I for one find comfort in the knowledge that there are so many different organizations dedicated to documenting human rights and geneva convention abuses.

I expect a blistering condemnation any day from ... well, I guess I dont expect much.

Of course human rights advocates are outraged - and there is plenty of documentation of the various abuses by Iran and other Muslim countries..
See.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-2md/index

for example...

So - if I understand what you are saying Princella - is that it is horrible to torture people and use inhumane interrogation techniques to extract information from captives?
So you would agree that the way the captives are being held in Guitmo is horrible as well?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-050407-feature-eng

KB, why did you turn this into an attack on us? Is that the way you see the world?

Are uniformed members of a nations military doing ship inspections the same in your eyes as ununiformed murderers of children? Are forced false public statements the same as operational informationm that saves lives? Please, just define your parameters so we know how to take your posts.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, talk, reason, sit down, shake hands, are you kidding?
The Iranian move in the direction that most benefited his government and to the life of me I can't understand why the British allowed this to happen. It didn't have to.
The world must stand against the mad-men of the world. Ahmadinejad, (mad) that's the word for the day. This is a madman who cares NOTHING for Americans, Britains, Jews, etc.
He wants to push and suppress those who don't follow their ideologies,and governmental thinking.
America and Britain and Israel must be aware of this man.
Listen to President George Bush. He knows and care about the security of the American people.

Kahn -
Its not an attack - its a simple question.

To answer your question - I don't believe that the morality of an act depends on if you are or which uniform you wear. It depends on the action. Murders of children are deplorable period. Its hard to answer your question about "public statements" without having the answer taken the wrong way - torture is not acceptable no matter what the reason. The ends cannot justify the means.

Of course - the reason that that you see people here take issue with the way we treat people so much is precisely because it is "us" that is taking that action. It makes me even more irate when it is done in the name of my country. We have a much better chance of changing the way our country acts than we do on how everyone else in the world does...

So many people in the world have the least foggy idea of what torture is.
Want History? Go back to Roman times.
Go back to the Dark Ages. Go back to the early
French ages.
Pulling a body limb to limb with horses would probably be called torture to those sanely thinking.
To drip water between ones eyes, torture?
I don't think so, only in the minds of those who are from JUPITER,MARS.........
Lord help us.

So you would agree that the way the captives are being held in Guitmo is horrible as well?

I would agree that the propaganda you're fed about Git'mo is horrible, and that it's horrible that a sorry excuse for a human being such as yourself believes the propaganda.

And WTF is "Guitmo," you senseless turd?

To all my fellow conservatives and non-kook moderates, I'm sorry for being so offensive, but kblack, Whisper, tomjeff, and several other pig-faced bags of rat guts who troll here are the most sickening America has to offer, and I'm sick of them polluting this blog with their unpatriotic, hate/blame-America rhetoric. They are totally uninformed, totally brainwashed, and should all be banned. You'd think that after their sorry-ass party won the last election, that they'd calm down a bit. But they've gotten worse.

It's never gonna end, this divide, as long as kooks walk the earth...

I'm sorry for being so offensive, but kblack, Whisper, tomjeff, and several other pig-faced bags of rat guts who troll here are the most sickening America has to offer

Ahh, yes, happy Easter, folks. SO glad that Keefer could demonstrate the finer points of Christian tolerance and the ability to reason without name calling. Evidently he speaks for all his "fellow conservatives" when he chooses his words.

Myself, I will go with the motto of the BBC:

"Nation shall speak peace unto nation"

KB - So what about the "morality" of the Iranians who took the Brits from Iraqi waters? Since we were not actually involved, why not stick to the incident itself and not draw in past actions of other parties? That is a good way to get to the bottom of things.

Oh - and nice shift. Morality vs. legality. In the case of "morality" torture, maiming, and death are clearly acceptable. An eye for an eye. ya see "morality" is not defined, while "legality is.

No reason to apologize to me Keefer....I agree. Although not as wittingly as you sometimes.

I look at the kooks as ammunition to defend our position. They're quite comical these days.

keefer, I just returned from my sisters wedding in western Mass (Northampton). It is the epitomy of kooky wacky thinking.

It would be funny if it wasn't so hate filled. I mean really really (dare I say it) Nazi-like hate. They hate conservatives, they hate Republicans, they HATE George Bush. I wonder when they'll want us to sew yellow elephants on our coats so they can identify us easier?

BTW, kblack, we don't need any more reports from AI on conditions at Git'mo. AI is a far-left, socialist group that hates America. Sort of like yourself, asshat...

keefer, I just returned from my sisters wedding in western Mass (Northampton). It is the epitomy of kooky wacky thinking.

Posted by: Kahn at April 8, 2007 08:54 PM

Scary as this may be for you, Kahn, what you saw in Northampton is just the tip of the iceberg. That kooky wacky thinking is sprouting up all over the country. The number of Bush loyalists is steadily declining and if you are honest with yourself, you probably would like to be included with those who have made the decision to think for themselves and not be some mindless robot spouting the party line.

CO - So, you're already making conservatives wear patches up there? Still underfunding your military and relying on us, aren't you?

CO, Northampton hold "anti-Columbus Day" rallies. Being straight is considered homophobic. And hammers and scicles abound. Is that how you think the rest of the US is?

Have YOU travelled much CO?

spelling, oh well.

wow - such vitriolic hatred exposes its self quiet easily doesn't it keefer?

