Modification of Geneva Conventions

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
I'm gratified that you and I are exchanging "meaningful questions".
I'm also thrilled that you and I agree on some issues.
In answer to your question, I'd be in support of one life being saved, let alone 1,000 if done within non-torturous techniques. That includes ALL humans, not only Americans.
The USA continues to set the model for the rest of the world.
I agree with Senator McCain regarding the preservation of "moral high ground".
DTS

I don't consider sleep deprivation to be torture, do you? I know they do stuff worse than that but would you consider that type of thing to be torture?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't consider sleep deprivation to be torture, do you? I know they do stuff worse than that but would you consider that type of thing to be torture?

Ask the Nazis, why don't you? They did experimentations with prisoners in concentration camps. And it killed some of them.

Isn't that nice? Look at the company we're keeping.

Yes, sleep deprivation can kill you. And if it doesn't kill you it can severely hamper your immune system, causing you to die of something that your body might otherwise have fought off.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't consider sleep deprivation to be torture, do you? I know they do stuff worse than that but would you consider that type of thing to be torture?

Rupert,
I've not studied "sleep deprivation", so I'm not qualified to answer.
My guess it would depend on the duration if it is to be considered torture.

I do know that far worse things go on. Some of my friends worked in Army Intelligence during Vietnam. Helicopters and lack of parachutes were key to finding answers, though this kind of stuff never was reported in the press.

One study I recently read is that torture doesn't provide the answers that are sought. The claim was made that developing a "trust" relationship, though more time consuming, provided more accurate information.
I'm unable to cite the study, as I didn't write it down.
I read a lot about "psychological topics".

I'm certain that "torture" will be a topic at many sites. Many definitions will be presented.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I thought the same thing about Terry Schiavo. she seemed to respond when they would talk to her and pat her on the head. I'm far from a pro-lifer. I actually support Dr. Kevorkian. But I thought it was absolutely wrong for them to starve her to death. Her family was willing to take care of her. I thought the whole thing was disgraceful.

I wasn't aware you were a neurologist, Rupert. Amazing the things you learn about people on this board! Senator Frist isn't, you know.

Did you read the results of the autopsy? Her brain was liquified. For that matter, did you watch all the hours and hours of tapes, or just the highlights the family cut together to make it look like she was responding? From what I read, the many hours of tape included lots of stuff they didn't show-- they only showed the moments that made it look like she was responding... you know, blind squirrel and all that.

I also do not oppose euthanasia, and would prefer someone being allowed to die be given drugs to let them die, but in Schivo's case, I sincerely doubt she felt anything.

If it were you, Rupert, would you want to be trapped in a body that couldn't think, couldn't move, couldn't do anything, or would you want to be let go?

In any event, sixteen (I think it was sixteen) judges, over half of them conservatives, had heard the case and found repeatedly in favor of the husband. But clearly the current man in the White House has no respect for separation of powers (see "torture" and "court finds against it"). Did you like how he spent our tax dollars on his special midnight flight back to Washington to sign that bill about her?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I wasn't aware you were a neurologist, Rupert. Amazing the things you learn about people on this board! Senator Frist isn't, you know.

Did you read the results of the autopsy? Her brain was liquified. For that matter, did you watch all the hours and hours of tapes, or just the highlights the family cut together to make it look like she was responding? From what I read, the many hours of tape included lots of stuff they didn't show-- they only showed the moments that made it look like she was responding... you know, blind squirrel and all that.

I also do not oppose euthanasia, and would prefer someone being allowed to die be given drugs to let them die, but in Schivo's case, I sincerely doubt she felt anything.

If it were you, Rupert, would you want to be trapped in a body that couldn't think, couldn't move, couldn't do anything, or would you want to be let go?

In any event, sixteen (I think it was sixteen) judges, over half of them conservatives, had heard the case and found repeatedly in favor of the husband. But clearly the current man in the White House has no respect for separation of powers (see "torture" and "court finds against it"). Did you like how he spent our tax dollars on his special midnight flight back to Washington to sign that bill about her?

Hey now... he's allowed his opinion as well. Only Schivo knows what she felt... and we'll never know that, will we? I would rather her have been put to sleep in Kevorkian style than starved to death. JMO.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I wasn't aware you were a neurologist, Rupert. Amazing the things you learn about people on this board! Senator Frist isn't, you know.

Did you read the results of the autopsy? Her brain was liquified. For that matter, did you watch all the hours and hours of tapes, or just the highlights the family cut together to make it look like she was responding? From what I read, the many hours of tape included lots of stuff they didn't show-- they only showed the moments that made it look like she was responding... you know, blind squirrel and all that.

I also do not oppose euthanasia, and would prefer someone being allowed to die be given drugs to let them die, but in Schivo's case, I sincerely doubt she felt anything.

If it were you, Rupert, would you want to be trapped in a body that couldn't think, couldn't move, couldn't do anything, or would you want to be let go?

In any event, sixteen (I think it was sixteen) judges, over half of them conservatives, had heard the case and found repeatedly in favor of the husband. But clearly the current man in the White House has no respect for separation of powers (see "torture" and "court finds against it"). Did you like how he spent our tax dollars on his special midnight flight back to Washington to sign that bill about her?

There were plenty of doctors and nurses that examined her that would disagree with you.

I have no idea what she felt or didn't feel.

That's a ridiculous thing to say that Bush has no respect for separations of power. I guess you could say the same thing when they use to try KKK guys in the south back in the 1960s on federal charges after they were acquitted by juries. The courts were obviously not doing their jobs back then when they let KKK members go free for lynching people so the federl government stepped in and acted.

With regard to the autopsy on Schiavo, did the doctor who did the autopsy have an agenda? I don't know the answer to that. I'm not saying he did, but I don't know that he didn't.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Hey now... he's allowed his opinion as well. Only Schivo knows what she felt... and we'll never know that, will we? I would rather her have been put to sleep in Kevorkian style than starved to death. JMO.

I too would have much rather seen Terri Shiavo euthanized because their were some discrepancies between doctors considering what she felt and what she didn't feel. In fact, I did an argumentative speech in my public speaking class on this topic while it was going on because I thought that people like Terri should allowed to be euthanized and not staved to death. I think that it is an ethics question...

That whole situation was a mess...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Hey now... he's allowed his opinion as well. Only Schivo knows what she felt... and we'll never know that, will we? I would rather her have been put to sleep in Kevorkian style than starved to death. JMO.

My apologies, Rupert; Cajun's right; what I wrote did sound snarky and I try not to be excessively snarky.

Unfortunately, euthanasia is not permitted in Florida, so there was nothing to do other than pull out the feeding tube in her stomach and let her die of natural causes. I think Slate did an article on what it's like-- I'll see if I can find the link.

You guys are right, no one, other than Schiavo, knows what she felt or didn't feel over the last 14 years of her life.

Here's the Washington Post article on the autopsy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061500512.html

Rupert, this wasn't a case of the feds stepping into a state case (which is what I assume the KKK stuff was-- state cases where the jury voted to acquit. Can you give me specifics about the cases to which you're referring? I may be completely wrong in my assumption here, so I need more info from you about it, please?) This is a case where several FEDERAL judges-- federal, not state, decided in favor of removing the feeding tube. The Supreme Court twice declined to hear the case. And the Republican-controlled legislature stepped in, writing a bill pertaining ONLY to this specific person and Bush flew back to Washington to sign it. The same Bush who is unwilling to get warrants before eavesdropping, and signed the Congressional legislation on torture by adding an addendum that he'd ignore it if he felt like it. What do you call a President who publicly says he's going to ignore laws? I call it something starting with a "K" and ending with an "NG" (Vanna, may I buy a vowel?) Rupert, his entire presidency has been about subverting the separation of powers. I'm happy to find you links and specifics if you'll read them and not skim them (and I'll find ones with facts, not just generalized statements. I don't like essays masquerading as serious articles, either). Let me know.

In any event, wouldn't you know it, I found an essay looking at both the Schiavo case and the Abu Ghraib situation (neatly bringing the tangent I'm responsible for introducing back to the main thread, which was torture). It's interesting reading:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/C...l_santner.html

Again, apologies for snarkiness in my earlier post!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

My apologies, Rupert; Cajun's right; what I wrote did sound snarky and I try not to be excessively snarky.

Unfortunately, euthanasia is not permitted in Florida, so there was nothing to do other than pull out the feeding tube in her stomach and let her die of natural causes. I think Slate did an article on what it's like-- I'll see if I can find the link.

You guys are right, no one, other than Schiavo, knows what she felt or didn't feel over the last 14 years of her life.

