'Torture-tainted evidence' mars US legal image: rights group (AFP)

[senojekips]

Ah -the dreaded Neo-Cons again. ANYONE but the enemy who attacked USA and brought America into this current situation. This response just does not explain your unjustified claim at all! Try again please. Geo W. will have served his two terms under great duress and he will then be gone. I see no evidence that he seeks further power.

Here lies the problem, it appears that you have not even a basic understanding of what has been going on in US Politics. Do the names Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz Cheney et al, mean anything to you do you read the papers or watch TV?

Finally -Please confirm the words of the quote you query and have investigated and I will enlighten you.

as Patton tells us . Anyone fancy a walk in his shoes?

Ahhh, I see it now, a poorly placed fullstop, that changes things.

Did I mention IraQ ?

In your previous post you stated.

The casualties are the responsibilty of those who made the call to attack America, and their hordes who applauded.

Now, I don't know if the irony escaped you, but there have been far more casualties in Iraq than anywhere else. Far more than 9/11,.... does this mean that we should be hunting GWB instead of Osama? No, don't even try to answer that.

9/11 was in fact a wake-up call to America as to just what was going on in the world. Al Quaeda is indeed an alliance of Islamic terrorists well supported throughout Islam , based and trained in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries and recruited throughout the Islamic world. This is the war to which I refer, imposed upon America.

So you think that the everyone was blissfully unaware of the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11. Like most crimes it was not foreseen but the possibility was well known. The only really surprising thing was the immensity, and in that regard, the US intelligence services may have got a wakeup call.

It is fatal to enter a war without the will to win it.

Well, we certainly stuffed up there didn't we, we were neither prepared nor willing at the time to fight a protracted campaign. It is only since the local insurgents made it apparent that they were not going to play by our imagined rules that we have realised that this is not going to go according to plan. What little plan there was.

Surely none of us are supporters of torture,

Well, here's just a couple who seem to think that it's OK, and I could find a hundred more references if needed.

(1) http://www.president-bush.com/cheney-torture.html

(2) "The US president has vetoed legislation passed by Congress that would have banned the CIA from using waterboarding and other interrogation techniques. George Bush announced his decision to quash the planned anti-torture measures, included in a broader bill authorising US intelligence activities, in his weekly radio address on Saturday"

And your conclusion is incorrect - the most worthy singular thing arising in this situation is in fact SURVIVAL

There is little doubt that we will survive, but to survive we need to win the war, and our singular best tool to achieve that is world wide support NOT condemnation. Otherwise we may well win the battle but lose the war.

 

[A Can of Man]

Everything is just so damned screwed up.

 

[Del Boy]

Here lies the problem, it appears that you have not even a basic understanding of what has been going on in US Politics. Do the names Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz Cheney et al, mean anything to you do you read the papers or watch TV?

Tut,tut. Here we go again with the put-down insults. Can you not put together an argument without throwing mud. No - here lies the problem - you wish to blame America and Geo W. Bush for all the terrible problems the world faces from a monster ideology, instead of placing them fairly and squarely where they belong. How many more heads will be hacked off before you stop blaming the only people trying to do something about it?

So the answer to your question above is - don't talk nonsense.

I see it now, a poorly placed fullstop, that changes things. In your previous post you stated.Now, I don't know if the irony escaped you, but there have been far more casualties in Iraq than anywhere else. Far more than 9/11,.... does this mean that we should be hunting GWB instead of Osama? No, don't even try to answer that.

Merely a full stop. And yes the 'irony' escapes me. But the flippancy does not. Yes, after the expected tremendously succesful war, the post-war campaign was most unexpectedly awful , and I was a massive critic, politically and militarily, from day one of the first Iraqi Army surrender. However, that is known as getting something wrong, and is very easy to criticize in retrospect.

BUT - the war being fought in Iraq now is against the same forces who initially attacked USA, wish to attack the world, but need to take USA out of the equation first, those who started the war long before the Iraq campaign.

The current Iraq situation is a symptom of the war flagged up by 9/11.

Remember, remember , 11th September.

So you think that the everyone was blissfully unaware of the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11. Like most crimes it was not foreseen but the possibility was well known. The only really surprising thing was the immensity, and in that regard, the US intelligence services may have got a wakeup call.

You do not need to be so damned patronising. This is precisely what I have been indicating. The wake-up call not merely to Intelligence services but to USA and the world. However, some folk have fallen asleep again.

This is no time for sweet-talking, for snake-oil selling, or what we hold dear will certainly not survive. This Ideology which brought about 9/11 and the current blood-shed throughout the world needs to be crushed without compromise. Their supporters only respect power.


I am going to call it a day on this one. My position is that many people wish to blame America for the world's problems, because America is freedom's mighty giant standing between them and their political ambitions to impose their primitive ideology upon the world.
With their fellow travellers, America is always wrong, and this is the fashionable song of today. Bandwagonners unite.

Well - I just don't buy it. I can still tell the difference between the good guys and the monsters.

 

[senojekips]

Tut,tut. Here we go again with the put-down insults. Can you not put together an argument without throwing mud. No - here lies the problem - you wish to blame America and Geo W. Bush for all the terrible problems the world faces from a monster ideology, instead of placing them fairly and squarely where they belong. How many more heads will be hacked off before you stop blaming the only people trying to do something about it?

So the answer to your question above is - don't talk nonsense.

Nonsense,.... t'was not I who said such drivel as "What is good for America is good for the world", and "Surely none of us are supporters of torture", and "that Guantanamo Bay is a necessary tool for dealing with such murderous "dogs " as you mention" Both of these last inane statements having been previously shown to be incorrect. But I guess it would be inconvenient to allow the truth to ruin your argument.

Merely a full stop. And yes the 'irony' escapes me.

Obviously....

BUT - the war being fought in Iraq now is against the same forces who initially attacked USA,

Sorry,... I never heard of any Iraqis involved in 9/11. I was always under the impression that those involved were, 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from the UAE. (as released by the CIA)

And here's the kicker,... None of these countries have been invaded by the coalition, in fact both Saudi Arabia and Egypt are involved as "Allies", with Egypt providing what was hoped to be, "secret Interrogation services". For our "Non supporters of torture"

You do not need to be so damned patronising.

I have a deep seated distrust of panic merchants, especially those who would try to panic those about them.

This is precisely what I have been indicating. The wake-up call not merely to Intelligence services but to USA and the world. However, some folk have fallen asleep again.

I feel that no one is asleep, merely they are not running around with their hands over their heads screaming "We're all doomed"

This is no time for sweet-talking, for snake-oil selling, or what we hold dear will certainly not survive.

BS pure unadulterated BS, Panic merchants unite!

I think you've been reading far too much Ronnie Rumsfeld.

Their supporters only respect power.

No!,... maybe they fear power, but no one in his right mind necessarily "respects" it. The days of "Gunboat diplomacy" are long gone and as said earlier, "fear" may well precipitate a reaction that we will all regret. There are far better weapons than the "sledge hammer" Surely the lessons of conflicts like Northern Ireland haven't been forgotten so quickly?

 

[Del Boy]

Nonsense,.... t'was not I who said such drivel as "What is good for America is good for the world", and "Surely none of us are supporters of torture", and "that Guantanamo Bay is a necessary tool for dealing with such murderous "dogs " as you mention" Both of these last inane statements having been previously shown to be incorrect.

I really don't know why I bother - but you tempt me so, which I am sure is deliberate.

How can you describe these rebuffals of your opinion as 'inane' and 'drivel'. I am honoured to stand by them, and it should not be necessary to lay them out for you again. However- if you really need such I will do so. I am particularly comfortable with them and I reiterate them and recommend them to you.

Sorry,... I never heard of any Iraqis involved in 9/11. I was always under the impression that those involved were, 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from the UAE. (as released by the CIA)

And here's the kicker,... None of these countries have been invaded by the coalition, in fact both Saudi Arabia and Egypt are involved as "Allies", with Egypt providing what was hoped to be, "secret Interrogation services". For our "Non supporters of torture"

Sorry -But you surely HAVE heard of non- Iraqis being involved in Iraq - we are fighting there, alongside Iraqis, against that self- same alliance of terror.

Furthermore, you list only the strikers of that same alliance with no mention of where they were recruited and trained and funded. As for the countries you mention - you are right - within those countries are those who wish to pose the same threat, and we also have the same here. We need to be alert to this. And I wonder why these governments co-operated in the manner you specify? Do you wonder why?

I have a deep seated distrust of panic merchants, especially those who would try to panic those about them. I feel that no one is asleep, merely they are not running around with their hands over their heads screaming "We're all doomed"

Ah yes- your old favourite - shoot the messenger or anyone else who has an opposing opinion which is hard to shift.

There it is - the good ol' rant! (Of course we are not all doomed because some brave & responsible folk are on the case.)

Now I also have deep seated distrust of panic merchants, but I also have a very deep-seated distrust of those who attempt to dismiss opposition by branding them with unfounded accusations and popping them into a nice convenient little compartment for ridicule. A very old ploy for combatting unwanted opinion.

I have recounted only what has already happened, and is happening now. Facts.

At the same time, you are hardly in a position to claim that "no-one is asleep".

Now then, you haven't yet produced your favourite 'whinging' card, which I detest. However, in this case, allow me to point out that in fact, you are the 'whinger' here, regarding the situation under discussion. I am only the little voice suggesting that those with the job of defeating a serious enemy be allowed to get on with it in the best way they can. As General Patten would tell us - If a man does his best -what else is there. I am prepared to expect our protectors to do their best, and in the best possible manner open to them.

I think you've been reading far too much Ronnie Rumsfeld.

But you have just accused me of knowing nothing of him. in you last post. Flailing about, are we?

Neither accusation is correct.




[qquote=senojekips;409679]
No!,... maybe they fear power, but no one in his right mind necessarily "respects" it. The days of "Gunboat diplomacy" are long gone and as said earlier, "fear" may well precipitate a reaction that we will all regret. There are far better weapons than the "sledge hammer" Surely the lessons of conflicts like Northern Ireland haven't been forgotten so quickly?[/quote]


I have forgotten nothing, and N. Ireland is another big subject, which incidentally does not fall your way. Another time.


But you have not grasped my point. Forget 'Gunboat Diplomacy' or even 'a whiff of grape-shot' - that is nothing to do with it.

The ideology of our enemies is one of respecting only strength and power, may well include fear as in the case of Sadam and some other middle-eastern rulers, it is simply that they interpret the softer approach as weakness. Any concession brings forth another demand. They have no inclination to accept that the velvet glove can defeat the iron fist. Take a look at their governments. You should be very well aware of this, if you are as well into The Kingdom (Lacey) as you claim.

 

[senojekips]

I really don't know why I bother - but you tempt me so, which I am sure is deliberate.
How can you describe these rebuffals of your opinion as 'inane' and 'drivel'. I am honoured to stand by them, and it should not be necessary to lay them out for you again. However- if you really need such I will do so. I am particularly comfortable with them and I reiterate them and recommend them to you.

It may be news to you, but the fact that you are honoured to stand by your own "rebuffals" (sic) in no way lessens their inanity in view of the facts.

Sorry -But you surely HAVE heard of non- Iraqis being involved in Iraq - we are fighting there, alongside Iraqis, against that self- same alliance of terror.

Nice try DelBoy. Your statement was and I quote with my own highlighting

BUT - the war being fought in Iraq now is against the same forces who initially attacked USA,

As I clearly pointed out no Iraqis were involved in 9/11, or are you suddenly talking of another "initial attack".

Furthermore, you list only the strikers of that same alliance with no mention of where they were recruited and trained and funded. As for the countries you mention - you are right - within those countries are those who wish to pose the same threat, and we also have the same here. We need to be alert to this. And I wonder why these governments co-operated in the manner you specify? Do you wonder why?

No, but I do wonder why the coalition attacked Iraq and has completely ignored the countries of the actual attackers. Comparing this with a criminal case, you would advocate that in the case of a murder, that the police lock up all of those who disliked the victim, but let the perpetrator go free. Your logic as usual is "odd' to say the very least.

Now I also have deep seated distrust of panic merchants,

You'd better take a good long look in the mirror then, your going to be absolutely horrified.

At the same time, you are hardly in a position to claim that "no-one is asleep".

Pray tell,why? Every time a crime is committed we don't race around with our hands over our heads accusing the police that they are asleep. Well, no one except the panic merchants and trouble makers.

Now then, you haven't yet produced your favourite 'whinging' card, which I detest. However, in this case, allow me to point out that in fact, you are the 'whinger' here, regarding the situation under discussion. I am only the little voice suggesting that those with the job of defeating a serious enemy be allowed to get on with it in the best way they can. As General Patten would tell us - If a man does his best -what else is there. I am prepared to expect our protectors to do their best, and in the best possible manner open to them.

Quite simply, because you are not "whinging" in this case, (to "whinge" is to complain without reason) you are merely disseminating a panic driven view of the facts and in my day panic merchants were pulled before the commanding officer for a good talking to. They run against my grain which is the only reason I get involved in these little "argy bargys" with you.

I feel that you'd be a real barrel of laughs, as a backstop in a tough spot Delboy.

But you have just accused me of knowing nothing of him. in you last post. Flailing about, are we?

A small but important fact, I asked if you were aware of who he was, in regard to the part he played as a NeoCon,... remember

I have forgotten nothing, and N. Ireland is another big subject, which incidentally does not fall your way. Another time.

But you have not grasped my point. Forget 'Gunboat Diplomacy' or even 'a whiff of grape-shot' - that is nothing to do with it.

So you see no similarity between this conflict and the days of Gunboat Diplomacy? Tell me why this does not surprise me?

The ideology of our enemies is one of respecting only strength and power, may well include fear as in the case of Sadam and some other middle-eastern rulers, it is simply that they interpret the softer approach as weakness. Any concession brings forth another demand. They have no inclination to accept that the velvet glove can defeat the iron fist. Take a look at their governments. You should be very well aware of this, if you are as well into The Kingdom (Lacey) as you claim.

You keep using the word "respect", when all the time you mean "fear"

Only the "spineless" show respect in the face of aggression. Our enemy may be criminally misguided and at odds with our views, however there is no way that he can be shown as spineless. Merely the fact that he continues to take up arms against a hugely superior force is proof of that. Would you strap on an explosive belt and sacrifice yourself to give your enemy a poke in the eye? It may be an act of immense stupidity on behalf of the perpetrator in my view, but it is certainly not spineless.

Now,... before the mods close this wildly wandering thread, let's get back to the point about how the use of torture by coalition forces has turned and bitten us on the bum.

 

[Del Boy]

It may be news to you, but the fact that you are honoured to stand by your own "rebuffals" (sic) in no way lessens their inanity in view of the facts.

Well - let's just take a look, shall we:-

My quote -'What is good for America is good for the world'. - as the world's greatest and most powerful democracy, America strives to find and preserve what is best for America. Compare this with the rest of the world. I'll buy that against anything else you have to offer. Inane ? Naaah!


My quote-'Surely none of us are supporters of torture'

Er- Hello - Us, you, me, others on this thread. - Inane? Naaah!



My quote - 'Guatanamo Bay is a necessary tool for dealing with such murderous dogs'.

Absolutely - I wonder how many lives have been saved - how many evils overcome. You see- rather than join the mob shouting criticism at every turn, I do try to use my own brain, which has served me very well for the last 72 years. Inane ? Naaah!

Nice try DelBoy. Your statement was and I quote with my own highlighting As I clearly pointed out no Iraqis were involved in 9/11, or are you suddenly talking of another "initial attack".

My quote:- 'the war now being fought in Iraq is against the same forces who initially attacked USA.'


Precisely my fine fellow - The terrorist alliance described by yourself earlier, Iraq being just the current battleground, and ,in fact, currently being conducted by USA and allies together with Iraqi units. And in fact there were other serious acts of war against USA by the very same terrorist alliance.

Do not keep pushing the ridiculous argument that 9/11 was the operation of just the little bunch of pawns who flew the planes. Now that really IS inane. Hello.



Senojekips.
Well - I am ignoring the rest of your post as a great pile of desperate, patronising, insulting rubbish.
I was particularly amused at how you managed to produce and build up the word "spineless", which I had never used, and then proceeded to demolish your own creation, eventually reaching the point where you are prepared to show respect for the suicide bombers who have killed and maimed hundreds if not thousands of men, women and children. Impressed, are you? Yes , as I indicated, that is the sort of power that some folk do respect. BUT - they didn't present themselves to Sadam as suicide bombers did they? No-one hacked off the heads of those in his employ. Not a peep from his subjects. And that's how it goes, until the first sign of weakness - the chink in the armour. And that is what they see in us, and make good use of.


As for this little delicious tit-bit :-

"I feel that you'd be a real barrel of laughs, as a backstop in a tough spot Delboy."

Nice. Well let me tell you that I have played my part, and on those occasions when the call came I never could be found at the back, so I cannot judge whether I would be good laugh in that position.

I will say that my mates from those active-service days, and my old regiment, particularly the Colonel commanding, seem to be happy with my contribution. And strangely enough, some of that was against the very same enemies who now attack America and the world where they can.

Panic? Panic merchant? Trouble-maker? Whinger? Racist? Naaah!

Presenter of facts? Supporter of the real good guys? Guy refusing to get his head well and truly stuck right up where the sun don't shine, and therefore ready to face the real threats? Sure thing!

FINITO BENITO on this one, enough already. Gone fishin -there's a notice on the door.

(Sorry - I torgof to aplogise for fhe tucking fyping error on 'rebuffals' in my lasf posf. I work tasf.)

 

[senojekips]

Yep,.. cut and run. Don't forget to take a drink of water for your guide dog.

 

[tomtom22]

Nice to see that everyone is being so civilised.





Just a reminder, gentlemen.

 

[LeEnfield]

It's great to be holier than though on this subject, but if using torture can save a thousand lives if not more then so be it. Like all these bloody little conflicts there are no prisoners taken by the opposition and if you are unlucky enough to fall into their hands, your death is unlikely to be quick but quite the opposite. Many of those that oppose torture will often chage their minds if they found that it might have saved a life of one of their loved ones.

