I'm so curious!

This is the place for postings unrelated to action toward achieving dreams-- Emotions, World Events, Hobbies, Trivia & other important but not directly relevant matters. Muse, meditate, mope or ponder & enter other forums when you're ready to get moving.

Moderators: Tituba, BarbaraSher

Postby Elizabeth Bits » Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:24 pm

I repeat...again... What's the option to torture? We HAVE to get these guys to talk. What would you suggest? Your question is stupid, Miss C. The people they are torturing are the worst of the worst terrorists. They are not simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Grow up and get real. Now, if you have evidence - reliable sources only, not Michael Moore or the hypothetical aliens you believe live in your head (wouldn't want you to mess up the tin foil) - that they are dragging young, innocent children out of neighborhood mosques that preach peace and brotherhood to torture them, show me and I will be even more appalled that I am now. I am as appalled by the torture as you are. So give me another option.
Elizabeth Bits
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:14 pm

Postby dani » Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:36 pm

Here are the recommendations of Global Security.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm If the longer link doesn't work, this is the reference withing the main URL: Appendix H Approaches I'm hunting for more and will post them as I find them.
dani
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:08 pm
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities area

Postby missC » Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:57 pm

Elizabeth Bits wrote:IYour question is stupid, Miss C. The people they are torturing are the worst of the worst terrorists..
Thanks for the civility. I was suggesting that mistakes are made. By conservatives, by the secret services, by others. As evidenced by the British shooting of an innocent man identified as a terrorist on the London Underground - among other things. If you're suggesting that either the Republicans or the secret service are infallible, it'd be interesting to know how you square that with both the British and American dossiers supporting the case for war, and Rove's 'innocent blunder' regarding Valerie Plame. Your trustfulness is touching.
missC
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: West Yorkshire UK

Postby missC » Fri Nov 11, 2005 4:00 pm

Elizabeth Bits wrote:Now, if you have evidence - reliable sources only, not Michael Moore or the hypothetical aliens you believe live in your head (wouldn't want you to mess up the tin foil) - that they are dragging young, innocent children out of neighborhood mosques that preach peace and brotherhood to torture them, show me and I will be even more appalled that I am now.
Amazingly rude. Bitsy, please don't throw any more Wounded Victims and get all red-eyed and tearful about how rude and insulting others are to you. I'm bookmarking this.
missC
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: West Yorkshire UK

Postby dani » Fri Nov 11, 2005 4:13 pm

Here's an article from yesterday's USA Today: Title: Abu Ghraib inflamed the debate over abuse , USA Today, 07347456, NOV 10, 2005 Database: Academic Search Premier Abu Ghraib inflamed the debate over abuse Section: News, Pg. 11a Here are some questions and answers on the detainee abuse issue: Q: How did detainee treatment become an issue? A: The April 2004 revelations of abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad touched off an uproar. The U.S. government said the abusive treatment stemmed from criminal behavior by the guards, not official policy. Subsequent investigations uncovered internal Bush administration documents that appeared to claim a legal justification for severe treatment of captives and some guidelines that approved harsh interrogation methods. Q: What would Sen. John McCain's proposal do? A: It would make the Army Field Manual's interrogation techniques standard for all detainees held by U.S. agencies, including the CIA. All detention practices would have to observe bans on inhumane treatment established in U.S. and international law. Q: What is McCain's argument? A: McCain says abuse of prisoners doesn't accomplish anything because they'll say whatever is necessary to make it stop. It puts U.S. soldiers at risk of retaliation, he says, and seriously mars the country's reputation. Q: What makes this fight unusual? A: It pits President Bush against most of his fellow Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia. Twelve House Republicans have written their leadership asking it to support McCain. Bush's former secretary of State, Colin Powell, has signed a similar letter. Q: How did McCain get such strong support from a Senate that usually backs the president? A: McCain commands great respect on detainee issues because he spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese POW camp, where he was often tortured. "John McCain has great standing because he has seen it from both sides," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. Q: What is current policy? A: U.S. laws against torture and treaty obligations, including provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture, bind all U.S. officials in their handling of detainees. The military is now under revised guidelines requiring humane treatment of all detainees in military custody. While Bush said "we do not torture," the administration has asserted legal rights allowing harsh treatment for some terror suspects held outside U.S. territory. The administration has not disclosed the guidelines governing CIA interrogations, and the new military interrogation policy appears to include a loophole that could allow harsher treatment if approved by top officials. The administration says it must be allowed to hold some terror suspects indefinitely because of the risk that they could engage in terror attacks. Q: Since Bush says we don't torture, why does he oppose the bill? A: The administration has said little publicly about the McCain proposal, but the main objection appears to center on presidential power and prerogatives rather than an explicit desire to torture. Bush says he must have power to "aggressively pursue" terrorists who may know about plans for attacks. Q: Did the CIA request that Vice President Cheney seek an exception in the legislation allowing agency interrogators greater latitude in how they question captives? A: No. CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck said the CIA does not take positions on bills. (c) USA TODAY, 2005 Source: USA Today, NOV 10, 2005 Item: J0E026627356805
dani
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:08 pm
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities area

