[Otal Nimrodi]

Precisely. It is unrealistic. Which is WHY I used it as an example.

Rarely, however, does life imitate art in that respect, and rarely will torture garner useful information.

See? If situations in 24 practically NEVER occur naturally, and one should only implement torture in situations such as in 24...

This post has been edited by Otal Nimrodi: 04 January 2008 - 05:20 PM

[Snake Logan]

Precisely. It is unrealistic. Which is WHY I used it as an example.
See? If situations in 24 practically NEVER occur naturally, and one should only implement torture in situations such as in 24...

Then I agree with you. You should be happy since it is hard for me to agree with anything.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Wow. We agree on something. This is a historic day.

[Snake Logan]

Yes.

[J m HofMarN]

Batista’s soldiers were locals who fought for Cuba. Hicks betrayed his native land, Australia in order to fight in a foreign army that has nothing to do with Australia. I don’t care what foreign army he fought in, it wasn’t Australian. He is a traitor and deserves the worst.

So people who torture other folks are lower down on your moral thermometer than people who wonder off and join a foreign army? Your moral perspective is tragically skewed I think. I think people who commit torture under the protection of their government are more traitorous than people who go to risk their lives for what they believe. I respect people who join battles because even if they're on the wrong side they at least have some degree of courage (although the difference in guts between a poorly armed and supplied rebel and a body armored airstrike calling multi futuristic weapon toting US soldier is fairly apparent)

What you call Islamic fascism is actually not Islamic National Socialism, but just plain Islamic Nationalism. It's a natural reaction to the blight that is imperialism and neo colonialism.

International law? The same law that says that Hicks has no rights as a POW because he is classified as a mercenary? Is that the law you are agreeing with?

- you

By Australian AND US law David Hicks is legally innocent.

- me

Last I checked Australia and the US were not international entities. And since when does international law negate national law. If I'm the UN and I say torture is super nice and should be implemented on prisoners every thursday in full public view, then that's only a reccomendation to the member countries of the UN. I can't order any nation to change their laws without a UN vote on that direct issue. Therefore if I have someone in my custody in the US from outside the US I have to follow national law and international law. So if international law says I can torture them, and national law says I can't, I cant torture them.

In other words I national and international law must both allow torture for it to be even remotely legal, and in this case the charges should be inadmissible in both Australia (where it's a national matter since he's a citizen) and the US (where its a national matter since he's in government custody) international law protects internationals in the custody of a government othber than their own and sets mimimums of decent treatment. Individual governemnts may offer greater protections, but they cannot go under the bare minimum limit set by Geneva

So since Bush thought he was doing the right thing, all the more power to him?

Ah a curious reversal, but not a very apt comparison. The fighters on the ground risk a lot, but Bush risks nothing when he sends men to slaugher women and children in the name of his profit. He risks nothing when he orders better men then himself to be tortured or disappeared. How is one to prove they are doing what they believe to be right if they refuse to sacrifice or take risks?

Actually it isn’t. It doesn’t matter why the ‘common man’ is fighting in Afghanistan, the Taliban leaders there are exploiting them to achieve an Islamic state. Thus whatever the reason they think they are fighting for, in the end they are fighting for an Islamic state.

It doesnt matter that the US created the situation that led to Al Qaeda's prominence? How then do you posit to stop islamic nationalism without addressing the root causes? I'd very much like to know.

Muslims are not a race nor are they a social class. How does any Islamic Fascist leaders compare to the leaders of black American awareness movements or South American socialist movements?

1: They're willing to die to stop imperialism.
2: All 3 movements are fueled by peoples dissafection with the neo colonialist entity.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Ah a curious reversal, but not a very apt comparison. The fighters on the ground risk a lot, but Bush risks nothing when he sends men to slaugher women and children in the name of his profit. He risks nothing when he orders better men then himself to be tortured or disappeared. How is one to prove they are doing what they believe to be right if they refuse to sacrifice or take risks?

I don't get this logic. Someone can only do what they believe if they can prove that they're doing what they believe is right?

[J m HofMarN]

Everyone mentioning the doing what they think is right deal - I clarified in my post to Logan.

I was not denying self-sacrifice in Islam. I was saying it was present, and the reason for it isn't seventy-two virgins.

A good point. Like I said self sacrifice is inherent to any successful struggle, and to just about all religions. Isn't it odd how Muslims and Catholics both have the same word for martyr? And that Jesus martyred himself for what he believed in? Didn't the Jews get pissed at him because he went quietely instead of dying in battle against the Romans? Isn't dying in battle against occupyers exactly what a lot of Islamic Jyhad fighters are doing right now?

In situations such as portrayed on the afore mentioned TV show 24, where knowledge needed to stop a plot is only attainable via torture, then it should be implemented. Rarely, however, does life imitate art in that respect, and rarely will torture garner useful information.

Nonsense Spoon. We've gotten perfectly actionalbe intelligence from torturing people. For instance, when we were told byKhaleid Sheikh Muhammad Iraq had WMDs and links to terrorists, and intended to give those WMDs to terrorists, it was because we tortured until he admitted that. Now, the intelligence may not have been TRUE, but it surely was actionable intelligence.

If you don’t know what a traitor is then it is a person who forgets about his country to fight a war that has nothing to do with his or her country.

A list of traitors:

All German soldiers who sided with the rebels in the war of independence.
Che Guevara
Ernest Hemingway and every member of the International brigade serving the Spanish loyalists.
Me. (I officially sent an offer to join te Palestinian struggle a few years back, so I suppose I'm only half traitor for now)
And let me tell you something, you have no place calling members of the International Brigades traitors. Most of those men were willing to give their lives to fight fascism in Spain and then went on to join the proper US army to fight fascism in Germany, despite being "traitors"

Now let me give you a quote from Martin Luther King: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Now, if one sees injustice in another nation, should they not move to stop it even if their government won't do so or is a party to said injustice? I think so. International solidarity is an important part of socialism.

And so it should only be implemented as a punishment.

Ah way to take the moral high ground, [self censoring, but there'd be a four letter word proceded by face or head or probably another four letter word here] "You can torture people, but only if they're guilty" Do you have ANY idea how falacious that is? As soon as you authorize people to torture those who are guilty, you authorize torture of anyone because anyone will admit they're fugging guilty if you torture them enough!

[J m HofMarN]

Otal- What I was saying was that David Hicks going to risk his life for the Taliban seems to be more of a principled decision than George Bush ordering a hundred thousand Americans to go blow up Iraq from behind a desk. I'm not saying that a war ordered by a civilian leader is inherently lacking in moral gravitas, I'm just saying that comparing Bush dragging the country along into war and whipping up a mad phobia of Iraqoterrorism is not comparable to David Hicks, or for that matter and American soldier going to risk his life in a war.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Risking one's life doesn't make one's decision more principled.

It may mean one has backed it up more strongly. But what, exactly, do you suppose would happen if Bush decided to join up in Iraq. If the civilian leader of the country were to get killed in a roadside bombing? Anti-Islamic fervor would reach unheard-of heights.

[Snake Logan]

So people who torture other folks are lower down on your moral thermometer than people who wonder off and join a foreign army? Your moral perspective is tragically skewed I think. I think people who commit torture under the protection of their government are more traitorous than people who go to risk their lives for what they believe. I respect people who join battles because even if they're on the wrong side they at least have some degree of courage (although the difference in guts between a poorly armed and supplied rebel and a body armored airstrike calling multi futuristic weapon toting US soldier is fairly apparent)

How do you know that Hicks didn’t torture people? How do you know that every single soldier under Batista’s command tortured people? If he really wanted to make a dent to America then he should have taken the fight to American soil. What does killing Americans in Afghanistan do to America? Nothing. Anyone who believes it does anything is either naïve or an idiot.

