Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/10/07 08:14 PM, Elfer wrote:
So you're saying that anyone who has been captured by US forces is definitely guilty of torture,

No.

and that torture is somehow a justifiable form of punishment?

In certain cases yes. What's wrong with torturing people who deserve to be tortured?

Yeah, and the second (of three) was our support of Israel. This Bin Laden "just hates freedom" position is bull. Because of all the democratic nations in the world, very few have been hit. In fact, Al-Qaeda has only hit specific countries, like the US and UK.

In all fairness palestine attacks Isreal even when it's not attacking Palestine. We can't let fanatical terrorists stop us from doing what we think should be done.

How bout.....we FINISH THE JOB!? Everything I've heard says he's probably in Pakistan. How bout we go into Pakistan and GET the motherfucker? Instead of bullshitting around with Iraq, Iran, and other countries?

I agree, we should.

Did we just give up after that? Looks like it, cause he's still at large.

Didn't, but we didn't, try hard enough either. In fact, we still have yet to.

Because it's TORTURE.

That's not a reason why it isn't sometimes suitable as a punishment.

This isn't 1157. It's 2007

Neither is that. It matters not the year it is, a suitable punishment in 1157 is a suitable punishment in 2007. Time has no effect on what punishment should be administered.

I thought we were supposed to be more civilized?

That doesn't suffice either. I don't want to see sick fucks not get what they deserve just because people will argue it isn't, "civilized."

Torture is not a means of punishment. It's a means of inhumane treatment.

No, it can be inhumane, it is not such if it is done to people who deserve it.

Sure why not? Let's allow electric shock to the balls, the Rack, and all the other little nasties of yore while we're at it.

I don't see why not.

I'm talking more towards our actions since Afghanistan.

We've lost no allies over Iraq, but I do agree it was a bbad idea nonetheless.

I'm not the one making speeches about Axis of Evil, how vile Saddam was, how Iran don't have civil liberties, and how Osama hates freedom.

If I was in charge, believe me, I wouldn't be making this a moral war.

I think that stuff was bad too for the record.

---

At 12/10/07 10:47 PM, therealsylvos wrote: o.k. Hypothetical example.
Lets say we have OBL. We know he's got an atom bomb somewhere NYC and it will go off in 3 hours if we don't find it and disable it. Are you really going to tell me, that you would be opposed to torturing him for the location of the Bomb?

So, do we also have the intuition of Jack Bauer? Because if not, you're still not going to get the information you need.

---

At 12/10/07 10:47 PM, JerkClock wrote:
In all fairness palestine attacks Isreal even when it's not attacking Palestine. We can't let fanatical terrorists stop us from doing what we think should be done.

I believe Israel can handle itself quite nicely without our help. I see a difference in letting terrorists stop us and us doing stupid pointless things to piss off people.

as for the rest: I think we're in a general agreement except over one issue, and that's the use of torture.

I don't necessarily know if I can convince you it should be banned entirely, and I can guarantee you won't convince me it's justifiable (I'm stubborn like that).....sooo......I think we've reached a dead end here.

---

At 12/11/07 12:22 AM, Imperator wrote:

I believe Israel can handle itself quite nicely without our help. I see a difference in letting terrorists stop us and us doing stupid pointless things to piss off people.

Right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help minimize their casualties.

---

At 12/10/07 10:47 PM, JerkClock wrote:

No, it can be inhumane, it is not such if it is done to people who deserve it.

Ok this is where the lines become blurry. Who deserves torture? Who is able to decide? Under what authority? And when does it stop? I think it is nearly impossible to draw a recognizable line with torture.

---

At 12/11/07 12:11 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

Ok this is where the lines become blurry. Who deserves torture? Who is able to decide? Under what authority? And when does it stop? I think it is nearly impossible to draw a recognizable line with torture.

No system is perfect, but with competant rule it can be applied fairly at least.

---

At 12/11/07 12:11 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

Ok this is where the lines become blurry. Who deserves torture? Who is able to decide? Under what authority? And when does it stop? I think it is nearly impossible to draw a recognizable line with torture.

Pretty soon i'm sure liberals will even call yelling at someone as "emotional torture".

---

At 12/10/07 01:43 AM, Memorize wrote: Democrats? Bringing up morality?

*chuckles*

It's smug, holier than thou bullshit like this that is ruining debate in America.

---

At 12/10/07 05:25 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/10/07 04:03 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
If you are gonna keep it literal, it means "the people's rule", not "rule by the people". If you are gonna be literal, only direct democracy is democracy, and every single individual would get the right to vote.

Which still means it has nothing to do with civil or economic rights, which was my point. You missed said point, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

Well then, but I hope you're aint gonna claim America or any other western country a democracy in some other thread then.
Also, you said that elections is the only thing needed for democracy, which was what I countered. You don't only need elections, you need elections for everything (if you're just going to use the word letter by letter).

How do you know they deserve it if they get it before facing trial?

