scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 My question still hasn't been answered. Whether you like the Red Cross or not is irrelevent. I have seen no one refute their claims with actual data. So how exactly does torturing what are more than likely inncoent people not go against the Geneva Convention? Surely someone can do better than whining that they didn't wear uniforms to make it easy for us to tell them apart. That's because they haven't been tried not nice boy. How would you know they are innocent or guilty if they haven't even been tried? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 So we can torture them until they are proven innocent? Nice logic, asswipe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Seems there were actually two types of photos, one group comprising those that can be viewed as humiliating or degrading but physically harmless and then another group of photos that either suggest physical harm, e.g., the photo of the soldiers with the guard dogs surrounding the naked man, or depict consequences of physical harm. To lump all of the photos together is a mistake. A distinction should be made for clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 So we can torture them until they are proven guilty? Nice logic, asswipe. Not what I said was it? You said that we didn't have data. I am telling you why and telling you why the Red Cross data is completely made up B.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 My question still hasn't been answered. Whether you like the Red Cross or not is irrelevent. I have seen no one refute their claims with actual data. So how exactly does torturing what are more than likely inncoent people not go against the Geneva Convention? Surely someone can do better than whining that they didn't wear uniforms to make it easy for us to tell them apart. You're making a distinction that the Conventions do not. It does not matter if you are "innocent" or not. This administration specifically stated that prisoners in Iraq would be protected under the Conventions. That's it - anyone take prisoner is supposed to be treated humanely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Scott: How in the hell would they, or anybody else, know anything? I dimly remember the word is epistimology, & whatever the word is, it's a good question for philosphers like yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 My question still hasn't been answered. Whether you like the Red Cross or not is irrelevent. I have seen no one refute their claims with actual data. So how exactly does torturing what are more than likely inncoent people not go against the Geneva Convention? Surely someone can do better than whining that they didn't wear uniforms to make it easy for us to tell them apart. Show me something more than a claim from the Red Cross that they are innocent. Besides that it's in the text of the Geneva Conventions. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that you are wrong in saying that it's against the GC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I am telling you why and telling you why the Red Cross data is completely made up B.S. So then it should be no problem supplying your data to support your assertion. Unless you're pulling it out of your ass but you'd never do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Scott: How in the hell would they, or anybody else, know anything? I dimly remember the word is epistimology, & whatever the word is, it's a good question for philosphers like yourself. Well tell me this. How did they determine the innocence of men without trial? Look at them and say "He doesn't look guilty."? How else could the Red Cross have done this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I am telling you why and telling you why the Red Cross data is completely made up B.S. So then it should be no problem supplying your data to support your assertion. Unless you're pulling it out of your ass but you'd never do that. No-one knows! That is the point! If you want to go off on this 'supply your data" crap, tell me how the Red Cross used empirical analysis to comeup with their 90% figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Sorry, not my hazing, I never went to a university, but I have heard stories from frat boys and seen pieces in the news that are very similar. I ask the question: Where would you rather be in Abu Ghraib as an enemy combatant or in the custody of the insurgents? No, ff, I wasn't saying that to you directly. I was simply stating that anybody that participates in that kind of shit and writes it off as a hamrless prank needs to have a little self-exploration time. Maybe johnny likes boys and not girls?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 One more thing - can we do without this "asswipe" stuff? Really, it's unnecessary. If you can't disagree with someone without calling them a name, maybe you should go back to kndergarten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I see, "dipshit" is ok, but "asswipe" in return is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 Sorry, I didn't see the dipshit. One more thing - can we do without this "dipshit" stuff? Really, it's unnecessary. If you can't disagree with someone without calling them a name, maybe you should go back to kndergarten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Can ANYONE hypothesize how they came up with this figure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I am telling you why and telling you why the Red Cross data is completely made up B.S. So then it should be no problem supplying your data to support your assertion. Unless you're pulling it out of your ass but you'd never do that. No-one knows! That is the point! If you want to go off on this 'supply your data" crap, tell me how the Red Cross used empirical analysis to comeup with their 90% figure. I didn't make the 90% assertion, I just referenced it. It's up to the Red Cross to back up their data, not me. You, however, are the one that said they are full of shit -- your assertion. I wonder how they came up with that number as well, but I don't have the data to say it's incorrect. If you do, let's see it. But that was just tangential to my point, which is that we are treating everyone we grab off the street as guilty and torturing at least some of them. Basically, the assumption of guilt because they live in Iraq. Some of you seem to be ok with that fact, by your responses. I'd hoped we were better than that, considering the values we supposedly preach, one of the foremost being innocent until proven guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Scott: I thought you referred to NYT headline on useful information. But my point probably applies equally to the supposed Red Cross assertions to which you now refer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Sorry, I didn't see the dipshit. One more thing - can we do without this "dipshit" stuff? Really, it's unnecessary. If you can't disagree with someone without calling them a name, maybe you should go back to kndergarten. It seems "dipshit" has now been changed to "not nice guy". I don't like the Martlet-style insult tactics any more than you do, but I thought countering tit for tat was making a point in this intance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Here’s my 2 c’s. We prize the concept of due process in our American legal system, yet the same concept goes out the door outside of the U.S. In the name of expediency, due process is shed. Modern Machiavellians know that we must preserve a façade of moral uprightness but for all practical purposes sometimes ruthless measures have to be undertaken. If the ‘enemy’ can resort to the use of ruthless means, then should we strive to maintain moral uprightness and limit the full exercise of our power, thereby suffering losses at our enemy’s hands? Some suspects are taken to other countries for interrogation to be dealt with by foreign agents. That absolves us of staining our hands directly. Is anyone so naïve to believe that it could be otherwise? If you knew half the shit that actually happens, you’d be horrified or disgusted. Yeah, there’s a lot of rumors out there but some hold a kernel of truth regarding the true state of world and domestic affairs. Ok, here’s what gets me: FBI ABDUCTS ARTIST, SEIZES ART ( http://www.caedefensefund.org/overview.html ). It’s shit like this and the Brandon Mayfield affair that bug me. Where the hell is the due process in our own country? Is it going down the tubes?? What does the future hold? A future as a paranoiac reality of economic servitude and mindless entertainment (bread and circuses) where political criticism is stifled and freedom of thought is driven underground? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Unless they have omnipotent powers, there is NO WAY I repeat NO WAY for them to know if they are guilty or not. I think that goes pretty far in refuting that evidence. Baisically you are implying that the Red Cross transcend empirical testing and would rather just guestimate and use phrenology to figurethe whole mess out and that is ok with you because, "It's up to the Red Cross to back up their data, not me." Classic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I said no such thing about the Red Cross not needing to provide support for their numbers. I said *I* do not need to supply support for their numbers. I'm not the Red Cross. But I decided to do the research anyway because I'm curious (just as you are) how they arrived at them. Here's what I found after a very brief search: Military intelligence officers told Red Cross monitors that 70 to 90 percent of captives in Iraq last year had been arrested by mistake, the report stated. Red Cross Report Describes Systemic Abuse in Iraq. So where's your supporting data that they are making this stuff up? Are you going to say Military Intelligence is full of shit now too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 While many detainees were quickly released or no longer mistreated after interrogation, high-ranking officials in Saddam Hussein's government - including those listed on the U.S. military's deck of cards - were held for months in solitary confinement, The Associated Press has learned. Guardian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Re: This 90% number I just did a search on the keywords "Abu Ghraib Red Cross percent" and got several results out saying pretty much the same thing. Here is one example. The Red Cross reported that they were told by military officials that 70-90 percent of detainees were arrested by mistake. This obviously implies that these 70-90 percent were not guilty of whatever it was they were initially arrested for (although, this by no means exculpates them from other transgressions unknown to the military). So, the Red Cross did not do any analysis. They were simply given that data from the military. This means the military did the analysis. In some way they (the military) must have been able to ascertain a detainee's innocence to the transgression they were arrested for, but not necessarily for what they weren't arrested for. I don't know what this process was. Forgive me, Ratboy, if this is not the percentage source you were talking about. ------------------------- It's tough out there in Iraq. Not everything goes smoothly. Soldiers out in the field risk their lives every day hunting down insurgents. I'm willing to cut them some slack for erroneously arresting innoncent Iraqis. Although, a 70-90 percent error rate is pretty darn high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I said no such thing about the Red Cross not needing to provide support for their numbers. I said *I* do not need to supply support for their numbers. I'm not the Red Cross. But I decided to do the research anyway because I'm curious (just as you are) how they arrived at them. Here's what I found after a very brief search: Military intelligence officers told Red Cross monitors that 70 to 90 percent of captives in Iraq last year had been arrested by mistake, the report stated. Red Cross Report Describes Systemic Abuse in Iraq. So where's your supporting data that they are making this stuff up? Are you going to say Military Intelligence is full of shit now too? You aren't so "curious" that you're unwilling to check them out before using them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I think it’s time for a quote from a Reaganite suitable to adopt to the current situation: "You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime." -- Ed Meese, former Reagan Attorney General So, it’s tough shit if you get caught up in a terrorist sweep. Just being in the wrong location could be your mistake. If things deteriorate to the point similar to what happened in Vietnam, then anyone capable of carrying a weapon could be considered a potential enemy. On the other hand, why be a fatalist? Things may turn out all bright and shiny. The birth of something new is always accompanied by the pain of emergence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.