Postby Elizabeth Bits » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:31 pm

Dani, A reasonable and well-thought out piece. Thank you! As I said, I don't like torture either, but we only do what works - it's how we are built. If torture doesn't work, has never worked and won't help us find out what we need, we wouldn't be using it. Has there been anything in your life that you've done over and over again that has never worked on any level? Nope. Doesn't happen. We simply don't do it. It's why behavior modification is so effective. I'd like to be on the books saying I don't think we should use torture unless we have absolutely no other recourse to save innocent lives. But no one has told me an alternative. What do we do to get them to talk? There has to be some research on this somewhere! Miss C - grab me some info. on a 15 year old innocent child being tortured in a secret prison by America and then your comment might be applicable - though wholly inappropriate to ask a mom to imagine her son being tortured to death. I think that is a new low. What shall we call it? The \"hitting below the belt\" gambit? Please DO bookmark it. Ms. Sher has set the tone and called it teasing. I have, as others have, said she's being rude. I'm trying to follow suit and tease so we can keep things light and fun as we discuss some very, very serious topics. Take it with a grain of salt, giggle and move on. Besides, you started it! :) (Where is that graphic I have of monkey's flinging poo at each other???)
Elizabeth Bits
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:14 pm

Postby missC » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:40 pm

Elizabeth Bits wrote: Miss C - grab me some info. on a 15 year old innocent child being tortured in a secret prison by America and then your comment might be applicable - though wholly inappropriate to ask a mom to imagine her son being tortured to death. I think that is a new low. What shall we call it? The "hitting below the belt" gambit? Please DO bookmark it. Ms. Sher has set the tone and called it teasing. I have, as others have, said she's being rude. I'm trying to follow suit and tease so we can keep things light and fun as we discuss some very, very serious topics. Take it with a grain of salt, giggle and move on. Besides, you started it! :) (Where is that graphic I have of monkey's flinging poo at each other???)
Ms Bits: any person being tortured is some mother's child. Why is it only offensive to you if it is your own child?
Ms. Sher has set the tone and called it teasing. I have, as others have, said she's being rude.
Do specify where. It would be interesting to know the standards you set for others' behaviour as opposed to your own.
Take it with a grain of salt, giggle and move on.
Thank you for the instruction. I will however make my own choice.
Besides, you started it!
I'm aware it's generally unwise to even bother to respond to a tactic of this level. However, I do invite you to point out exactly where you consider I 'started it', i.e. rudeness and ad hominem attacks.
missC
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: West Yorkshire UK

Postby missC » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:44 pm

missC wrote:
Elizabeth Bits wrote:IYour question is stupid, Miss C. The people they are torturing are the worst of the worst terrorists..
Thanks for the civility. I was suggesting that mistakes are made. By conservatives, by the secret services, by others. As evidenced by the British shooting of an innocent man identified as a terrorist on the London Underground - among other things. If you're suggesting that either the Republicans or the secret service are infallible, it'd be interesting to know how you square that with both the British and American dossiers supporting the case for war, and Rove's 'innocent blunder' regarding Valerie Plame. Your trustfulness is touching.
However, my dear, congratulations. Very nice try at moving the topic away from this point.
missC
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: West Yorkshire UK

Postby Elizabeth Bits » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:56 pm

Ohhhhhh...I was hoping you'd ask that. But first, it is offensive to me if an innocent child is hurt anywhere - like the three year old on the airplane that was slammed into the World Trade Center for example. And since everyone is someone's child no one should be punished for committing heinous crimes? What about sex offenders who destroy the lives of 50 - 70 children before they're even caught? Sexually violent criminals regularly get 5 years of jail time with NO probation after they get out. Should we just give 'em a hug and let 'em go because they're someone's baby? I don't think so. Lock 'em up forever and throw away the key. We know they cannot be "cured" and that they will offend over and over and over. Sorry...rant. Okay...where has Ms. Sher "teased" me. Just wander through Katrina. On page 5 she implies that I am an "ignorant, deaf liar." She says, "Maybe our Elizabeth isn't so good after all." She said my way of handling information was "consistently bizarre and frightening." She implied that I wasn't caring properly for my family on numerous occasions and called me and others who didn't agree with her "cold, blind and angry." Then she took off on the whole gambit thing which some felt was extremely rude. Let's see...she said, "You are not honest." She said, "Conservatives have a cold spot that damages the ability of both their heart and minds to operate." She also asked me, "Why are we relentlessly blessed with your presence." Some felt they were personal attacks, but Ms. Sher has assured us she's just teasing. Me too. There's much, much more. You can click on her name to see all her posts. But I don't take it personally. You shouldn't either.
Elizabeth Bits
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:14 pm

