Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I can see your point, and agree with it to an extent, but where do you draw the line? Is it OK to kick and beat someone to get information? I can see answering yes.

Yes

Is it OK threaten a prisoner's/detainee's/whatever you what to call them's son, who is a young teenager and may also be participating in insurgency stuff, but we don't know, to get the parent to talk?

Yes

Is it OK to pick up the kid and bring him in, and beat the parent (father) and tell him you are going to beat the kid the same way if he doesn't talk?

Balancing test. Reliability of our information that he is not innocent v. risks of not getting information from father. Presumption against not beating the son.

Is it OK to rape (or threaten to rape, and undress or whatever in prep for rape) the sister/daughter/wife/mother of a prisoner/detainee/whatever?

Threaten? Yes. Anything above that, no, assuming they are not guilty.

[sgtclub]

In other news, Jonnie Cochran died today.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Gatti has a solid point here. I remember the hijackers who flew the plane into the Pentagon let the passengers call home on their cells and all. We need to provide better rights.

Interesting. Let's review:

Bilmore: War sucks. We need to punish those who do this shit, but understand that it happens and besides, think of the Iraqis we've saved!

Club: War sucks. I'm torn, but I think the end justifies the means in many cases. Assuming that we know, really know, that they're combatants, go ahead and beat their children. After all, they might know something.

Hello: War sucks. We should never condone misconduct against enemy soldiers.

Hank [far as I can tell, from his three sentence reply]: Fuck 'em! That's right, kids -- combatant, noncombatant, man, woman, child -- fuck em all. Iraqis who get rounded up can fuckin' die a painful death in our custody for all I care. If you disagree, think of the Saudi hijackers!

***

So your answer to my original question is a "no," then, right?

Gotcha. Thanks for that.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it OK to rape (or threaten to rape, and undress or whatever in prep for rape) the sister/daughter/wife/mother of a prisoner/detainee/whatever?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threaten? Yes. Anything above that, no, assuming they are not guilty.

I'm confused.

Assuming that who is not guilty of what? Clarify, please. And, once this explained threshhold is met, are you saying it's then OK to rape?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So we have due process out there? Cool. Who knew. Damn liberal media, acting like untrained soldiers are the ones making the calls.

If the US government says they can judge, how is that different than being appointed a Florida State judge? you look at the facts- you make the call.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Assuming that who is not guilty of what? Clarify, please. And, once this explained threshhold is met, are you saying it's then OK to rape?

do you have a photo- or is this pure hypothetical?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub

Balancing test. Reliability of our information that he is not innocent v. risks of not getting information from father. Presumption against not beating the son.

I assume you mean presumption against beating the son?

And I have Gatti's question re: who is guilty of what, that would allow rape of someone's wife/daughter/sister/mother. As a daughter/sister, I'm concerned.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I assume you mean presumption against beating the son?

And I have Gatti's question re: who is guilty of what, that would allow rape of someone's wife/daughter/sister/mother. As a daughter/sister, I'm concerned.

2. Though I suppose I could just close my eyes and think of England.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you have a photo- or is this pure hypothetical?

Don't you worry your purty little head about it, Hank. In your worldview, they're dead anyway, so the question is moot.



In recognition of your ideological purity on the issue, let me recommend a new avatar to you. It may startle your GOP brethren, but the good news is that you make them look good by comparison.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I'm confused.

Assuming that who is not guilty of what? Clarify, please. And, once this explained threshhold is met, are you saying it's then OK to rape?

Assuming that the rapee is not guilty of any serious/grave offense.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
2. Though I suppose I could just close my eyes and think of England.

I will just hope Daddy and Mummy are not insurgenting, or, well, I guess I will hope no one denounces them for insurgenting.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Assuming that the rapee is not guilty of any serious/grave offense.

Jesus Christ, club.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Assuming that the rapee is not guilty of any serious/grave offense.

Where in the hypo did we get the rapee doing anything other than being related to someone? Who determines guilt? Does this mean we can ass-rape the detainees/prisoners to get them to talk? Can we knock out their teeth so they give better forced head?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Assuming that the rapee is not guilty of any serious/grave offense.

So there's a footnote to the premise that rape is never, ever, ever ok?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I assume you mean presumption against beating the son?

And I have Gatti's question re: who is guilty of what, that would allow rape of someone's wife/daughter/sister/mother. As a daughter/sister, I'm concerned.

Yes, presumption against beating.

The wife/daughter/sister/mother would have to be guilty of a grave offense.