If they were found to be in Al Qeada and captured as such they were trying to kill our soldiers who witnessed being shot at by them etc. Then we certainly don't need to release them. Only our soldiers can truly know, yes, but calling for trials isn't going to make things any better. It'll just allow lawyers to get real Al Qeada operatives free, I'm not going to want to live with the possibility of being by released Al Qeada killed because some idiots are too stubborn to accept that maybe our soldiers know the enemy that's shooting at them.

By denying them fair trials with the argument that "hey, our soldiers saw them do stuff!" while at the same time paying civilians in Iraq for handing over people they think is associated with Al-Qaeda, you do seem quite hypocritical. Especially when using Saddam's neglect of human rights as a reason for going to war.

It's like killing someone and saying "You don't know that he wasn't gonna hurt me! It's self-defence!"

No that's just your low IQ speaking. What I was saying is we, not being the captures or releasers have little to no info on the subject. What you are saying is that noting such is justifying killing people for no reason and taking a "guilty until proven innocent" stance which is idiotic at best. You really shouldn't talk out of your ass like that.

But we DO have info. Of course it could all be lies, but so could the soldiers claims be. There are lots of testimonies and wittnesses.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset /9ca4e5c4-a2cd-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/am r510512007en.html

So it's more important to kill the ones you don't like than to protect the ones you like?

Where the fuck did I say that? Where? I did not. I said we retaliate against those who do attack us, I said nothing about importance of killing over protecting.

You said that retaliation should take place regardless of that the result may be that more enemies may come and as such, more american deaths may very well be the result.

But they should always get the HUMAN RIGHTS.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html
These rights should be NON-NEGOTIABLE. Everyone have them automatically by being a Homo Sapiens. They shouldn't be denied anybody, yet they are.

That's a non-sequitur. I could define the right to be shot in the head as a "human right" and use that to say that every "homo-sapien" should be shot in the head, it won't make it so.

That is what you are doing here, playing semantics with the word "human" and arguing anything defined as "human" rights should be applied to all "humans" without an actual reason.

Now, this isn't a list I wrote at home. This IS the UN declaration of human rights, a declaration America was a great part of once. America was actually the driving force when it came to civil and political rights, and this declaration has been accepted by most countries in the world, and nearly every western country (the US being the main exception, although you have said before that you accept it).

---

At 12/11/07 12:11 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

At 12/10/07 10:47 PM, JerkClock wrote:

No, it can be inhumane, it is not such if it is done to people who deserve it.

Ok this is where the lines become blurry. Who deserves torture? Who is able to decide? Under what authority? And when does it stop? I think it is nearly impossible to draw a recognizable line with torture.

Actually, it's quite easy. The "UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment" is quite clear, and that convention has been ratified by the US. Nowadays, however, nobody really gives a shit.

---

At 12/11/07 05:58 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
Also, you said that elections is the only thing needed for democracy, which was what I countered. You don't only need elections, you need elections for everything (if you're just going to use the word letter by letter).

That wasn't really the point though, just that it had nothing to do with being free, which is true.

By denying them fair trials with the argument that "hey, our soldiers saw them do stuff!" while at the same time paying civilians in Iraq for handing over people they think is associated with Al-Qaeda, you do seem quite hypocritical. Especially when using Saddam's neglect of human rights as a reason for going to war.

The POW capture system isn't perfect and never was. But consider the alternative; allowing people who want to kill us to lawyer their way around and get free when captured. I think that's much worse, and I don't exactly feel like putting up with that bullshit because people wanna say they think some people are captured unfairly.

But we DO have info. Of course it could all be lies, but so could the soldiers claims be. There are lots of testimonies and wittnesses.

I'm sure there are, but why should we start wasting even more of our tax dollars than we do already to prosecute people who were captured while shooting at our soldiers on the battlefield? It doesn't really make sense.

You said that retaliation should take place regardless of that the result may be that more enemies may come and as such, more american deaths may very well be the result.

What I said is you can't be swayed by the fact that going after people who want to kill you will sometimes make others take their place in anger. Didn't say we shouldn't focus on both defense and offense.

Now, this isn't a list I wrote at home. This IS the UN declaration of human rights,

Right, but just because the UN says it doesn't mean it is absolute truth.

---

At 12/11/07 07:56 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/11/07 05:58 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

I'm sure there are, but why should we start wasting even more of our tax dollars than we do already to prosecute people who were captured while shooting at our soldiers on the battlefield? It doesn't really make sense.

Because, most times we don't capture insurgents red handed, as with weapons of some kind( usually because there already dead or they have already left), so there are chances of us, you know, grabbing pottentialy innocent people.

Not to get in between your arguments of course and upset you guys.

---

At 12/12/07 10:12 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Because, most times we don't capture insurgents red handed, as with weapons of some kind( usually because there already dead or they have already left), so there are chances of us, you know, grabbing pottentialy innocent people.

Not to get in between your arguments of course and upset you guys.

Wouldn't that mean that we should do more to ensure we're NOT treating potentially innocent people harshly? I mean, if there's a good chance they can be innocent, why are we holding a lot of these people without bail, charge, or trial for so long?

From what I've seen, a lot of them aren't even citizens of the countries in the area. And releasing Brits after so long, Canadians, French, Germans, and whoever else we've got CAN'T be good for PR.....

Welcome back btw. :)