Postby Elizabeth Bits » Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:00 pm

Oh, you want me to address that - AGAIN? Okay. Yes, mistakes are made by everyone regardless of their political party. Yes, an innocent man was killed in London which is a tragedy. Doesn't mean we should stop looking for terrorists. I've never in my life said anyone is infallible and I don't blindly trust anyone but my cat. I do believe the war is just and has to be fought. I don't think it's an \"illegal\" war. I'd rather not be at war, but I don't think we have much of a choice. I'm still studying the Plame thing as I've said about twenty times. Happy? :D
Elizabeth Bits
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:14 pm

Postby Elizabeth Bits » Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:15 pm

For Miss C's benefit. I was chatting on the Kerry thread and you came on with this: (She wanted proof that she started it which is why I'm pointing this out.) Honestly, sweetie - I was joking around with you when I said that. It's why I said the thing about the monkeys to sort of drive home the point that I was being silly. Do you EVER laugh? :?
missC wrote:You seem to have lots and lots of free time at the moment Elizabeth. How super.
Elizabeth Bits wrote:I do. It IS super! Was that an attack? Tell me if it was so I can feel attacked and upset. Otherwise I'll take it as a compliment.
missC wrote:I'm sure you can manage to find grounds for reading it that way if you put the effort in, Liz - anyone who reads your posts knows you have a talent for tinkering with semantics.
So, you insulted me. I said I would take it as a compliment and you came back on and made it clear that you were indeed insulting me and then insulted me again. So you see - you DID start it! http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rsotelo/monkey2.html Yes, I'm being silly. I am not saying you are a monkey. I am not saying anyone is a monkey. I am not making fun of any specific race or level of intelligence or sexual orientation. I'm not even making fun of monkeys...or poo. I am saying that - with great silliness - that when people "tease" one another it reminds me of monkeys flinging poo at one another. No sense of humor what-so-ever. Rent a good comedy tonight. It'll be good for you! :D
Elizabeth Bits
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:14 pm

Postby BarbaraSher » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:33 pm

Elizabeth Bits wrote:I repeat...again... What's the option to torture? We HAVE to get these guys to talk. What would you suggest? Your question is stupid, Miss C. The people they are torturing are the worst of the worst terrorists. They are not simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Grow up and get real. Now, if you have evidence - reliable sources only, not Michael Moore or the hypothetical aliens you believe live in your head (wouldn't want you to mess up the tin foil) - that they are dragging young, innocent children out of neighborhood mosques that preach peace and brotherhood to torture them, show me and I will be even more appalled that I am now. I am as appalled by the torture as you are. So give me another option.
Yech. That's disgusting, Elizabeth. I really do think you have mood swings. Try not to be abusive or I'll start feeling sorry for your kids.
BarbaraSher
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm

Postby missC » Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:10 am

Elizabeth Bits wrote:F
missC wrote:You seem to have lots and lots of free time at the moment Elizabeth. How super.
Elizabeth Bits wrote:I do. It IS super! Was that an attack? Tell me if it was so I can feel attacked and upset. Otherwise I'll take it as a compliment.
missC wrote:I'm sure you can manage to find grounds for reading it that way if you put the effort in, Liz - anyone who reads your posts knows you have a talent for tinkering with semantics.
So, you insulted me. I said I would take it as a compliment and you came back on and made it clear that you were indeed insulting me and then insulted me again. So you see - you DID start it!
That's a misreading, Elizabeth. Unintentional or otherwise. I can explain again if you want to bother to follow through the steps. But nice try hon!
missC
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: West Yorkshire UK

Postby missC » Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:17 am

Elizabeth Bits wrote: Honestly, sweetie - I was joking around with you when I said that. It's why I said the thing about the monkeys to sort of drive home the point that I was being silly. Do you EVER laugh? :?
Boy, this is an old one. It's the good old Haven't you got a sense of humour? Gambit - you often see it with abusive bosses and bully kids with their gang in the playground. The game is, you say whatever nasty abusive thing you like - then when your target gets upset, you just chant 'Haven't you got a sense of humour?' and it gets you off the hook completely! Amazing! Of course, Elizabeth, you do know that every time you threw a Wounded Victim and accused others of insulting and upsetting you, they was just joshing with yez? Surely? Boy, big dish o' goose sauce for that ol' grey gander today!
missC
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: West Yorkshire UK

Postby GiniDee » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:28 am

All this rather bitter back-and-forthing makes me want to scurry right back into my hermit crab tidepool. But it also makes me glad I'm a political atheist with a huge funny bone and no redeeming social value whatsoever. I shall continue to watch this thread with great interest. G:D
GiniDee :mrgreen: My idea of a balanced diet is a cookie in each hand. :mrgreen: GiniDee :mrgreen:
GiniDee
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:01 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Deep (or Shallow) Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests