No

Post #267,903

9/18/06 8:42:48 AM

but I don't have to worry about being prosecuted nor having my employees prosecuted based on someones definition of humiliating or degrading. And the point earlier, ridiculous as it may seem, still stands. Does Sadam not being afforded 5 star accomodation reach the point of humiliating? Who decides?

The fact that we've become a headhunter culture for politicians, celebrities and the like means simply that they've got to think of these things not only in the vaguarity of simply "we, the people" but also in the very specific me and mine. This is why I've stated repeatedly that I understand the "need".

Personally, I'm more of an eye for eye person. If we catch the guys that stood on video and beheaded a captive...I'd stand them in front of the camera and do it back...only slower.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,906

by imric

9/18/06 8:59:26 AM

No, it doesn't.

The point does NOT stand.

Especially that one.

So - NOT providing luxury is abuse? Nonsense. Using that as an argument for providing a framework for 'acceptable' coercive abuse? Ridiculous.

There is no part of this thing that is not evil.

That politicians want to be able to do it and not get in trouble for it is a measure of just how bad it is.

There is no excuse. There is no reason. Your statements are along the lines of "Well, since we gotta have abuse, we have to protect the people ordering it"

We do NOT have to have abuse.

We do NOT have to protect the bastards ordering it.

We do NOT have to fall to the level of our enemies to oppose them.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #267,913

by bepatient

9/18/06 9:27:22 AM

All valid points

but again, no one has given any defintion of what techniques are being discussed.

And Sadam was a head of state? Making him stay in a 10 by 10 would be, for some, humiliating. Yes it is a "stretch"...but it is not out of legal bounds in the current writing. Depending on culture, sticking a rubber glove up someone's tail may be considered degrading. Again, not protected in current writing.

So you keep insisting that I support torture or at least the protection of those ordering same...when all I continue to do is provide examples of where being nice to someone could still land those who are responsible in jail for doing nothing, hence understanding WHY they desire said cover and why it may be necessary. If for any other reason, removing the gray that allows GWB to come on TV and say "we had lawyers review what we did and it was legal"

My take.

Should the US CIA use waterboarding to gain info?

No.

Should they cut off fingers?

No.

Should they strip guys and stick them in a meat locker?

No.

Ok??

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,917

by Another Scott

9/18/06 10:38:43 AM

Please quote what you're responding to.

You've said (above) that I'm wrong about my characterization of your posts, but you haven't done it with specificity. It seems to me that, in this reply, you're arguing that the law needs to be clarified, but you said that I'm wrong in that characterization.

Please lead me along step by step, because I still don't see where I'm wrong about what you're saying.

Or, just let this thread die and we'll try another day as we seem to be going round and round at the moment.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #267,927

by bepatient

9/18/06 11:49:06 AM

Your problem is with who you attribute the desire.

I >personally< don't care and >personally< find the need for this troubling. I also >personally< disagree with nearly all of the evidence rules proposed for tribunals.

I do, however, understand the administrations needs. Why the dichotomy? Because I don't anticipate ever being in a position ot be prosecuted based on vague language. Those in power have a completely different set of requirements than I, because they ARE in that position.

So, in short, I don't think it necessary, but I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE of those who do.

If, in my position as a manager, I find myself in a position where my subordinates could be fired/jailed/reprimanded for >doing their job<..based on legal language that lacks specificity...I would likely AT LEAST MAKE THE ATTEMPT...to clarify the language before giving up altogether.

That is my point.

And some of the techniques used, though questionable, I do not think qualify as degrading or humiliating. Waterboarding is not one of those techniques. I believe that to be across the line...but >thinking< this and >prosecuting< this are separate. Which is why I keep giving the silly examples that I do. Someone, somewhere may think differently than we do...so applying those types of standards is inherently troubling, maybe not as troubling as the fact we are asking to make them ok, but troubling none the less.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #267,962

by jbrabeck

9/18/06 1:39:38 PM

That's what I was trying to say

back here [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=267898|267898] when I said I thought we had missed your point. I didn't think it was YOUR opinion you were arguing, but you understood WHY it was being suggested.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)

Post #267,963

by bepatient

9/18/06 1:45:44 PM

And my response was affirmative to you

a negative affirmative, anyway ;-)

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Welcome to IWETHEY!