What you call Islamic fascism is actually not Islamic National Socialism, but just plain Islamic Nationalism. It's a natural reaction to the blight that is imperialism and neo colonialism.

Not quite. Both National Socialism and Islamic/Clerical Fascism are internationalist movements. National Socialists fight for their race, not their country. Clerical Fascists fight for their religion, not their country. Nationalists fight for their country. Last time I checked, the Taliban leaders were preaching Jihad, not national liberation.

- you
- me

Australian law? Hicks wasn’t on trail in Australia to my knowledge and Hicks was not on American soil so American law doesn’t apply to him.

Last I checked Australia and the US were not international entities. And since when does international law negate national law. If I'm the UN and I say torture is super nice and should be implemented on prisoners every thursday in full public view, then that's only a reccomendation to the member countries of the UN. I can't order any nation to change their laws without a UN vote on that direct issue. Therefore if I have someone in my custody in the US from outside the US I have to follow national law and international law. So if international law says I can torture them, and national law says I can't, I cant torture them.

I never condoned Australia’s position in Afghanistan or Iraq. I may have condoned America’s position in Afghanistan, I am unable to remember. Australia has no reason to be in Afghanistan.

In other words I national and international law must both allow torture for it to be even remotely legal, and in this case the charges should be inadmissible in both Australia (where it's a national matter since he's a citizen) and the US (where its a national matter since he's in government custody) international law protects internationals in the custody of a government othber than their own and sets mimimums of decent treatment. Individual governemnts may offer greater protections, but they cannot go under the bare minimum limit set by Geneva

You cannot put a captured lawful combatant on trail under the Geneva Convention. You cannot torture a captured lawful combatant under the Geneva Convention. A mercenary is not defined as a lawful combatant.

I have a question. Since when did international law ever been taken seriously?

[Snake Logan]

Ah a curious reversal, but not a very apt comparison. The fighters on the ground risk a lot, but Bush risks nothing when he sends men to slaugher women and children in the name of his profit. He risks nothing when he orders better men then himself to be tortured or disappeared. How is one to prove they are doing what they believe to be right if they refuse to sacrifice or take risks?

So it is a matter of risk? So you condone Nazi soldiers fighting on the front during WW2? They thought they were doing good things. They took risks. All the more power to them?

It doesnt matter that the US created the situation that led to Al Qaeda's prominence? How then do you posit to stop islamic nationalism without addressing the root causes? I'd very much like to know.

It does, which is why Australia shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, we have no interests there. Bin Laden is your fugitive, not ours. We have already had 2 soldiers die for an American cause. No Aussie blood for Yankee glory.

1: They're willing to die to stop imperialism.
2: All 3 movements are fueled by peoples dissafection with the neo colonialist entity.

No, I think it could simply be that a family member of theirs died in the war and thus they are now full of murderous rage, until they die and then another family member of theirs carries on the war.

A good point. Like I said self sacrifice is inherent to any successful struggle, and to just about all religions. Isn't it odd how Muslims and Catholics both have the same word for martyr? And that Jesus martyred himself for what he believed in? Didn't the Jews get pissed at him because he went quietely instead of dying in battle against the Romans? Isn't dying in battle against occupyers exactly what a lot of Islamic Jyhad fighters are doing right now?

Not quite. The Islamic Fascists are blowing themselves up. They are slaughtering women and children in the process. I doubt Jesus would have condoned such a thing.

A list of traitors:

All German soldiers who sided with the rebels in the war of independence.
Che Guevara
Ernest Hemingway and every member of the International brigade serving the Spanish loyalists.
Me. (I officially sent an offer to join te Palestinian struggle a few years back, so I suppose I'm only half traitor for now)

Yes.