I simply made the assertion that we should reject the use of torture EVERYWHERE and support human rights. And because of that - I get called a list of "bad words" as well as anti-american. I'm sorry keefer - but if you disagree with my rebut of torture - that makes YOU anti-american.

Amnesty international a far left socialist organization? Have you ever learned one thing about it besides what Ann Coulter, Rush, or some other tool on Fox news told you? The ONLY purpose of AI is to support human rights every where they are challenged.

I would suggest that you think about the "american" values that you supposedly support. Think about it carefully and do your research before you spout such hateful, ignorant, and imbecilic words...

KB, but since so many of the left reject "Christian Values", upon what moral system do you base these argumnets? In fact, I would argue that torture is itself a difficult word to define. How and where and to what degree harsh treatment might be apprporiate is by no means standard anywhere.

"Torture" is acceptable in almost all of Asia, in almost all of Africa, and almost all of South America. Muslims are apparently OK with it. Now - in most of THESE places "torture" wears its worst face: physical beatings, burning, electric shocks to the genitals, testing of biological weapons, starvation, mayhem, and execution. EVERY nation we have fought outside of Europe in the last 100 years ignored the Geneava Conventions in regard to uniformed military (to whom they apply). Even in Europe ununiformed spies and terrorists were summarily executed. Hell, the United States summarily executed Americans who were suspected of being Confederat agents without trial. The Germans and Russians slaughtered millions of their own people.

So - since you brought it up, made assumptions about our standards, and condemned them (with little or no facts) - just what exact practises do YOU think we do that are "immoral"? What moral standards do you apply? Christian? (Willing to condemn abortion then?) And, under what if any conventions are these acts illegal?

KB, but since so many of the left reject "Christian Values", upon what moral system do you base these argumnets?

Posted by: Kahn at April 9, 2007 12:30 AM

So, Kahn, the left rejects 'Christian Values' and deplores torture, while on the other hand, the right embraces 'Christian Values' and yet sanctions torture. Interesting moral system you have there.

I am completely stunned by the obtuseness of that argument Kahn. It is completely silly that all I will say is that torture is wrong. If I need to explain it any more than that - I think you need to examine your system of morals and beliefs...

I am completely stunned by the obtuseness of that argument Kahn. It is so completely silly that all I will say is that torture is wrong. If I need to explain it any more than that - I think you need to examine your system of morals and beliefs...

Sorry - I did NOT say I condoned torture. But welcome to debate 101. You say, "torture" is immoral. I say, define "torture" and define the "morals system" you are using.

If you reject "Christian values" in regards to abortion - how can you then use them to condemn "torture". And you have not defined torture.

For the record, I do not buy into the religous arguments about abortion. But I still condemn it. I do not condone "torture", but I may define it differently than you do. If your thoughts are not clear enough on these matters, perhaps you should refrain from posting until you're not talking out your ass.

Kahn - I didn't say that you did. I simply rejected your entire hypothesis on the basis that
a) the "left" does not reject Christian values
-thats a gross categorization of a huge range of peoples political and religious beliefs

b) that if I reject one part of a system of values that I have to reject all of them
- if i disagree with one American law does that mean I have to reject all American laws? clearly not

c) that "Christian" values can even be whitewashed into one single set of beliefs - its a spectrum

d) that I need to defend my sense of morality to you

e) that this has anything to do with the question at hand...

None the less - I will pretty much stick to the golden rule as the basis of my system of ethics. That is due on to others as you would have them do on to you...

kblack - YOU injected this discussion into a string about the Britisg Sailors.

But as to what you said: "do (corrected spelling) on to others as you would have them do on to you..." Fair enough.

Maybe these people should have run Abu Grab?
http://www.bondage-bdsm-sex.net/femdom-bimbo-stories.html (warning, sick wacko web site)

There are people who would pay to be treated worse than we have treated our prisoners. You accuse US of torture, but when pressed you refuse to define it. You call our actions immoral, but when pressed refuse to define your standards.

It is hard to argue with someone who has no defined argument and no standards.

ah Kahn.. seems you have quite interesting tastes...

its very similar to the judge who said
"i can't define pornography but I know it when I see it"..

Its hard of course to give an exact definition. However, you can give general guidelines - AND there are - see Geneva Conventions,

"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."

which is about as good a definition as you can get. Of course - I haven't been to Gitmo - so I can't say what is going on from a personal experience. However, I find it extremely disturbing that
a) essentially every human rights organization that has gathered information or visited condemns the practices
b) almost every person released has complained of conditions and practices which conflict with the above definition
c) the administration does not deny this - they simply say they have the right to "define" it and call the Geneva conventions outdated and quaint..

So calling it completely unjustified accusations is simply not true

Hey - I just did a search. Not too hard to find that crap. FYI - THOSE pictures would get a US soldier or Marine 20 or 40 years in prison.

"severe pain or suffering" so, what is severe? Really. THEY do fake executions, beatings, and beheadings. So.... should we use THEIR standards?

And, we know that Al Qeada manuals tell its operatives to claim torture even if none occured. So, who can be trusted?

What civil rights organizations you speak of even went there? Seems to me most of the condemnation occured in the absence of facts. Also, those conventions do not apply to ununiformed murderers of civillians.

Oh, by the way.... does your post read to you like the Abu Grab stuff might of actually been legal? I mean, if it was just for pure sadistic entertainment and not for any particular goal I don't think its covered. Not my position - just reading it like a defense lawyer...