Here's the Washington Post article on the autopsy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061500512.html

Rupert, this wasn't a case of the feds stepping into a state case (which is what I assume the KKK stuff was-- state cases where the jury voted to acquit. Can you give me specifics about the cases to which you're referring? I may be completely wrong in my assumption here, so I need more info from you about it, please?) This is a case where several FEDERAL judges-- federal, not state, decided in favor of removing the feeding tube. The Supreme Court twice declined to hear the case. And the Republican-controlled legislature stepped in, writing a bill pertaining ONLY to this specific person and Bush flew back to Washington to sign it. The same Bush who is unwilling to get warrants before eavesdropping, and signed the Congressional legislation on torture by adding an addendum that he'd ignore it if he felt like it. What do you call a President who publicly says he's going to ignore laws? I call it something starting with a "K" and ending with an "NG" (Vanna, may I buy a vowel?) Rupert, his entire presidency has been about subverting the separation of powers. I'm happy to find you links and specifics if you'll read them and not skim them (and I'll find ones with facts, not just generalized statements. I don't like essays masquerading as serious articles, either). Let me know.

In any event, wouldn't you know it, I found an essay looking at both the Schiavo case and the Abu Ghraib situation (neatly bringing the tangent I'm responsible for introducing back to the main thread, which was torture). It's interesting reading:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/C...l_santner.html

Again, apologies for snarkiness in my earlier post!

I am the QUEEN of snarkiness.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I am the QUEEN of snarkiness.

You? Pshaw! Never did snarky come in a nicer person.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

My apologies, Rupert; Cajun's right; what I wrote did sound snarky and I try not to be excessively snarky.

Unfortunately, euthanasia is not permitted in Florida, so there was nothing to do other than pull out the feeding tube in her stomach and let her die of natural causes. I think Slate did an article on what it's like-- I'll see if I can find the link.

You guys are right, no one, other than Schiavo, knows what she felt or didn't feel over the last 14 years of her life.

Here's the Washington Post article on the autopsy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061500512.html

Rupert, this wasn't a case of the feds stepping into a state case (which is what I assume the KKK stuff was-- state cases where the jury voted to acquit. Can you give me specifics about the cases to which you're referring? I may be completely wrong in my assumption here, so I need more info from you about it, please?) This is a case where several FEDERAL judges-- federal, not state, decided in favor of removing the feeding tube. The Supreme Court twice declined to hear the case. And the Republican-controlled legislature stepped in, writing a bill pertaining ONLY to this specific person and Bush flew back to Washington to sign it. The same Bush who is unwilling to get warrants before eavesdropping, and signed the Congressional legislation on torture by adding an addendum that he'd ignore it if he felt like it. What do you call a President who publicly says he's going to ignore laws? I call it something starting with a "K" and ending with an "NG" (Vanna, may I buy a vowel?) Rupert, his entire presidency has been about subverting the separation of powers. I'm happy to find you links and specifics if you'll read them and not skim them (and I'll find ones with facts, not just generalized statements. I don't like essays masquerading as serious articles, either). Let me know.

In any event, wouldn't you know it, I found an essay looking at both the Schiavo case and the Abu Ghraib situation (neatly bringing the tangent I'm responsible for introducing back to the main thread, which was torture). It's interesting reading:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/C...l_santner.html

Again, apologies for snarkiness in my earlier post!

In this case, the feds did step into a state case but in a different way from the cases back in the 1960s. In the Schiavo case, aside from the state legislature trying to intervene, the US congress actually stepped in and passed a law to try to prevent them from killing her. Florida ignored the law that the US Congress passed. I don't remeber the details and I'm too lazy to look it up but I remeber the US Congress actually did pass some type of law becasue they thought what was happening to Schiavo was such an injustice.

I agree with you guys that if she was going to be put to death, she should have been euthanyzed rather than dying of thirst.

I don't care what any of you guys say. I'm no right-to-lifer or anything like that and I thought that what they did to that woman was one of the most outrageous things I have ever seen.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In this case, the feds did step into a state case but in a different way from the cases back in the 1960s. In the Schiavo case, aside from the state legislature trying to intervene, the US congress actually stepped in and passed a law to try to prevent them from killing her. Florida ignored the law that the US Congress passed. I don't remeber the details and I'm too lazy to look it up but I remeber the US Congress actually did pass some type of law becasue they thought what was happening to Schiavo was such an injustice.

I agree with you guys that if she was going to be put to death, she should have been euthanyzed rather than dying of thirst.

I don't care what any of you guys say. I'm no right-to-lifer or anything like that and I thought that what they did to that woman was one of the most outrageous things I have ever seen.