And let me tell you something, you have no place calling members of the International Brigades traitors. Most of those men were willing to give their lives to fight fascism in Spain and then went on to join the proper US army to fight fascism in Germany, despite being "traitors"

Answer me these questions 3. Did their presence in the American army do anything? Could they have led an insurgency war against the Clerical Fascists in Spain? Did their desertion hamper the war efforts of the Spanish Republic?

Now let me give you a quote from Martin Luther King: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Now, if one sees injustice in another nation, should they not move to stop it even if their government won't do so or is a party to said injustice? I think so. International solidarity is an important part of socialism.

So you agree that America removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing?

Ah way to take the moral high ground, [self censoring, but there'd be a four letter word proceded by face or head or probably another four letter word here] "You can torture people, but only if they're guilty" Do you have ANY idea how falacious that is? As soon as you authorize people to torture those who are guilty, you authorize torture of anyone because anyone will admit they're fugging guilty if you torture them enough!

I don’t believe in confessions and neither should anyone else. Look at the Soviet show trails of the 1930s. That should be evidence enough that confessions should not be taken seriously during trails.

[J m HofMarN]

It may mean one has backed it up more strongly. But what, exactly, do you suppose would happen if Bush decided to join up in Iraq. If the civilian leader of the country were to get killed in a roadside bombing? Anti-Islamic fervor would reach unheard-of heights.

Bush would never join this war. It's a war for profit, and profit is no use if you're dead. As for the leader of the nation dying, here's some facts: Bush senior, Reagan and Kennedy all fought in world war 2. Fidel Castro fought in the bay of pigs invasion while serving as the head of state of Cuba. Lincoln was on the front lines in the civil war. Arafat fought throughout the PLO's struggle. Leaders have often been men who went to battle. But to have a guy who bought his way out of the draft sending kids to war for a less then necessary cause, that doesn't say much about his belief in the righteousness of the struggle. I respect David Hicks' courage more than President Bush's.

How do you know that Hicks didn’t torture people?

The same way I know he isnt an eight foot tall crime fighting robot.

How do you know that every single soldier under Batista’s command tortured people?

Because there were trials, and witnesses, and some of them confessed (without being tortured into doing so) And because about 100 of Castro's initial party were captured by the government, and hardly any survived. And the corpses had pieces missing. I'm sure you'll next keep up your little random interjection style by asking "How do I know Castro didn't torture them?" To which I will reply: How do you know any of this is happening? What if this is just a glitch in the matrix?

Last time I checked, the Taliban leaders were preaching Jihad, not national liberation.

And what is the jyhad against? foreign occupation maybe? Doesn't that make them nationalists? You can call your war jyhad, blitzkrieg, or the happy fun time hour, but if you're indiginous people fighting foreign occupation you're a nationalist. Qaida is a pan-arab nationalist group because it wants to set up a new, independent Muslim state throughout the middle east. I support their right to do so as I do the rights of all oppressed peoples to break the shackles of imperialism and form their own government, whatever that government may be.

Australian law? Hicks wasn’t on trail in Australia to my knowledge and Hicks was not on American soil so American law doesn’t apply to him.

So Australian law doesn't protect Australians abroad? I have to admit that sounds like a bad idea. Let me give you another example. David Hicks is, rahter than a Muslim fundamentalist, a queer. He decides his life's goal is to perform some fine acts of sodomy in South Carolina. Since homosexuality is technicly illegal there, he gets arrested. They sentence him to whatever time in prison and then send him to serve it in Australia. Are you saying that that verdict should be upheld by the Australian government even though the laws which allowed it are unjust by Australian constitutional law?

You cannot put a captured lawful combatant on trail under the Geneva Convention.

However the problem is that since the US is attacking a small Muslim group, there is no way to operate a prisoner exchange or to tell when the "war on terror" is over. So basically these people could be held for life without charge in conditions that are cruel and unusual, including solitary confinement (Hicks spent six months there) So trials are necessary especially since there's no way to tell if a lot of these people are terrorists or if they're just farmers with the wrong skin tone. I think that the answer to te guantanamo and torture situation lies in army law: which states that the primary duty of a POW is to try to escape. I wish all the prisoners in Guantanamo the best luck in gaining their freedom and doing justice to their tormentors.

