I don't understand how you can be christian and support Rumsfeld/Bush/Torture

[TheReasoner]

Well, I was asked to defend my statement regarding why I consider many of the Bush administration's actions evil.

What I just posted here is yet another and to me rather powerful indicator of this.

 

[utdbear]

In other words: "I can't respond to the question at hand, so i'll attack another position."

Why do you feel the need to choose between supporting the Republicans or supporting the Democrats? Both parties are obviously corrupt.

Fine, I'll clarify. I refuse to take any moral advice from anybody who supports in any way the position of moral relativity that modern independent and Democratic liberals espouse to. The fact that these people are willing to shift the truth on their whims and desires indicates to me that they have no knowledge of what is moral and what is not. Therefore their position of on anything regarding moral authority, specifically trying to hold me accountable to my faith(How can you be a Christian and support ____), is worthless in my eyes. If you can't see that my position holds directly to the argument at hand, well,then I guess I can't help you.

 

[TheReasoner]

Fine, I'll clarify. I refuse to take any moral advice from anybody who supports in any way the position of moral relativity that modern independent and Democratic liberals espouse to. The fact that these people are willing to shift the truth on their whims and desires indicates to me that they have no knowledge of what is moral and what is not. Therefore their position of on anything regarding moral authority, specifically trying to hold me accountable to my faith(How can you be a Christian and support ____), is worthless in my eyes. If you want to take that as a personal attack, then you have the freedom to do so.

Maybe you should not use labels so much. They mess things up.

The question is simple, how can you - as a Christian - support a president whose administration tortures? It is not an attack, it is a question. Legitimizing your support for the administration or avoiding the issue altogether by turning it around and saying that you will not answer the question because *label* lacks moral in *whatever* is not a valid form of argument. It is a rather childish approach. Rise above the other side's attacks if you feel attacked and reply with dignity and respect, not with fingerpointing and blamegames. That way you will in return be respected and your oppinion taken a lot more seriously.
And this was not pointed to you specifically but rather to many/most users on this board when faced with a direct confrontation regarding an issue conflicting with their world view. In the light of recent events the American political group most easilly attacked in recent years has been yours. And this is not without reason. But it may change after 2008, when I have little doubt the democrats will win the American election, and people realize that messups is pretty universal across the political board, not specific for any one group.

Now, tell us, how can you support a government that not only condones and uses torture, but also lies stating it will fight on the breeches against torture.

 

[ballfan]

Maybe you should not use labels so much. They mess things up.

The question is simple, how can you - as a Christian - support a president whose administration tortures? It is not an attack, it is a question. Legitimizing your support for the administration or avoiding the issue altogether by turning it around and saying that you will not answer the question because *label* lacks moral in *whatever* is not a valid form of argument. It is a rather childish approach. Rise above the other side's attacks if you feel attacked and reply with dignity and respect, not with fingerpointing and blamegames.

Tell us, how can you support a government that not only condones and uses torture, but also lies stating it will fight on the breeches against torture.

To begin with your post is full of untruths. The President doesn't support torture.

Why do you support telling these lies so much? Tell us why. The conservatives here want to know. And not only support them but willingly take part in telling them. Tell us how you and others can do that.

 

[TheReasoner]

To begin with your post is full of untruths. The President doesn't support torture.

Why do you support telling these lies so much? Tell us why. The conservatives here want to know. And not only support them but willingly take part in telling them. Tell us how you and others can do that.

1.
Stop the labelling.
Conservative, liberal. That is so relative it is unbelievable.

2.
I have not lied, the president of the USA is in an administration under whose rule torture has been committed, and what has their response to this been?

 

[Mrs12bfishin]

I didn't have to time to read all of the other posts regarding this, but here is my .02 worth.

I am a Christian and I voted for Bush. Why? Because he is a christian and spoke more to my values. While I don't always agree with everything Bush does, in fact, some of the things down right anger and confuse me, he still has my support. I believe Bush has one of the hardest jobs in this country. And remember, he is only human.

I believe that God has complete control over everything, and there is a reason Bush was nominated. I wonder how many people in Iraq and Afghanistan (sp?) have heard the good news of Christ now that we have opened the doors to missionaries? Wouldn't this be important to Christians?

We may never know what God's reasons are. But I think this country is better off uniting and supporting the President than we are arguing and fighting. After all, aren't we stronger when we are standing together?

 

[TheReasoner]

To begin with your post is full of untruths. The President doesn't support torture.

Why do you support telling these lies so much? Tell us why. The conservatives here want to know. And not only support them but willingly take part in telling them. Tell us how you and others can do that.

I have posted video evidence showing Bush lied about the leveys in NO, that he knew they could burst. There has been evidence saying Bush did NOT know about any WMDs, but was indeed aware that there might very well be no WMDs there - yet he claimed he KNEW. We KNOW there have been torture committed in American prisons. We KNOW there have been people arrested and imprisoned without a trial and in direct violation of international law. We KNOW this. And so do you. We KNOW that it is extremely extremely unlikely that there were any ties between the Al Quaeda, the Ansar Al Islam and Iraq - yet Bush claimed there was. We also see what laws they enstate, making things like piracy punished harsher than rape and severe violence. We also see that the Bush administration does very little if anything at ALL to stop the torture and illegal treatment of (illegally imprisoned) prisoners in US army camps and jails like Guantanamo.
Now tell me, what does this tell us about Bush and the Bush administration?
Does it tell us that they are a truthful and honest bunch. No. They are liars, and this is proven fact. Then again, all politicians lie.
Does it tell us that they oppose torture and violation of international law? No. It does not. If they had they would a; Have done something about it. Or B; Not let it happen in the first place. Come on! They run the nation!
So either A; They are incompetent and are bystanders watching their military go haywire, not doing anything about it. Or B, they condone it.
Which do you think it is?

 

[Eryk]

But I think this country is better off uniting and supporting the President than we are arguing and fighting. After all, aren't we stronger when we are standing together?

We have to love what's right, and we shouldn't stand with someone who's doing wrong. The only thing that would cross the line is a coup. We fire our politicians at the polls, and it's a very peaceful method of regime change compared to some countries.

 

[Eryk]

To begin with your post is full of untruths. The President doesn't support torture.

Why do you support telling these lies so much? Tell us why. The conservatives here want to know. And not only support them but willingly take part in telling them. Tell us how you and others can do that.

We've shown that the Bush administration has tried to redefine torture, allowing for practices that are defined as torture under the Geneva Conventions. We've shown that they believe (as they've said in private memos) that the Geneva Conventions are irrelevant to their war.

"The now notorious Justice Department Bybee memorandum prepared in 2002 for Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales had declared that acts of interrogators ''may be cruel, inhumane, or degrading" but still not torture. The department set the bar for torture so high that almost any cruel measure would be permissible under US law. The memorandum's definition of the level of severe pain that had to be met for torture sounded particularly strange to physicians -- pain ''equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." Even more extreme was the definition of psychological torture requiring that the torturer ''intended to cause prolonged mental harm." Under this interpretation the interrogators could escape liability by saying that none of them specifically intended to cause the prolonged mental harms that detainees have apparently suffered (22 of them have attempted suicide).


In January, Gonzales, by then nominee for attorney general, explained why the lines had been drawn this way. He stated that torture was forbidden but that interrogation involving cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment was not forbidden if it took place outside the United States and American citizens were not the victims -- tailor-made for Guantanamo Bay and the CIA. This was the Justice Department's interpretation of the international treaty ratified in 1994, called the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.


Defenders of the Bush administration have said that their critics have confused torture with cruel and inhumane treatment. But if there was confusion, it was because most Americans had no idea that their government had adopted such an appalling legal interpretation of torture and permitted everything else that took place at Guantanamo Bay." Source

 

[ballfan]

1.
Stop the labelling.
Conservative, liberal. That is so relative it is unbelievable.

That seems to be the breakdown so I'll call it as it is.

2.
I have not lied, the president of the USA is in an administration under whose rule torture has been committed, and what has their response to this been?

You have. The question is why? You've said or strongly implied the President condones torture. He doesn't and has said so. In any instance where torture has been applied and the people doing it identified , legal action has been taken. Just don't expect them to just throw somebody in jail just because some prisoner yells torture. Just being arrested will qualify as torture for some.

Distortions are easy. I'll show you how. Its clear you must be a Nazi and support Hitler and all his policys. Afterall you come from the land of Quisling. How can you and Norway do such a thing?

See. Now you're guilty.

 

[ballfan]

We've shown that the Bush administration has tried to redefine torture, allowing for practices that are defined as torture under the Geneva Conventions. We've shown that they believe (as they've said in private memos) that the Geneva Conventions are irrelevant to their war.
[/quote]


Can you show me where in the Geneva Conventions any terrorist detainees are covered?

BTW, The Boston Globe is not a really good source. Its more like a mouthpiece.

Has the President not stood up and said he doesn't condone torture?

Depending on who you ask torture might be as simple as holding a suspect for trial might it not. Just depends on WHO YOU ASK doesn't it?

 

[TheReasoner]

Can you show me where in the Geneva Conventions any terrorist detainees are covered?

BTW, The Boston Globe is not a really good source. Its more like a mouthpiece.

Has the President not stood up and said he doesn't condone torture?

Depending on who you ask torture might be as simple as holding a suspect for trial might it not. Just depends on WHO YOU ASK doesn't it?

So, who defines what a terrorist is?

It is only the American government who believes the geneve convention does not apply to their war.

 

[Eryk]

Can you show me where in the Geneva Conventions any terrorist detainees are covered?

BTW, The Boston Globe is not a really good source. Its more like a mouthpiece.

Has the President not stood up and said he doesn't condone torture?

Depending on who you ask torture might be as simple as holding a suspect for trial might it not. Just depends on WHO YOU ASK doesn't it?