 

[Del Boy]

Yep,.. cut and run. Don't forget to take a drink of water for your guide dog.

Well lookie here - Class, sheer class!

Wrong again. Not cutting, not running. Please remember that I am ever-ready to return by invitation. Any time old chap, so be nice and just polish up your first serve a bit.

 

[senojekips]

It's great to be holier than though on this subject, but if using torture can save a thousand lives if not more then so be it. Like all these bloody little conflicts there are no prisoners taken by the opposition and if you are unlucky enough to fall into their hands, your death is unlikely to be quick but quite the opposite. Many of those that oppose torture will often chage their minds if they found that it might have saved a life of one of their loved ones.

There's nothing holier than thou about it, just the suppression of ignorance. The main trouble being that we were party to the Geneva convention and helped frame these rules. When we break the rules it makes things like the Geneva convention rather pointless, other than the fact that it turns the remainder of the civilised world against us, as the irony of this is not lost on them, something we cannot afford in any conflict. We have in fact left our selves wide open to judgement for War Crimes. Seeing that the crime has already been admitted to we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Always remember what happened to other people who thought that the committing of War Crimes would help them win their wars. The very fact that we are resorting to this medieval practice just lets our enemies (and others) that we are feeling frustrated and are not performing as well as we thought we might.

It has also already been admitted that "The ticking time bomb Scenario" just does not happen in real life and in all probability will remain the province of B Grade movies. Also fact that torture is largely ineffective has been amply demonstrated relatively recently by Malcolm Nance an ex US interrogator before a House Committee investigation. I won't provide a source as it's common knowledge and live footage is on Youtube and a dozen other sites.

Torture is the weapon of choice of those who are frustrated and have no where else to go, so they can at least vent their frustration. It's supporters realise that it is largely as a veangance thing rather than a truly viable technique to gain information.

"Even I can make a cat sing The Star Spangled Banner, given a little time and the access to torture". In short, torture only tells you what you wish to hear, not necessarily the truth.

 

[Del Boy]

I for one do not support the use of physical torture in the old previously recognised forms, but I have to say that my understanding is that we are in a completely different kind of struggle against a completely different foe who do not play by any rules, and wage war on civilians, widely and as a deliberate policy, to terrorise, and as such are not covered by The Geneva Convention.

Furthermore, the USA conform to certain rules to which they adhere about what they consider acceptable and what they don't. Have there been any known deaths through torture in Gitmo? The guys who came back here from Gitmo did not speak of terrible horrors. I am prepared to give USA the nod in their efforts at Gitmo. I trust them more than I trust their foes. I know which side I am on.

And certainly a great many lives have been saved here by information provided by USA , from some source or another.

Against physical torture, in its worst forms,yes, - but continually against USA and Geo W. etc. as the big bad guys - a resounding no.

 

[senojekips]

Ahh,... back from fishing already. An excellent moral and logical stand you take there Delboy, just about what I would have expected. So,...torture is only torture if it kills you eh?? That's odd, because I was always of the impression that, this was covered by the term "Murder". Such as in these cases, which seem to shoot down your rose coloured view that no one has died as a result of torture.

Over one hundred prisoners have died in suspicious circumstances in U.S. custody during the "war on terror". Taxi to the Dark Side takes an in-depth look at one case: an Afghan taxi driver called Dilawar who was considered an honest and kind man by the people of his rustic village. So when he was detained by the U.S military one afternoon, after picking up three passengers, denizens wondered why this man was randomly chosen to be held in prison, and, especially, without trial?

The US medical officer stated in his Post Mortem report that the dead mans legs had been "pulpified" (there was no other words to describe it) by sustained beating, and that if he would have lived, he would have lost both legs at the hip.

It was later admitted that the man was innocent.

"Four days before, on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, Mr. Dilawar set out from his tiny village of Yakubi in a prized new possession, a used Toyota sedan that his family bought for him a few weeks earlier to drive as a taxi. "On the day that he disappeared, Mr. Dilawar's mother had asked him to gather his three sisters from their nearby villages and bring them home for the holiday. However, he needed gas money and decided instead to drive to the provincial capital, Khost, about 45 minutes away, to look for fares. "At a taxi stand there, he found three men headed back toward Yakubi. On the way, they passed a base used by American troops, Camp Salerno, which had been the target of a rocket attack that morning. "Militiamen loyal to the guerrilla commander guarding the base, Jan Baz Khan, stopped the Toyota at a checkpoint. They confiscated a broken walkie-talkie from one of Mr. Dilawar's passengers. In the trunk, they found an electric stabilizer used to regulate current from a generator. (Mr. Dilawar's family said the stabilizer was not theirs; at the time, they said, they had no electricity at all.) "The four men were detained and turned over to American soldiers at the base as suspects in the attack. Mr. Dilawar and his passengers spent their first night there handcuffed to a fence, so they would be unable to sleep. When a doctor examined them the next morning, he said later, he found Mr. Dilawar tired and suffering from headaches but otherwise fine. "In February, an American military official disclosed that the Afghan guerrilla commander whose men had arrested Mr. Dilawar and his passengers had himself been detained. The commander, Jan Baz Khan, was suspected of attacking Camp Salerno himself and then turning over innocent "suspects" to the Americans in a ploy to win their trust, the military official said. "The three passengers in Mr. Dilawar's taxi were sent home from Guantánamo in March 2004, 15 months after their capture, with letters saying they posed "no threat" to American forces."

