorist. Thus every tortured individual must have been proven to have been a terrorist before being tortured.

Is that what you meant in answer to question 3, I just want to make sure I'm not accusing you of something you did not mean.

Statements like that are what made me interject. Although we are closely following the Geneva Convention in most every aspect of our treatment of prisoners of conflict. I have to say there must in extreme situations be exceptions to every rule. And you are attempting to imply that no one should be labeled a terrorist until they are proven to be one. My question is, when do you prove that a person is a terrorist? Do you prove it after you follow the paper trail left behind after they kill 3,000+ unsuspecting American citizens, or after they blow up the double decker bus in downtown London....or do you wait until after Parliment or Congress has been partially or completely assaulted be it by planes, bombs, or anthrax etc......Or do you label them as a terrorist when you follow the paper trail to them before the actual act has taken place, or follow the trail through multiple contacts and multiple other methods and start to piece it all together before the actual act has taken place? When do you label them a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer?

There are unavoidable casualties, if given the choice I choose the casualty of a very few individuals debatable rights versus the casualty of thousands if not in this day and age 10's or 100's of thousands of innocent people wouldn't you? I mean especially if you were one of those innocent people that were part of the plan to be killed. Or your wife, son, daughter, mother, father? Think about it...really think about it, just don't spout off some mumbo jumbo BS about how it's all a made up government conspiracy that doesn't really exist just to give them the ability to get more oil or something type statement.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Statements like that are what made me interject. Although we are closely following the Geneva Convention in most every aspect of our treatment of prisoners of conflict. I have to say there must in extreme situations be exceptions to every rule. And you are attempting to imply that no one should be labeled a terrorist until they are proven to be one. My question is, when do you prove that a person is a terrorist? Do you prove it after you follow the paper trail left behind after they kill 3,000+ unsuspecting American citizens, or after they blow up the double decker bus in downtown London....or do you wait until after Parliment or Congress has been partially or completely assaulted be it by planes, bombs, or anthrax etc......Or do you label them as a terrorist when you follow the paper trail to them before the actual act has taken place, or follow the trail through multiple contacts and multiple other methods and start to piece it all together before the actual act has taken place? When do you label them a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer?

There are unavoidable casualties, if given the choice I choose the casualty of a very few individuals debatable rights versus the casualty of thousands if not in this day and age 10's or 100's of thousands of innocent people wouldn't you? I mean especially if you were one of those innocent people that were part of the plan to be killed. Or your wife, son, daughter, mother, father? Think about it...really think about it, just don't spout off some mumbo jumbo BS about how it's all a made up government conspiracy that doesn't really exist just to give them the ability to get more oil or something type statement.

Hang on a minute. Firstly, I'm a Londoner, have been for nearly 40 years. I've been here during the numerous IRA attacks and I was here during the more recent attacks on this city. In fact I was due to travel on one of the underground lines that was affected by the bombings, but fortunately for me and my wife something interfered with our plans that day and we had to rearrange our journey for another day. We considered ourselves lucky.

'He authorized it's use against terrorists', which of course implies that it is a crime to torture someone before you can prove that individual is a terrorist. Thus every tortured individual must have been proven to have been a terrorist before being tortured.

Is that what you meant in answer to question 3, I just want to make sure I'm not accusing you of something you did not mean.

Secondly, if you look at your quote from my post, "He authorized it's use against terrorists", were John Scotts words in answer to a question from me. The rest of that quote follows on logically from his answer. Please read my post again more carefully and confirm for yourself the words and the logic.

Again I remind you I have not stated my position concerning torture, so please do not attempt to read words into my posts that do not exist. You are over laying your assumptions on what I have posted in this thread and coming up with outrageous statements about what you imagine I think. You can't know what I think as yet because I haven't said what I think as yet.

[thegamerslink]

It only follows on logically if you are trying to lead the logic into a corner :-) Plane and simple fact is he said that yes the President has authorized Water Boarding against terrorists not innocents, you then implied that he was trying to say that every person water boarded was a terrorist and there was no possibility of an innocent person being inappropriately treated as a terrorist....I mean let me know if I'm wrong on this...your implication further goes that if just one innocent person gets tortured and/or treated as a terrorist when in fact they aren't that everyone involved is thus criminally liable for the act. In fact the act of water boarding may be a violation of the out dated Geneva Convention which also is a Huge viable argument of why we have to have Gitmo, it fulfills certain article requirements of the Geneva Convention....but that is another discussion, but for a crime to be committed you have to have intent. Without intent then you have a lesser case of crime, and then you come back to the extreme measures cause for exceptions to the rule theory, in order of self defense you sometimes have to bend or even break a rule in for the greater good. An ethical dilema that myself luckily don't have to deal with on a daily basis as someone such as the President or the head of State does. The ethical dilema:, I have been told by those that work under me or in my or other governments that this person poses a risk, I have been presented evidence that makes a convincing case to not only me but also to a line of others there is more than possibility of this individuals involvement or knowledge of past or future acts, do I follow my oath to uphold the Constitution of The United States and the Geneva Convention, neither of which were written with this situation or time in mind, or do I uphold the oath to protect my country and it's citizens. In this particular instance I can't clearly see how to do both. What would you do? You are trying to make a legal matter out of something that clearly does not exist in the terms you are trying to make out.....if a person gets water boarded or whatever...and it's later found out that the information leading to his guilt implication were false or untrue then you acted in good faith......however if you just picked up an individual off the street and had no reason to suspect or imply that they were a terrorist or involved with terrorists and knowingly held and water boarded this individual just because you could, then a crime is knowingly comitted and those involved should/would be prosecuted all the way up the chain including the President, but only according to the knowledge they had of the act. You can't charge the top of the totem pole for a person at the bottom that goes against orders or operational procedures set in place to prevent such things.