Summary.

You said (and I quote):
"If they get POW status, they don't have to give up any information about what they know. They can't be coerced to give it up."

Deny you said that, if you want to.

Our difference is that I'm applying the rules to the prisoners to determine what classification they fall under.

You're determining how you want to treat them, and then making claims about the prisoners to fit the rules that will allow you to treat them this way.

If they're POW's, they cannot be coerced.

You want to coerce them.

Therefore, you cannot stand to have them classified as POW's.

I don't believe that such was intended by the founders of this country.

But I do know that such was endorsed by Chairman Mao and practiced in just about every totalitarian society.

Freedom is rough.
Freedom isn't easy.

Your other quote:
"And if some poor misguided soul happens to get caught in the caterpillar tracks of justice rolling into town.....that's a shame....but I'm happy to pay that price."

Hey, you've got your political view and I have mine.

Something to think about, though. What's the difference between your view and the terrorists?

The ad hominem bullshit doesn't even get my time of day.

You think you have some clever and more noble "better way".
It makes a very heavy reliance on the premise that the US is detaining people
randomly and arbitrarily. You have not once produced a shred of evidence
of this.

I've explained to you the technical basis for why I don't
believe they qualify for POW status. I've explained to you why I don't
think they qualify on moral grounds either.

I've also tried to explain that the Geneva Convention was not envisaged to cover such people and has limitations. Yes I freely admit......limitations
in the light of what the U.S. govenment (and I) would like to achieve.
The Taliban probably don't view these as "limitations" at all. Such is life.

The thing you haven't addressed in ANY of the threads here is how you
propose to make distinctions between individuals based on only name, rank
and serial number. (And let's face it, they DON'T have an identification number
......do they?)

>>You're determining how you want to treat them, and then making claims about >>the prisoners to fit the rules that will allow you to treat them this way.
I would make claims about the prisoners such as
a) they were caught fighting
b) in a militia capacity
c) they have no identifying symbol
d) I don't believe they are entitled to POW status
e) I would very much like to interrogate them

>>If they're POW's, they cannot be coerced.
>>You want to coerce them.
Very much so

>>Therefore, you cannot stand to have them classified as POW's.
They don't satisfy the requirements for POW status. They just don't get it. Period. And I'm not sure you do.

>>I don't believe that such was intended by the founders of this country.
>>But I do know that such was endorsed by Chairman Mao and practiced in just >>about every totalitarian society.
Why go as far as chairman Mao? Lets start wih McCarthy right here. People's lives were destroyed for having an incorrect opinion.
You are too funny. And naive as all hell. You really need to climb off your
high horse. You would almost certainly throw yourself off it if you did an ounce
of research about what your own government gets up to.

"For four months I was heavily tortured by the Army in Rio de Janeiro, and then in the Naval Information Center.... Near death, I was taken to the hospital for the sixth time. The beatings had been so severe that my body was one big bruise. The blood clotted under my skin and all the hair on my body fell out. They pulled out all my fingernails. They poked needles through my sexual organs and used a rope to drag me across the floor by my testicles. Right afterwards they hung me upside down. They hung me handcuffed from a grating, removed my artificial leg, and tied my penis so l could not urinate. They forced me to stand on my one leg for three days without food or drink. They gave me so many drugs that my eardrums burst and I am impotent. They nailed my penis to a table for 24 hours. They tied me up like a pig and threw me into a pool so that I nearly drowned. They put me in a completely dark cell where I remained for 30 days urinating and defecating in the same place where I had to sleep. They fed me only bread soaked in water. They put me in a rubber box and turned on a siren. For three days I neither ate nor slept and I nearly went mad...."
-- Manuel de Conceicao, peasant leader in Brazil He was arrested in 1972 and brought before Brazilian security police who had been schooled at US army bases in the latest methods of counterinsurgency and interrogation.
[link|http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10069|http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10069]

Now.......I'm NOT saying that because it was done elsewhere its therefore okay
to go right ahead. I bring this up to point out your naivete in talking about what the "founding fathers" envisaged. What they envisaged has fuck all to do with how the western world has conducted itself this past couple of centuries.
They probably didn't envisage slavery, slaughter of the indians and the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations ....now did they?

I am saying that coercion of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay may be appropriate and necessary. Give them your claimed "automatic" POW status and that becomes
illegal. Now.... coercion could mean a ton of different things, ranging from unpleasant to horrible. I acknowledge this. Just like the entire campaign involved MANY unpleasant things in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and countless other places. But lets forget about coercion for a second...the fat is....POWs don't have to answer your questions beyond some very basic facts. This is a bad thing. The idea that we should back away now that we have CAUGHT some of them is just ridiculous. The idea that we can purge our souls and cleanse ourselves of any responsibility by suddenly deciding to go easy on hardened callous killers is a lame suggestion. While your prisoners will continue to exist free of threat in Guantanomo - the innocents in Afghanistan still live in fear of being bombed. Does that strike you as just?

>>Something to think about, though. What's the difference between your view and >>the terrorists?
I see where you are going with this. I have no problem saying that violence is sometimes justified. This is how the world is. We differ only in what we believe are causes important enough to justify violence.
Something to think about.......

