All valid points

Post #267,913 by bepatient 9/18/06 9:27:22 AM Reply	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 Reply	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 Reply	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 Reply	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 Reply	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!