Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, and your continued insistence that only these things constitute torture only shows your ignorance, idiocy, and self-denial.
|
Huh? I never said that these were the only things that constitute torture. But I did say that panties on the head aren't torture. You apparently disagree. I refer you to the pic of the WTC with the guy falling again so you can better understand the meaning of the word.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So beating someone just halfway to death is okay? Punching someone unconscious is okay?
|
If you mean is it proscribed by the GC, I believe it is proscribed. I have never said otherwise. I don't even know why you are bringing this up when I never said it is OK to violate the GC.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Are you disputing that these things happened?
|
I am disputing that there is any evidence that senior officials ordered people to do this or condoned it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Are you disputing that prisoners died in US custody in homicides?
|
No. Some of them were ruled justified, like the guy escaping. I believe the rest are still being investigated.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Certainly what she did is forbidden under the Geneva Convention, which, as I said, specifically forbids acts intended to degrade or humiliate prisoners. Do you dispute that, too?
|
I dispute that every violation of the GC constitutes torture. I also dispute that every violation of the GC is a war crime as that term is commonly used. War crimes is a term that is commonly used to denote egregeious and heinous acts. Panties on the head isn't a war crime, although it may be a violation of the GC.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As to whether it is "torture" -- well, were her acts designed to cause severe mental injury? To "soften up" prisoners for interrogation? If so, then yes, it was torture, as defined by treaties the US has signed.
|
Cite please. I want to see the defintion of toture that includes what she did.
Sidd, we are having a semantic argument here and you lost.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Let's put it this way -- how would you respond if American prisoners were treated this way -- chained naked, pulled around on leashes, put in positions designed to cause pain, wired....? Would you consider that yet another example of Arab barbarity? Or do you see this all as good, clean fun, followed by a beer bash and a frat party?
|
I would be against it and call for those involved to be punished if there was evidence to prove it was done. Just like I have done for the Abu Gharaib abuses.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Or let's put it another way. Under your view, the burning and mutilation of four American mercenaries in Fallujah should be seen as "no big deal." After all, they were already dead. It's not like they were getting raped or anything.
|
No, that is not correct. You are reading things into what I said that aren't there.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Or let's put it another way. If all this is "no big deal", or if all this is "necessary to fight terrorism," why is the Admin prosecuting England and her cohorts? Did Bush imprison a pregnant woman for political expedience?
|
I didn't say it was no big deal, especially if rapes and murders occurred. And I have repeatedly said they should be punished. But the punishment needs to fit the crime, too.
What does England being pregnant have to do with anything? Being pregnant doesn't entitle someone accused of a crime to be treated any differently.
