Finally. The press see's my point: Bush's administration = War Criminals

[TA Pilot]

But that's not what the question was.  The question was:
If the only way to keep a convicted 9/11 terrorist was to comply with geneva Conventions, did Bush do it?

That was YOUR question, and you provided an answer.

You havent provided an answer to mine - and my question directly addresses your complaint.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

[Dexter]

god bless pre-emptive strikes  

us aussies are having some troubles with those pesky east timorese. they insist on rights on some deep sea gas (just because theyre dirt poor and the gas IS closer to them than us doesnt give them the rights...).

Attention coalition, todays freedom hating east timorese children are tomorrows terrorists. Lets kill them all, level the country and remove their natural resource before they use income from it to develop weapons of mass distraction which will keep us from noticing Americas economy go down the tubes.  

[patrickl]

But that's not what the question was.  The question was:
If the only way to keep a convicted 9/11 terrorist was to comply with geneva Conventions, did Bush do it?

That was YOUR question, and you provided an answer.

You havent provided an answer to mine - and my question directly addresses your complaint.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

If you want your own question answered then start your own thread. It's very impolite to start asking silly questions on other peoples threads.

[TA Pilot]

If you want your own question answered then start your own thread. It's very impolite to start asking silly questions on other peoples threads.


Whats that?

You dont have the testicualr fortitude to try to supply an answer?

I thought not.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

[danny_galaga]

testicular fortitude. isn't that a cologne they use down south?

(drew adjusts 'package' and nods a howdy)

[fredster]

I didn't think you would understand anything about that either Danny.  It's way over your experience.

[Dexter]

testicular fortitude. isn't that a cologne they use down south?

Brilliant! Apparently I don't have testicular fortitude either so I looked up the meaning:

Testicular fortitude (expression) - Meaning to dodge a draft by your daddy getting you into the texas national air guard, then send young men and women off to die in another war while shouting 'bring it on' at the enemy from behind your ring of steel.

[Dartful Dodger]

"Finally" the press see's your point?

That's funny, since the press has been upset over Gore losing the night of that election.

[patrickl]

Dartful,

Do you suffer from an internet form of Gilles de la Touret syndrom?

[patrickl]

If you want your own question answered then start your own thread. It's very impolite to start asking silly questions on other peoples threads.


Whats that?

You dont have the testicualr fortitude to try to supply an answer?

I thought not.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

If your question made sense and if you started your own thread, maybe someone would try to answer it. But then, by that time it could be the hell froze over.

[TA Pilot]

If your question made sense

Given that you seem to be the only one having truoble understanding the question and how it applies to the subject at hand, I'd have to say that it -does- make sense.


Now, if you have the cognitive ability to answer the question, please do.  Else, dont let the door hit you where your boyfriend loves you the most.

[patrickl]

If your question made sense

Given that you seem to be the only one having truoble understanding the question and how it applies to the subject at hand, I'd have to say that it -does- make sense.

WI never said I don;t understand your question, I just say that it is a nonsensical one. Apparently I'm not alone in this. But then, you never make sense to me anyway. I cannot believe anyone can be so stereotypical.

Now, if you have the cognitive ability to answer the question, please do.  Else, dont let the door hit you where your boyfriend loves you the most.

Ah, I see why you are so upset, unfortunately I can't help it you are having love troubles with the mister. Don't project your relational troubles on others.

[TA Pilot]

WI never said I don;t understand your question, I just say that it is a nonsensical one. Apparently I'm not alone in this. But then, you never make sense to me anyway. I cannot believe anyone can be so stereotypical.

Plainly, if you cant see how a question about national security and the Geneva conventions applies to a thread about national security and the Geneva conventions, then you dont understand the question.

You're doing -everything- you can to avoid actually answering the question.   This speaks volumes about the answer you'd actually give, if you were to ever do so.

But plainly, you dont plan to ever actually answer the question.  And I am not surprised in the least.

[patrickl]

WI never said I don;t understand your question, I just say that it is a nonsensical one. Apparently I'm not alone in this. But then, you never make sense to me anyway. I cannot believe anyone can be so stereotypical.

Plainly, if you cant see how a question about national security and the Geneva conventions applies to a thread about national security and the Geneva conventions, then you dont understand the question.

You're doing -everything- you can to avoid actually answering the question.   This speaks volumes about the answer you'd actually give, if you were to ever do so.

But plainly, you dont plan to ever actually answer the question.  And I am not surprised in the least.

Yeah I wonder why I even reply to your drivel. It was much more fun when I used Eliza. Actually Eliza does the same thing as you do. It asks questions, but never answers your original question. I have to admit you are very good at avoiding the real question and hammering on a point to get everyone away from the fact that Bush let a terrorist go because he is ... well I don't know what made him mess this one up, but mess up he did.

[Santoro]

This exchange is an example of why I choose not to debate my political views very often.  

I am pretty sure that no one has ever, by way of a debate, changed another person's perspective on politics, religion, gun control, or abortion.  People are wired with a deeply personal philosophy and don't change without a dramatic life event to change thier basic perceptions.  (I was waaay more liberal in the 36 years before September 11.  Losing 8 good friends in the WTC made me look at the world a lot differently. Reality crashed in.)

IMHO the whole debate thing is a waste of energy.  I'd rather spend that energy elsewhere, like helping my kids with homework or building cabs.  It is much less frustrating.

edit:spelling

[TA Pilot]

Yeah I wonder why I even reply to your drivel.

Me too, given that you never really add to any conversation you attach yourself to.  You simply waste time and bandwidth.

[patrickl]

But then I'm a nutter for debates (but you knew that ) I suffer no aggrevation over this. Well it is more fun if you have an opponent that can do more than repeat just one clause over and over, but still. I do actually learn a lot from debates like this and I think others do too. You don't have to change someones beliefs to profit from a discussion.

[patrickl]

Yeah I wonder why I even reply to your drivel.

Me too, given that you never really add to any conversation you attach yourself to.  You simply waste time and bandwidth.

I try to prevent you from taking yet another a thread off topic. Which seems to be your standard way to diffuse threads like this. This was actually a pretty good discussion before you came in.

[fredster]

I think he did answer the questions.

You just didn't understand the answers.

You stated "blah blah blah...Bush is bad"

Ta said , no he isn't.

[TA Pilot]

I try to prevent you from taking yet another a thread off topic.


News for you bub:

In a discussion where the primary complaint is Bush violating the Geneva conventions because of national security reasons, asking someone if THEY would violate the Geneva conventions for national security reasons is NOT off topic.

YOU just dont LIKE the question because you dont want to have to give an honest answer.  Too bad.



This was actually a pretty good discussion before you came in

You can leave any time you want.  

[shmokes]

TA,

My liberal cohorts aren't answering your question because it's a ridiculous question that sets a rhetorical trap based on a false dilema logical fallacy.  

The answer to your question, of course, is yes.  

But allow me to illustrate how absurd and useless your scenario is:

Would you support a rollback of Bush's tax-cuts if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you vote for Kerry  if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you support socialized healthcare  if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you support a ban on assault weapons  if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC? (well...that one's probably a bad example... )

The thing is, it is entirely likely that Bush's distancing from diplomacy in favor of a shoot-first-ask-questions-later-approach to foreign policy is breeding more animosity and anti-American sentiment which will in all likelihood breed more terrorists.  

You seem to have such a juvenile, two-dimensional idea of what it means to be liberal.  I get the impression that you believe that conservatives are anti-terrorism while liberals are pro-terrorism.  It's absurd.

Imagine the following scenario:

You and I are roommates.  We live in a house (don't worry, we're not having gay sex -- we're just roommates).  Let's say that the house develops a nasty infestation of black ants.  These things are really pissing you off.  They're getting into your cereal, crawling up your pants.  It's just a bad situation all around, and being the itchy-trigger-finger guy that you are you want to send all those black ---daisies--- to their graves.  

So...I get home from work and see you unloading a bunch of jars from your car.  I check it out and see that the jars are filled with red ants.  You say, "Check it out Shmokes.  Our problems are over.  I'm going to release all these red ants in our house and, mark my words, within a week every last one of those black ants will be dead!!!"

I, being the liberal (read: thinker) in the household mount a protest.  I contend that while you will certainly kill a lot of bad guys, your solution to our current problem could create a bigger problem for us in the future.

You, of course, just decide that I don't have the balls to do what is necessary to rid our house of the black ants.  Then, to prove your point you ask me one last question (and then get really obnoxious when I refuse to answer it):

"Shmokes, if letting these red ants go in the house was the only way to keep yourself from getting cancer would you do it?"

[TA Pilot]

My liberal cohorts aren't answering your question because it's a ridiculous question that sets a rhetorical trap based on a false dilema logical fallacy.

But its not.

Its --entirely-- probable  that such a situation will arise.

And there is no rhetorical trap - a rhetorical trap is when you ask someone if they've stopped beating their kids yet.
 
Thats not anything like what I've asked.

If the answer to my question is yes, that national security can trump the Geneva conventions, then why is it such a bad thing if Bush decides that national security trupms the Geneva Conventions?

The POINT is that if you're going to admit that its OK to do so, then why express shock and disdain when its done?




The thing is, it is entirely likely that Bush's distancing from diplomacy in favor of a shoot-first-ask-questions-later-approach to foreign policy is breeding more animosity and anti-American sentiment which will in all likelihood breed more terrorists.