And you know what; in more research, I'm wrong about the legal path-- the law Congress passed demanded the case be taken out of state court and handed to a federal judge. Who declined to overturn the state courts numerous decisions on the case. And then the Supreme Court refused to hear the case (twice in one week, six times since 2001).

Here's the pertinent part on the decision:

"The Supreme Court's rejection came hours after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia, rejected the parents' petition 9-2. That court denied three similar requests from the parents last week.

In a concurring opinion of the Atlanta court's latest ruling, Judge Stanley Birch said Congress "chose to overstep constitutional boundaries" by passing a law to force the Schiavo case into federal courts. "

In the end, I think it was the right decision, legally. Her husband was her legal guardian, and he was the one with the legal right to decide what her wishes would have been. But, regardless, it sure serves as a warning to all of us to get our own wishes about our care in such situations down on paper, doesn't it?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Genuine Risk said, "In the end, I think it was the right decision, legally. Her husband was her legal guardian, and he was the one with the legal right to decide what her wishes would have been. But, regardless, it sure serves as a warning to all of us to get our own wishes about our care in such situations down on paper, doesn't it?"[/quote]


That was another thing that I found so disturbing. Why should her husband, who has a new girlfriend, be the legal guardian? Some of Terry's friends claimed that she and her husband were possibly on their way to either separation or maybe even divorce. Then she has this mysterious accident and he gets a sizable amount of money which is supposed to go towards her medical bills. Her husband had a financial interest to pull the plug on her. If he pulled the plug, then he could keep the money instead of the money going towards her medical bills. I don't know if he still had a financial stake at the end because I think most of the money was gone at that point.

In addition, none of her family or friends believed the husband's story that Terry claimed she would want to die if she was ever in a state like that. Terry's husband had originally said that they had never talked about the subject and then a year later he suddenly claimed that he remembered that they had talked about it. Who would possibly believe that?

Anyway, she had a family that was willing to take care of. In that case, I don't think that the husband, who happened to have a girlfriend, should be making the decision.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Talking sense now about the Geneva Convention...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/wa.../17detain.html

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Yeah, and the fact that it is on television is about the only difference. You are communicating from an uninformed position.

No one is sitting on any fence genius. My only point and it has been through the entire thread is that US intelligence does the same types of things as the enemy. Thats all.

We behead prisoner and show it on TV for reasons of propaganda?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

We behead prisoner and show it on TV for reasons of propaganda?

No cannonn shell we dont do that. Isnt that what i said?

But...rest assured some of the methods of torture and the results are about as grizzly.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Bush's Paltry Excuse for Subverting Geneva Convention
by Robert S. Rivkin


Robert S. Rivkin, author of GI Rights and Army Justice, is a San Francisco-based writer and lawyer who specialized in military law for many years.

Leftists from San Franciso's opinions dont really hold much water with the rest of us Americans.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

No cannonn shell we dont do that. Isnt that what i said?

But...rest assured some of the methods of torture and the results are about as grizzly.

If anyone thinks that "aggressive techniques" are a new thing, they are sadly mistaken

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If anyone thinks that "aggressive techniques" are a new thing, they are sadly mistaken

Go back through the thread and read it. Nobody said that. Are you simply looking for an argument with a "leftist"? LOL

"interviewing" has been going on for centuries and it will continue to go on long after we are gone. America is not above it as the naive seem to think. We do it just like everyone else.

As i stated earlier, the geneva convention was created to protect the basic grunts from cruel mistreatment without purpose. As for those with potentially sensitive information, all is fair in love and war.

[Cannon Shell]

Remember that a lot of unpleasant things and decisions have had to be made over the last 250 or so years that allow us to live the way we do. We on this board have not been privy to any of these things but we have the right to discuss them. A lot of what goes on behind the scenes concerning the CIA and other intellegence groups may be "illegal" according to the Geneva convention, but as long as we are being made safer by these acts, I wont complain. The higher ground arguement is hollow to me because we must deal with terrorists on their level or we will continue to lose these battles. The international community be damned if they dont like it. The WSJ had an article on how business ties are keeping santions away from Iran concerning thier "illegal" nuclear program. France, Russia, China, and Germany all have hundreds of millions invested in Iran, mostly because of the absence of US competition there. Negotiating with power mongers like the the Iranian Pres and Il Jung of N. Korea is seemingly as big a waste of time as would negotiating with captured terrorists.