Show me the "suspected terrorist detainees don't have basic human rights" clause in the GC and you'll have a point.

Yeah, pick on the Globe. Show me where they've falsified the Justice Department memo and you'll have another point.

The president says he doesn't condone "torture". We've seen how they play fast and loose with that term. The degrading treatment photographed at abu ghraib was allowed by the administration but forbidden by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 in which the rights of prisoners of war, civilians in occupied territories, detainees and other imprisoned combatants are guaranteed and protected. Among these rights is protection from torture both physical and psychological, and from abuse of the detainees' rights to medical care, expression of religious faith, and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." (Part I, article 3.1c).

After the truth got out (they weren't counting on digital photos getting sent by email everywhere) Bush gets all holy on us and says he's against this degrading treatment even though his own Justice Department had said it was OK.

 

[JustOneWay]

Depending on who you ask torture might be as simple as holding a suspect for trial might it not. Just depends on WHO YOU ASK doesn't it?

Ask me. I say that listening to Bush mangle the English language for five years is torture.

 

[ballfan]

So, who defines what a terrorist is?

It is only the American government who believes the geneve convention does not apply to their war.

I think the US government has as much right to define it as anyone else has to give their own definition.

Now, Can you point to a section of the Geneva Conventions that covers terrorist detainees?

Or can you just admit what I'm sure we both know. That theres nothing there that does.

 

[ballfan]

Show me the "suspected terrorist detainees don't have basic human rights" clause in the GC and you'll have a point.

Eryk, you're the one who brought up the GC and made claims. You really ought to read it. It wasn't writtent with terrorists in mind. Not at all. It tells exactly who it covers. Try as you may fitting a terrorist into that convention is like tring to put a square peg into a round hole. Doesn't fit.

 

[ballfan]

Ask me. I say that listening to Bush mangle the English language for five years is torture.

But that proves my point.

 

[JustOneWay]

Eryk, you're the one who brought up the GC and made claims. You really ought to read it. It wasn't writtent with terrorists in mind. Not at all. It tells exactly who it covers. Try as you may fitting a terrorist into that convention is like tring to put a square peg into a round hole. Doesn't fit.

How convinent to have a WAR against terrorism, where no rules apply....

 

[TheReasoner]

That seems to be the breakdown so I'll call it as it is.



You have. The question is why?

Instead of merely saying that I have lied, which implies knowingly twisting the truth or knowingly telling an untruth (and I believe I have knowingly told truths). Prove me wrong why don't you?

You've said or strongly implied the President condones torture.

It sure seems like he does.

He doesn't and has said so.

Like he said Iraq HAD WMDs, and like he said noone could foretell the break of the New Orleans Leveys? Like he said Iraq had connections to Ansar Al Islam and Al Quaeda? Yes, he said so. And that IMO proves my point. If he does not condone torture like he claims, why does he not do more about it, but rather claim the detainees do not fall under any categorization covered by international law, and thus that it is possible to arrest them and imprison them without a trial, and torture them while detained? I can say I am Napoleon Bonaparte, but that does not make me Napoleon Bonaparte. That Bush says something is clearly no indication of anything, given how much he has lied. You will have to excuse me for not believing the man, but there is no reason to believe in him.

In any instance where torture has been applied and the people doing it identified , legal action has been taken. Just don't expect them to just throw somebody in jail just because some prisoner yells torture. Just being arrested will qualify as torture for some.

So you deny that the government of the United States condones and knowingly uses torture to extract information from victims of illegal arrests?
You deny that there have been human rights violations performed by your government in attempts to gain information from these?

Distortions are easy. I'll show you how. Its clear you must be a Nazi and support Hitler and all his policys.

for the sake of argument, it is not. Hitler had many policies you would probably approve of. Not the most central and historically well known, but do not believe every single thing the man stood for was evil, even if a whole lot was. Hitler had tremendous support in Germany after he did a whole lot for the country financially after WW1.

Afterall you come from the land of Quisling. How can you and Norway do such a thing?

Quisling, a man whose name became a noun. And your argument is pretty flawed. It is very well known that those actions were not supported by Norwegians, but that this was a coup made by the nazis. We fought for longer than the French did. Quisling would not have gotten into power without the help of a few hundred thousand German soldiers. A man whose party had 2 000 members...

See. Now you're guilty.

We are guilty of a lot. But Hitler is not one of them.

You would seek to make us, a nation fighting so hard against the Germans guilty of Quisling who needed them to gain control of this nation?
If you want to make us guilty, do it properly and adress real issues such as weapons trade, and using parts of the oil fund on immoral businesses such as tobacco companies who in the third world advertise and sell to children, or pornography. Neither produced by Norwegian companies but partially owned through stocks in the oil fund.
Address such issues, and I am more than willing to debate the immorality of my government.
However, it seems like you do not want to realize that your own government is immoral as few (democratic ones), and present a terrible example to other nations!

 

[TheReasoner]

I think the US government has as much right to define it as anyone else has to give their own definition.

Now, