gerryhatrick

You forget that the abuse and humiliation of people occuring in these US gulags up until now has been described by US intelligence as out of control. The defence you and other rightwingers give for the torture we've witnessed thus far is that it's being done for the right reasons, when clearly it isn't. The fall-back defence many rightwingnuts give is that it's deserved...that we shouldn't "feel sorry" for terrorists, but again we've learned from CIA and others that the vast majority of those in these prisons were just in the wrong place at the wrong time...often scooped up in some raid along with 30 other members of a family. A raid based on information they have no way of confirming. Most telling about your personal clarification is you don't even care that innocents are getting abused. To you it's a "waste of resources". Also telling is that you start from a position/assumption that torture does work. The bulk of the testimony and evidence out there indicates it doesn't, yet you plant yourself at the position requiring someone to convince you that it doesn't work. The simple realization you should be able to understand is that people will say what they think their tormentors want to hear....with no regard for truth. Just say something to make it stop. A real "high value" person with knowledge of an upcoming attack will give false information. It's common sense. I think the majority of the responses from the right on this thread show us that rightwingers care only about causing pain and exacting revenge and all others "feel sorry" for terrorists. It's another complicated issue that they cannot fully grasp, so they've settled on the old "I'm tough, let's roll!" position.

Well, Pat Robertson, a CNN reporter is on the ground in Iraq and had this to say on Larry King last night: The mood is one of confusion. It's one of severe mental stress and strain. Families that I talk to worry because they don't know when they go out in the morning if they'll come home, they don't know when their children go out to school if their children will come back. They don't know who's behind the violence. They know they could be mugged that there would be policemen to turn to. They know they could have their homes robbed at gunpoint and there's nobody to call who's going to come and help them. There are insurgents who they fear and sectarian death squads, religious death squads whom they fear. They don't know whose side the Iranians are on, whose side the Syrians are on, exactly what the motives of the United States are. There's a lot of confusion. When you talk to people it's that mental stress and strain that really comes through. After three years of war if you imagine living through that confusion and that fear every single day, it's a weight that really sits heavily on people here That's interesting. The reply I gave nocrap was referencing the families of soldiers though, not Iraqis. I think the bottom line is you have 72% of troops who want the US out of Iraq. Not far from that line is the fact that about half of Iraqis believe attacks on coalition troops are justified and just over 80% want coalition troops to leave. How f#$%king obvious does the truth have to be before Bush grabs onto it? Murtha is so obviously correct in saying that the insurgents and the terrorists are employed in a common cause: fighting the USA. If the USA gets out the 20,000 insurgents will turn on the 1000 foreign terrorists they're tolerating now. The idea that the USA needs to stay there is devoid of logic.

It's a new story. Brand new. Breaking news as of the topic post date. Over and over again you seem unable to comprehend the simplest of concepts. Maybe slow down and double-check everything before you post. I don't know what else to suggest.

So what betsy? Stop wasting our time. You pounced all over a supposed hypocrisy in me and all others with fresh questions about the Afghanistan mission because you didn't realize the nature of the mission had recently changed. You object to the detainee policy being made clear, yet you cannot explain why. All you do is make petty and false accusations of hypocrisy. Address the topic without all this partisan argument for godsake.

I've repeated this several times. They won't address it. Torture = good, that's about as far as they can go.

More nitwittery. The word "hottie" is telling. That's all that silly bitch is.

I guess it's understandable all the black/white rightwing thinkers on this forum don't want to comment on this. Not politically correct enough for them.

I was wondering why it's in the Canada politics area. Thanks for explaining.

I think it's a fantastic idea Monty.

I hope Greg doesn't give me heck for posting this entire article. Yes, that is the entire article. It's a headline, not an article. But, if you want to paint it as the work of a "liberal media" trying to sweep something under the carpet, go ahead. More nitwittery!

Yes, I do seem to know more about this than yourself. Late in 2005 they redeployed from the Kabul area to their present deployment around Kandahar. Now you know.

Did you see the news today? US soldier convicted for cruel use of his dog on detainees "just for fun". Your question is pointless. People do all kinds of things that there's no good reason for. You think torture is good. Fine, write your MP asking that torture be part of the Canadian mission. Officially Canada is against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. I want that position restated, and since that's our policy there's no harm in restating it. It can only be a positive to solidify our policy in everyones mind lest some cowboy get the idea that a little torture might be fun.

That would be fine, except every time anyone critisizes the government or it's policy they're called "anti-American" by some idiot rightwinger. Rightwingers are the ones who need learn the distinction between governments and people.

Stories about what families think and polls on Americans are interesting, but the fact that 72% of American SOLDIERS believe they should get out of there (the USA, not just the soldiers personally as how some rightwingers are trying to spin it here) is most telling. They are on the ground and they obviously know something that Bush and Rummy aren't telling us.