This is a false argument.
People that become terrorists dont give a hoot in hell for international agreements - in fact, the huge number of them dont know what the Geneva convention is.  Therefore, the US, in her own defense, ignoring international agreements isnt going to cause them to become terrorists.

And to argue that people will hate us because we're acting in our own defense?  You're kidding, right?



You seem to have such a juvenile, two-dimensional idea of what it means to be liberal.

Hmm.
When have I espoused by beliefs as to what it is to be liberal?  Isnt it pretty juvenile of you to comment on something that I've never discussed?



And as for your analogy:

YOUR assertion that liberals are "thinkers" and the necessary implication that conservatives arent is entirely false -- especially if the given lines of 'thought' concerning terrorism are considered.

In fact, your assertion that "while you will certainly kill a lot of bad guys, your solution to our current problem could create a bigger problem for us in the future" is proof positive of same.  Your're arguing against the use of force against those that use force against those that only understand force.  This is utterly irrational, and it denote a clear lack of understanding of the threat we face.

That the enemy might fight back is not an argument against fighting the enemy.

[patrickl]

Amazing, he still doesn't understand. Or maybe he does and just doesn't want to admit so in public.

[Crazy Cooter]

TA, the difference is this:

Bush IS breaking Geneva Conventions.  He has offered NO explanation.  Is it due to security reasons?  I don't know, he hasn't said.  If it was, why couldn't he offer up a written sworn statement?  It could be edited with those black lines the government is so fond of.  Instead, he tied the hands of the German court system.  It's got nothing to do with hypothetical scenarios.

My arguement is this:
Bush is a war criminal.  Why aren't we asking him to explain what's up?

And what happened to the link?  And why is this thread popping up my "secure server page" warnings?  Who's knocking on my door...

[TA Pilot]

Bush IS breaking Geneva Conventions.  

Which is OK, as you admit, for security reasons.

Now, why is it so hard for you to accept the very real possibility that a decision such as his concerning terrorist detainees is based on security?

And that any lack of explanation is for the same reason?

Fact is, you dont WANT to give him the benefit of the doubt, because your argument starts with "I hate Bush" and works backwards.



Bush is a war criminal.

If breaking the Geneva conventions makes you a war criminal, and that breaking the Geneva conventions for security pruposes is OK... then it can indeed be Ok to be a war criminal.

[Crazy Cooter]

"Which is OK, as you admit, for security reasons."

I did?  I think you need to reread my responses because I don't think it is ok.  I think that the Geneva Conventions served a purpose and that they should be respected.

My arguement started with Bush violating the Geneva Conventions.  Whether you support that action is your own decision.  I don't.  I want Bush to stand up and tell me why he is doing this.  If you accept it with no explanation, so be it.

[fredster]

Cooter,

What specific article of the Geneva conventions was violated?

Stand up and tell me what you are accusing your country of?

[shmokes]

TA.....lighten up a little.   The "thinker" bit was a light-hearted jab, hence the smiley face.  I am fully aware that conservatives can think**

At any rate, that's your rhetorical trap.  I say that the answer is yes to your specific hypothetical scenario, and you then extend that to mean that I suddenly approve of breaking Geneva Conventions any time some vague appeal can be made to national security.  

You present a scenario like: There's a bomb in central New York City and there's no time to evacuate.  We have a man in custody who knows the location of the bomb but is uncooperative.  In one hour there will be a brilliant flash and 10 million people will be dead.  Do we worry about international treaties?

To which the answer is obviously, no, we do not.

Then you say, "Ah Ha!!!!! I have you.  You have admitted that you don't care about international treaties as long as national security at stake!  

Of course, there is no ticking bomb and the only association you can make with the current Geneva Convention violations and a nuclear bomb being detonated in NYC is a vague, "you never know.  he's bad.  it could happen.  the guy does hate america," kind of thing.

But your trap was painfully transparent, hence people's refusal to answer your question.  

By the way, you never answered any of my questions.  I can make wild claims about how some future bomb is going to explode in NYC too.  How can you get mad at others for not answering your question when you ignored all four of mine in spite of their similarity to yours.


**They just aren't very good at it.

[shmokes]

Cooter,

What specific article of the Geneva conventions was violated?

Stand up and tell me what you are accusing your country of?

I love your passion Fredster.  

[Crazy Cooter]

In summary: The Geneva Conventions require that the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to all detainees and that information on them be provided to their relatives.  It's spread out through several Articles on the 3rd Convention.

You can view the Conventions here:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions
Under "key issues" - "essential rules" scroll down and you'll see:
"They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees." - Neither of which we are doing.

As a side note:
-International treaties ratified by the US prohibit holding prisoners incommunicado and in secret locations .
-Under international human rights law, detainees must be held in recognised places of detention and be able to communicate with lawyers and family members.