Five days after his arrest Dilawar died in his Bagram prison cell. His death came within a week of another death of a detainee at Bagram. The conclusion, with autopsy evidence, was that the former taxi driver and the detainee who passed away before him, had died due to sustained injuries inflicted at the prison by U.S. soldiers.

How many lives do you think this little episode saved Delboy?

Incidentally,... water boarding was used by the Chinese 2,600 years ago, and certainly falls well within the boundaries of torture "in the old and recognised forms", about the only "new" torture that has been implemented since that time is the use of the electric probe, so I guess you're really in favour of that. I feel that being beaten to death also falls well within the boundaries of torture "in the old and recognised forms"
It seems that our foes have never played by the "rules" but that in no way excuses us from remaining civilised. We are supposed to be "The Good guys" remember.

Your definitions of "torture" are of absolutely no consequence, as as is your "nod" in approving the actions of the torturers. I believe that Heinrich Himmler gave his "nod" to the death camps, but it in no way exonerated him from blame nor made it right. Your trust does not even enter into consideration in the eyes of the "civilised" world.

The Definition(s) of Torture in International Law. (Oxford University Press), pp.467-493

1. For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
2. Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I'll make one guarantee. If you were subjected even to the mildest forms of these acts, you would have a sudden and very permanent reversal of attitude regarding the use of torture. Yep,...I'm alright Jack, I'm on the winning side ,... it won't be of concern to me.

(Added much later after carefully re-reading the thread.)

Oh!,.. and just in case you didn't realise Delboy, the title of this thread is a "statement" not a question, so the damage has already been done and recognised, and as such, is hardly a subject for debate by the "morally challenged".

I think that you'd be far better off if you went back fishing.

Yes, I support the war and the aims of the Coalition, I merely have issues with some of the methods being used to attain them.

 

[MontyB]

I for one do not support the use of physical torture in the old previously recognised forms,

What exactly does this mean?
You do support torture as long as it is in a new and unrecognised format?

It seems to me that you find torture acceptable as long as we "the good guys" are using it but immoral and barbaric when the "bad guys" do it and what amuses me more is that the hypocracy of this stance doesn't dawn on you.

 

[Del Boy]

Ahh,... back from fishing already.

Ah - you noticed. Yes, fish were not biting. I took a peek and decided there were bigger fish to fry here.

An excellent moral and logical stand you take there Delboy, just about what I would have expected.

Yeah - not bad, even tho' I say so myself.

So,...torture is only torture if it kills you eh??

No - not at all. Your words not mine.You draw a very incorrect conclusion, without so much as a 'by your leave'.

That's odd, because I was always of the impression that, this was covered by the term "Murder".

Yes and I have exactly the same impression myself. We are in agreement.

How many lives do you think this little episode saved Delboy?

Well, who knows - maybe the three guys who came to no harm and were released from Gitmo proved helpful .

Incidentally,... water boarding was used by the Chinese 2,600 years ago, and certainly falls well within the boundaries of torture "in the old and recognised forms"

I like to keep an open mind, as you know.

I feel that being beaten to death also falls well within the boundaries of torture "in the old and recognised forms"

Absolutely - we are in agreement yet again.

It seems that our foes have never played by the "rules" but that in no way excuses us from remaining civilised. We are supposed to be "The Good guys" remember.

I believe that your first premise is incorrect as far as warfare is concerned. I believe also that we try to remain civilised and to be the good guys. However , when fighting for the survival of the civilised world it can become very difficult from time to time to maintain everything in bright shining white condition, when your foes are such dedicated murderous
fanatics operating under no rules whatsoever except Kill Americans Everywhere.

Your definitions of "torture" are of absolutely no consequence, as as is your "nod" in approving the actions of the torturers.

I haven't yet specified my definition of torture, are you confusing me with some other guy?

My 'nod' does not extend to approving torture, but in having the confidence to in USA at Gitmo to attempt to walk the straight and narrow, and to believe their account rather than that of their adverseries. Got it now?

I believe that Heinrich Himmler gave his "nod" to the death camps, but it in no way exonerated him from blame nor made it right.

Absolutely. Another agreement there. We are doing well.

I'll make one guarantee. If you were subjected even to the mildest forms of these acts, you would have a sudden and very permanent reversal of attitude regarding the use of torture.

That puts you and I in the same boat then - because a REVERSAL of my attitude would place me FOR torture, when the opposite is true. Also - if even the mildest form led to saving you and yours, your attitude might well change. But of course you are safe and comfortable.

I think that you'd be far better off if you went back fishing.

I heartily agree - not much to get my teeth into here.

Now then - rference your examples, if the first is true and that poor guy suffered that terrible fate at the hands of USA soldiers (IF) -then I am very much against- shocking - got it?

On the other hand- the three companions were taken in, tucked up in Gitmo for a period, while being investigated, and then returned home safely. In a war situation, this seems acceptable to me, and rather defeats your argument. WW11, our local Italians and Jewish Germans were tucked away for 5 years or more.

** You will note that out of respect for you I have completely ignored your little stash of personal insults etc.

Yes, I support the war and the aims of the Coalition, I merely have issues with some of the methods being used to attain them.

Yes and I am very glad to hear it, you are a good man and put a strong case.


***
MontyB - almost missed you there, thought for a minute it was a parrot on Seno's shoulder!

Right then, if you can't fathom it out for yourself then don't worry about it. Thanks, but we've moved on. Fancy a spot of fishin'; I'm just off again.

 

[senojekips]

So,.. you agree with me, on most of your previous statements. I'm pleased to see that, you may be learning, but I'm not holding my breath.

"What say ye Polly, d'ye think ol' Delboy is larnin', or is he just lyin' to ol' Cap'n Spike to haul his ugly butt out o' the cack".

"Arrrwwkk, Out o' th' Cack, Cack, Cack. Make ee' walk th' plank Cap'n,.... Arrrwwkk"!

 

[Del Boy]

Nono Cap'n. No problems with bum - your teeth must be sunk in a different bum. Slightly off target there. I see no ships but I ALWAYS defend my rear. Even at the risk of being keel-hauled.

However, I must say that we have closed a gap, simply because I have managed to point out to you that in fact you agree with me on many points. But I had to lay them out before you very carefully in order to get you to listen to my words and not your own delightful interpretations and translations. You have a penchant for putting your own words into other peoples' mouths, you rascal.

However, can overlook that, being such a magnaminous sort of guy, because, as Patten tells us, 'If a man does his best, what else is there.'

I hereby confirm that I am delighted to know that you are, in fact, with the coalition at this time. Why didn't you say that in the first place, and saved yourself a good kicking?

OK. having fished successfully through the night, I am just off to scougie the bulkheads Cap'n. Which is no easy matter with a cutlass between your teeth. As they say in the tropics "Dell Boy never speaks with forked tongue", even if he does like to see two sides of the argument.

 

[senojekips]

Ahh, I knew it would happen, you haven't learned a thing. You ran off, (remember FINITO BENITO), re considered your poor standing and came back agreeing with me. You'll notice it was you who stated

Yes and I have exactly the same impression myself. We are in agreement.

You see, you have left a written record of your agreement with my statement. So it is not "We" as I never agreed with a single thing you've said. I didn't then and don't now, because I believe that you have only "changed your coat to suit the weather".

Never the less it surprises me that you would give in so easily when only confronted with something so simple as facts. That's not like you at all.

In case you've forgotten already,... I'm the one stating that the coalition is making a mess of things, you are the one who says such things as, "What's good for America is good for the world"... "Snort" and that Camp delta has your "nod",... and of course, how could I forget "The guys who came back here from Gitmo did not speak of terrible horrors."

Dergoul, 26, was released at the same time as four other Britons in March, but was too traumatised by his experiences to tell his story until now. While it is shocking, it is also credible: his description of his interrogations and the 'ERF' squad's violent reprisals closely matches that from other released prisoners, including his fellow Britons, while possibly his most important claim, that the ERF was always filmed, has been confirmed by the US military
And guess what, they are refusing to release the videos, I guess they'll get lost or accidentally destroyed??

No,... there is no way that I agree with anything you say on this matter.

I can just see the judges at the war Crimes tribunal, when some poor defendant says, "No, honestly, it''s OK , it has Delboys "nod", along with torture other than, "the use of physical torture in the old previously recognised forms". Hoho.

You're getting a really nice routine going here DB, "open mouth,.... one foot out, other foot in". Don't bother trying, there's no second prizes

 

[Del Boy]

Ahh, I knew it would happen, you haven't learned a thing. You ran off, (remember FINITO BENITO), re considered your poor standing and came back agreeing with me.

Don't be so ridiculous. I Finitoed at a stage where I was most comfortable and was merely putting my part in the argument to bed, by not continuing to pick the bones out each others' posts.

However when Le's post appeared and you came again, I came back still in contention with you and pointing out where. No change in my case there.

And AFTER THAT I made a very full and detailed rebuttal of your next post and explained why , post 36. Why should you assume I could learn anything from you? Please.

You'll notice it was you who stated You see, you have left a written record of your agreement with my statement. So it is not "We" as I never agreed with a single thing you've said. I didn't then and don't now, because I believe that you have only "changed your coat to suit the weather".

Nonsense again. I never SOUGHT your agreement, I spelt out where it existed, no coat-changing whatsoever. See post 36. In pointing out that we were in agreement, I was NOT changing my opinion, but that our views on those particular points happenned to be same. On those you had been wrong in assuming that we were opposed. Read my posts. Our views just happened to be the same. No-one was changing position there, it was not necessary. As I pointed out, you are once again trying to put your words into my mouth. Where you see 'I agree with you' understand that I am politely trying to demonstrate that the opinion you happen to hold there is the opinion that happens to be mine. I was simply correcting your take on those points, not changing position.
Obviously I should have taken a bigger stick to make the point, I over-estimated your comprehension. I won't do it again.
Definitely no coat-changing there, and the weather doesn't bother me.

Never the less it surprises me that you would give in so easily when only confronted with something so simple as facts. That's not like you at all.

Well, if ever I 'give in' I will understand this comment - it hasn't happened yet! Post 36 is not capitulation, it is a repudiation of your claims, framed politely.
I had already gone through a full list of the details of your post, my post 36. pointing out the incorrectness of each, either because our views were not in opposition, as you were assuming or because I had something else to say in repudiation.

In all this list, I did not find it necessary to back-pedal at all. On some points we happenned to agree whether you like it or not.
However, at the end, feeling you had put such an effort into putting your case, I simply offered an honest olive branch, in an effort to take any personal animosity out of the situation.

No back-peddling involved there. But I see what a mistake it was to offer a genuine hand. I will not make that mistake again.

In case you've forgotten already,... I'm the one stating that the coalition is making a mess of things.

I forget nothing - and I am the one in support of the USA anti-terrorist efforts, I am more prepared to accept the line as laid by the USA rather than the complaints of their 'victims', at this stage of affairs.

On the other hand, you would have the Americans fight with their hands tied behind their backs.

No,... there is no way that I agree with anything you say on this matter.

Not true - post 36 shows precisely where we are in agreement and where we are not, and is there for all to see. I have made it clear there, not a question of your choice, just a statement of where my opinion matches your own, and has done so from the start, not in response to changed attitudes.

I can just see the judges at the war Crimes tribunal, when some poor defendant says, "No, honestly, it''s OK , it has Delboys "nod", along with torture other than, "the use of physical torture in the old previously recognised forms". Hoho.

More nonsensical tosh from the great man! I am sorry to have to be the one to tell, old chap, that that just ain't going to happen. But of course, yours is the only opinion which counts as your signature indicates.
BTW - have you never heard of the rack, drawing and quartering, the Inquisition practices, the Iron Maiden, the middle-eastern practice of hot-ironing people etc.etc.etc. - perhaps you and your friends cannot see the gap between those and the Coalition behaviour.

And furthermore - The Gitmo regime as being based on revenge. INFORMATION is the quest, and keeping dangerous murderers off the streets is another, until they have been measured. And yes - I do already know that you consider such information useless, but nevertheless.

You're getting a really nice routine going here DB, "open mouth,.... one foot out, other foot in". Don't bother trying, there's no second prizes

You are singing from the wrong hymn-sheet there, the lyrics are ... "'written word, on record, both feet in, take no b/s from inflated egos,
do not change course or give way to stone-throwing or personal abuse, and never seek prizes, stay above such low ideals." Good song.
You will find it on post 36, in detail, confirmed in my later friendly posts, where I honestly sought to heal any personal hurt I had inflicted inadvertantly.

As I have said so many times, with some folk, any compassion is interpreted as weakness.

Well ,thing again, Sir, I offered you my hand only through PITY, believe it or not.

I will never trust you with my hand again, you obviously have confused me with some other guy who doesn't give a s*** for honour.


Now , all that is yesterday's news - back on topic.

I stand on my position and have done so throughout. And now I'm off, unless dragged back in. gone fishin.