[Spoon Poetic]

Sodomy's been perfectly legal across the U.S. for years now. Just sayin'.

[J m HofMarN]

[/quote]So it is a matter of risk? So you condone Nazi soldiers fighting on the front during WW2? They thought they were doing good things. They took risks. All the more power to them?[/quote]

They were drafted, and had no choice.

No, I think it could simply be that a family member of theirs died in the war and thus they are now full of murderous rage, until they die and then another family member of theirs carries on the war.

Jesus is that really what you think? That successful struggles are waged on murderous rage alone? That Bin Laden or Castro or Lee Duan got up in the morning every day saying "RARGHABLARGH KILL TEH AMERIKANS!!!!!!!!1111" You're way off the mark.

Not quite. The Islamic Fascists are blowing themselves up. They are slaughtering women and children in the process. I doubt Jesus would have condoned such a thing.

Pray tell why Hamas, Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad are "Islamic Fascists" Last I checked Hizbullah and Hamas were both elected groups. And no, Jesus wouldnt have condoned it. What I said was that the Jews were pissed at Jesus for the very fact that he didnt lead a rebellion (in which, by the way, women and children would have died). So basically when the Jews were under occupation they wanted the same things the Palestinians want now.

Yes.

Then if those men are traitors I gladly accept the title and will wear it with pride to know that I am among such honored company. My thanks, sir.

Answer me these questions 3. Did their presence in the American army do anything?

The fuck? What do you want, a specific list of the deeds of each member of the international brigades who went on to fight in WW2 for the alliance? Oh I just happen to have one in my pocket here. No, sadly it appears that out of all the men who joined up after service in the International Brigades, none of them did anything except one guy who earned the bronze star for making a pot of coffee for Macarthur while under enemy fire.

Oh wait, that was bullshit because there's no list of what everyone in a war does, and you're a [censoring again] for randomly bringing into doubt peoples contributions in a war they voluntarily joined. Honestly what the fuck kind of tactic is that? They went and they shot at Nazis. Did they hit any? Fuck if I know. Did ANY US soldiers hit any Nazis? I don't have any first hand experience to back it up, but since we're not both talking on a forum about how great it is to be Aryan, I'm going to guess that, yes, our people in World War 2 did a good job and that some of the people who did a good job were International Brigade veterans.

Could they have led an insurgency war against the Clerical Fascists in Spain?

No. Many of them spoke poor Spanish and were unfamiliar with the terrain.

Did their desertion hamper the war efforts of the Spanish Republic?

Excuse me? Desertion? When the fascists took Madrid the international brigades left. Madrid is the fugging capital of Spain. They fought until the capital fell and then went into exile just like a fucton of Spanish loyalists did. And you call that desertion? What exactly is your problem with the international brigade? So far you've called them traitors, questioned their service in world war 2, and claimed they deserted their posts. Are you like the reincarnation of Francisco Franco or what?

So you agree that America removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing?

No I do not. Do you know why? Because I didn't like John Howard either, but Australia is a sovereign nation and I wouldn't like to see you guys bombed into the stone age either. Once you can overthrow one leader for being a mean guy, you can do it to anyone.

I don’t believe in confessions and neither should anyone else. Look at the Soviet show trails of the 1930s. That should be evidence enough that confessions should not be taken seriously during trails.

Because some people in the 30s were forced to confess you don't believe in confessions in general? But torture is ok... I'm really not getting any of this. So in your ideal legal system basically no one is allowed to confess, which means every case ever will go to trial, and then when the backlogged legal system finally convicts someone, they can be tortured.

[J m HofMarN]

Spoon: No. South Carolina still has a law on the books forbiding "buggery"