Post #25,659 by Brandioch 1/25/02 12:03:16 AM Reply	Summary. "If they get POW status, they don't have to give up any information about what they know. They can't be coerced to give it up." I think that statement tells me all I need to know about your position. Say hello to Chairman Mao for me, will you?
Post #25,675 by Mike 1/25/02 8:41:35 AM Reply	Summary Part II "I don't like the way this debate is going on its details, so I'll resort to something facile." Say something intelligent. I know you can. -Mike --------Streak of batpiss---------
Post #25,740 by Brandioch 1/25/02 2:42:52 PM Reply	I think my above post was correct. You said (and I quote): "If they get POW status, they don't have to give up any information about what they know. They can't be coerced to give it up." Deny you said that, if you want to. Our difference is that I'm applying the rules to the prisoners to determine what classification they fall under. You're determining how you want to treat them, and then making claims about the prisoners to fit the rules that will allow you to treat them this way. If they're POW's, they cannot be coerced. You want to coerce them. Therefore, you cannot stand to have them classified as POW's. I don't believe that such was intended by the founders of this country. But I do know that such was endorsed by Chairman Mao and practiced in just about every totalitarian society. Freedom is rough. Freedom isn't easy. Your other quote: "And if some poor misguided soul happens to get caught in the caterpillar tracks of justice rolling into town.....that's a shame....but I'm happy to pay that price." Hey, you've got your political view and I have mine. Something to think about, though. What's the difference between your view and the terrorists?
Post #25,760 by Mike 1/25/02 4:31:01 PM Reply	No The ad hominem bullshit doesn't even get my time of day. You think you have some clever and more noble "better way". It makes a very heavy reliance on the premise that the US is detaining people randomly and arbitrarily. You have not once produced a shred of evidence of this. I've explained to you the technical basis for why I don't believe they qualify for POW status. I've explained to you why I don't think they qualify on moral grounds either. I've also tried to explain that the Geneva Convention was not envisaged to cover such people and has limitations. Yes I freely admit......limitations in the light of what the U.S. govenment (and I) would like to achieve. The Taliban probably don't view these as "limitations" at all. Such is life. The thing you haven't addressed in ANY of the threads here is how you propose to make distinctions between individuals based on only name, rank and serial number. (And let's face it, they DON'T have an identification number ......do they?) >>You're determining how you want to treat them, and then making claims about >>the prisoners to fit the rules that will allow you to treat them this way. I would make claims about the prisoners such as a) they were caught fighting b) in a militia capacity c) they have no identifying symbol d) I don't believe they are entitled to POW status e) I would very much like to interrogate them >>If they're POW's, they cannot be coerced. >>You want to coerce them. Very much so >>Therefore, you cannot stand to have them classified as POW's. They don't satisfy the requirements for POW status. They just don't get it. Period. And I'm not sure you do. >>I don't believe that such was intended by the founders of this country. >>But I do know that such was endorsed by Chairman Mao and practiced in just >>about every totalitarian society. Why go as far as chairman Mao? Lets start wih McCarthy right here. People's lives were destroyed for having an incorrect opinion. You are too funny. And naive as all hell. You really need to climb off your high horse. You would almost certainly throw yourself off it if you did an ounce of research about what your own government gets up to. "For four months I was heavily tortured by the Army in Rio de Janeiro, and then in the Naval Information Center.... Near death, I was taken to the hospital for the sixth time. The beatings had been so severe that my body was one big bruise. The blood clotted under my skin and all the hair on my body fell out. They pulled out all my fingernails. They poked needles through my sexual organs and used a rope to drag me across the floor by my testicles. Right afterwards they hung me upside down. They hung me handcuffed from a grating, removed my artificial leg, and tied my penis so l could not urinate. They forced me to stand on my one leg for three days without food or drink. They gave me so many drugs that my eardrums burst and I am impotent. They nailed my penis to a table for 24 hours. They tied me up like a pig and threw me into a pool so that I nearly drowned. They put me in a completely dark cell where I remained for 30 days urinating and defecating in the same place where I had to sleep. They fed me only bread soaked in water. They put me in a rubber box and turned on a siren. For three days I neither ate nor slept and I nearly went mad...." -- Manuel de Conceicao, peasant leader in Brazil He was arrested in 1972 and brought before Brazilian security police who had been schooled at US army bases in the latest methods of counterinsurgency and interrogation. [link\|http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10069\|http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10069] Now.......I'm NOT saying that because it was done elsewhere its therefore okay to go right ahead. I bring this up to point out your naivete in talking about what the "founding fathers" envisaged. What they envisaged has fuck all to do with how the western world has conducted itself this past couple of centuries. They probably didn't envisage slavery, slaughter of the indians and the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations ....now did they? I am saying that coercion of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay may be appropriate and necessary. Give them your claimed "automatic" POW status and that becomes illegal. Now.... coercion could mean a ton of different things, ranging from unpleasant to horrible. I acknowledge this. Just like the entire campaign involved MANY unpleasant things in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and countless other places. But lets forget about coercion for a second...the fat is....POWs don't have to answer your questions beyond some very basic facts. This is a bad thing. The idea that we should back away now that we have CAUGHT some of them is just ridiculous. The idea that we can purge our souls and cleanse ourselves of any responsibility by suddenly deciding to go easy on hardened callous killers is a lame suggestion. While your prisoners will continue to exist free of threat in Guantanomo - the innocents in Afghanistan still live in fear of being bombed. Does that strike you as just? >>Something to think about, though. What's the difference between your view and >>the terrorists? I see where you are going with this. I have no problem saying that violence is sometimes justified. This is how the world is. We differ only in what we believe are causes important enough to justify violence. Something to think about....... --------Streak of batpiss---------
Post #25,765 by Brandioch 1/25/02 4:50:19 PM Reply	Yes. You said it. I quoted it. You can attempt to rationalize it any way you want. Coerce == coerce. Feel free to attempt to rationalize away.
Post #25,772 by Mike 1/25/02 5:11:19 PM 1/25/02 5:11:39 PM Reply	We're all done You >>If they're POW's, they cannot be coerced. You >>You want to coerce them. Me >>Very much so What don't you get? You didn't address a single point I made. Say something new, otherwise I think we are all done here. --------Streak of batpiss--------- Edited by Mike Jan. 25, 2002, 05:11:39 PM EST Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!