crazyhorse1 wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote:There is absolutely no specific criteria outlined in the Conventions to allow anyone at all to be tortured
These are two of my FAVORITE liberal debate tactics. You always crack me up crazyhorse. I like debating you. Here are your logical fallacies.
1) The Geneva Conventions list a SPECIFIC set of criteria.
- You must wear a uniform
- You must belong to an army of a recognized government
- You you must carry your guns in the open
And many more criteria the terrorists in Iraq fail. Then it says if ALL these conditions are met THEN you have certain rights.
But you turn that around to "There is absolutely no specific criteria outlined in the Conventions to allow anyone at all to be tortured". It does not follow, sorry.
2) As I've pointed out and you ignored, water boarding is not torture. There is no maiming, disfigurement, death. It is unpleasant. Sorry, unpleasant does not equal torture.
You liberals are so funny. You love this game of picking a word to describe something because you like a false connotation that goes with the word. Then you apply the connotation which didn't fit the facts as the basis of your argument.
Nice try. Please present a REAL argument though.
My view is I am not for waterboarding as standard interrogating practice, which it isn't. But when troops in a war zone have reason to believe someone has knowledge that would protect troops I'm all for getting it out of them even if we have to make their stay in US care very, very unpleasant. Including things I don't actually plan to do to myself in my own home.
Those extremely familiar criteria are in the Geneva Conventions as part of its classification of types of combatants. They have no relation to whom may or not be tortured.
The prohibition on torture is universal.
For instance, even if they fail to wear uniforms or openly carry weapons, neither a non-combatant, a civilian, an illegal combatant, a revolutionary, a murdering criminal, a spy, nor even a Republican can be tortured for failure to wear an uniform and openly carry a weapon.
Nor can terrorists be tortured. Nor can they even be punished before first being proved to be terrorists by trial.
An overwhelming majority of Iraqis and Afghans we have tortured by the thousands have never been shown to be anything and are classified only as suspects or civilians.
Try reading the Conventions again. I'm glad someone is reading them seriously
In re. to your take on what a conservative is, you are using a definition that is accurate but failing to apply it with historical perspective or knowledge of U.S. economic history.
The New Deal programs you oppose have now been accepted and institutionalized for over half a century. Anti-trust legislation, unions, progressive taxes, social security, medicare, etc. have been embraced or accepted by both politcal parties and administrations since World War 11.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, made essentially no effort to combat them, which ushered in a prolonged leveling of incomes and the rise of the middle class, which was hailed by everyone, even Nixon, who once imposed price controls.
Even Reagan and Bush I accepted basic tenets, even as Reagan attacked the abuses of the welfare state and he and Bush
used racial fears to put the Southern States in the Republican column.
The current attack on forces that caused the rise of the American middle class is, in fact, a radical attack on American institutions, policy and ideals already firmly in place and proven to be healthy and productive of democracy and a much better economy.
In short, the institutions you oppose have been deliberately put in place, accepted for an extended period, and are still heavily supported.
Current radicals, who call them themselves conservative, are essentially trying to restore the perogatives of a ruling class the American people are absolutely opposed to and find chilling in relation to its threat against American concepts of social justic and freedom.
Indeed, most Americans are now calling for national health insurance.
Check the polls. The American people do not support the abolition of New Deal policies and institutions. Rather, they wish to expand them and increase the growth of the middle class.
They are almost completely opposed to government by big money and cooperations, as well as cronyism, inequality in courts, government suppression of workers, etc.--
all of which was characteristic of the America in the 1800's.
Bush is still President only because of lingering bigotry, racism, election cheating, and fear of terrorism, which he has cultivated very well. Now, we learn that the administration told Nancy Pelosi of its torture program in 2002, which explains why she took impreachment off the table.
It was a brilliant move by Bush. Pelosi has known all along that if Bush were impeached for torture, she would be implicated. She should resign at once.
The practice of torture, which you erronerously believe is not criminalized by the Geneva Conventions, or U.S. law, is likely now to bring down the leaders of both parties. Let the trials begin.
The rule of law is a Conservative ideal.
In calling for impeachment, I am being conservative. Exempting the President from the rule of law is radical. You, my friend, are a radical-- in relation to government, economics, the legality of war, you rhetoric, your opposition to the rule of law, and your tortured justifications of torture.
. . . . .oh sorry, I'll let you finish. 