What part of the story is factually incorrect? Pwned!

Peace, Earth, and Justice News? Gee, must have taken you quite a while to dig that up! So Peace, Earth, and Justice News noted in September 2005 that our forces were being transformed to resemble the American model, and that a redeployment was on the horizen. And because I didn't notice this in Peace, Earth, and Justice News I'm now a hypocrite? More nitwittery! The redeployment has been recent. This fresh straw man of yours is a waste of your time, and more importantly a waste of my time.

Your argument that human beings would only torture if - as rational human beings - it worked is incredibly naive. I have told you repeatedly that people will say anything to get torture to stop. I gave proof of that....how one guy fingered 30 other prisoners as Saddams bodyguards. You ignore that logic. Fine. Now you claim that soldiers wouldn't do it if it didn't work because they're human beings. What absolute nonsense. Soldiers are trained to dehumanize the enemy. If people are brought to them and they're told to "softenup" them up because they're the enemy and have information that can save lives then what do you think is going to happen? The question of pleasure is irrelevant.

Uh-oh, the "political correctness" boogyman. Military tactics are up to the military. Policy decisions are up to civilians. That's the nature of a democracy. Things go horribly wrong when you see (as we did recently in the USA) wishy washy instructions and implied approval of illegal activity from the top. When you see the lawyers of your leadership arguing that torture is confined to those things only likely to cause death, then the conditions are set for lunacy....for rifle butts to the face, electric shocks, cigarrette butts on the skin..etc. That's why we need our leadership to speak up now, like the Bush administration failed to do.

Shaving with a broken bottle probably ain't easy either. But god knows if it ain't easy, it ain't worth doing, right Jerry? Let us know how that works out for ya.

What do you know about Canadians? Nothing. Don't ever take a quote from me out of context, you wouldn't even post the whole sentence. You are a piece of work with zero crediability. Please stop posting if you don't wish to discuss in good faith. Canadians mostly want to leave, so says the polls. So obviously they don't support the people that want to be there, ie. the troops. Pretty solid statement. I didn't take it out of context at all. The added information changed nothing, and it only further shows how you know NOTHING about Canadians. Canadians support their troops. Don't try and sell the Bush lie that troops=mission to us. The troops want to serve, they want to do what they're ordered to do. Assuch, they are behind their mission. If it changes, they will remain behind it. Do not debase them as Bush does by using them as a political tool. Your statement - "Candians in general don't support the troops," was despicable.

But the Geneva Convention do not identify terrorists as legal combatants. While the third Geneva Convention's definitions of prisoners of war are broad, it clearly doesn't include terrorists. And clearly the majority of people being swept up are not "terrorists". That is admitted by by the CIA itself. It's friggin useless to torture people even if they ARE terrorists because if they actually know anything they'll give you bad information anyway. That will make the torture stop and send a few Humvees out on a wild goose chase, right? But even if it wasn't so useless, the fact that soldiers are deciding who will or won't get abused based upon unknown factors means innocents will be abused. America has destroyed a part of itself with these acts. And for what? Nothing. No claims of usefull intelligence out of this abuse/softening/torture/whatever have ever been made public.

You mean, up to the opportunistic party leaders who are already getting ready for the next election? You engage in your partisan nitwittery. I'll watch out for Canada and her troops. So, you fall back to the same familiar method of rebuttal.......personal attack! No, I'm not calling you an "idiot" or anything. I commented on what you're engaging in...the type of debate. Now that our troops are engaging in more offensive missions and likely to be taking greater numbers of prisoners there is a need to protect our troops against the same pitfalls that befell our Southern friends due to civilian leadership in this area. That is partisan nitwittery, pure and simple. I'm sure you're a very nice person betsy and I'm not critisizing you personally, just your points here.

Not really. Not if you have even the most basic understanding of the situation. The mission has changed. They've redeployed and started going out on offensive missions. Hello?

This is so moronic. When did the Liberals call for a vote? They didn't. Go back to Muslim bashing. Stick to your specialty!

Nobody cared about Nick Berg? What nonsense. You're spouting absolute drunken nonsense. The point of the topic isn't really the nature of torture and what you think about panties on heads or dog collars. The point is Canadians don't want to risk the same conditions existing that allowed the tragic embarassment and undermining of US forces. Civilians were to blame. Canada doesn't want that. If you gave a sh#t about Canada and our troops then you'd shut up and agree that this policy needs to be clarified out loud, regardless of what some might think should be understood and regardless of the high quality of our troops. Instead you're being a partisan with an uncaring and cavalier attitude about Canada and Canadian troops. You're not Canadian, correct?