[TA Pilot]

I did?  I think you need to reread my responses because I don't think it is ok.  I think that the Geneva Conventions served a purpose and that they should be respected.

So...  would you or would you not violate the GC to keep a nuke from going off in NYC?



My arguement started with Bush violating the Geneva Conventions.  Whether you support that action is your own decision.  I don't.  I want Bush to stand up and tell me why he is doing this.  If you accept it with no explanation, so be it.

Sounds like a cession of a point.  I'm interested to see your response to my question, above.

[Crazy Cooter]

So...  would you or would you not violate the GC to keep a nuke from going off in NYC?

Too vague of a question.  I'll address it like this:
- If, for some nutty reason, I had a prisoner in the same room as "the button" and he lunged for it, I'd punch him out.  No matter where it was aimed.  Then I'd tell everyone what was up.  People would understand why I knocked him out.
- If Bush has an explanation along those lines, I'd love to hear it.  If Bush has any explanation I'd love to hear it.  Instead he isn't saying anything.  To me, if you're violating Geneva Conventions, you need an inarguable reason.  Otherwise everything we fight for is a sham.

[DrewKaree]

I do actually learn a lot from debates like this and I think others do too. You don't have to change someones beliefs to profit from a discussion.

Who are you and what have you done with patrick?  You've obviously stolen him and replaced him with someone who periodically says something sane  

[DrewKaree]

Imagine the following scenario:

You and I are roommates.  We live in a house (don't worry, we're not having gay sex -- we're just roommates).  Let's say that the house develops a nasty infestation of black ants.  These things are really pissing you off.  They're getting into your cereal, crawling up your pants.  It's just a bad situation all around, and being the itchy-trigger-finger guy that you are you want to send all those black ---daisies--- to their graves.  

So...I get home from work and see you unloading a bunch of jars from your car.  I check it out and see that the jars are filled with red ants.  You say, "Check it out Shmokes.  Our problems are over.  I'm going to release all these red ants in our house and, mark my words, within a week every last one of those black ants will be dead!!!"

I, being the liberal (read: thinker) in the household mount a protest.  I contend that while you will certainly kill a lot of bad guys, your solution to our current problem could create a bigger problem for us in the future.

You, of course, just decide that I don't have the balls to do what is necessary to rid our house of the black ants.  Then, to prove your point you ask me one last question (and then get really obnoxious when I refuse to answer it):

"Shmokes, if letting these red ants go in the house was the only way to keep yourself from getting cancer would you do it?"

First off, I KNEW you secretly loved TA!  You're hoping to make him your angry luvah!

Secondly, I thought you were the thinker.  It's simply ridiculous to bring more ants to wipe out the original colony of ants when we could simply pull out our assault weapons and have a little target practice while ridding ourselves of the problem  If that didn't work, we'd just go up the ladder...grenades, land mines, armored tank, Black Hawk helicopter, Harrier jet, Stealth bomber, finally, failing all those, we'd simply drop a soon-to-be-created bunker buster.  Nice hot-white flash....no more ants.  Course we'd need these  

[DrewKaree]

here, here. i wish it were that i could articulate my arguments as succinctly and as frequently such that they don't result merely in polemics.

Maybe if you got a vaccination for it, that wouldn't happen...if it did, I bet you could get a balm / salve/ ointment for it.

Hey, how do you break it to your special lady friends that you've got the "polemics"?

[danny_galaga]

i don't. i wait until their doctor tells them  

[patrickl]

TA,
<owning snipped>

here, here. i wish it were that i could articulate my arguments as succinctly and as frequently such that they don't result merely in polemics.

Yeah, shmokes is realy smokin'. Amazing how he can put the simple facts into words so that even TA and Drew understand it.

[Mameotron]

And yet another thread degenerates into nothing more than name calling and endless flaming.

[TA Pilot]

Too vague of a question.  I'll address it like this:

No its not - and its a question that requires only a yes or a no for an answer.

You have responded with a "yes".

So, you're complaining that Bush is doing something that you agree is OK to do, if necessary - and that Bush wont tell you why its necessary.

Did it cross your mind that if its necessary to do, then perhaps the reasons behind it are too sensitive to make public?

[TA Pilot]

At any rate, that's your rhetorical trap.  I say that the answer is yes to your specific hypothetical scenario, and you then extend that to mean that I suddenly approve of breaking Geneva Conventions any time some vague appeal can be made to national security.  

You agree that the GC isnt invoilable.

Therefore, you cannot make a blanket condemnation about a perceived violation of the GC - unless you know the details.

And that the President hasnt made you aware of the details doesnt supprt your position - because its MORE that likely that if there was a need to violate the GC, its also MORE than likely that the reason for it is something that cant be openly discussed.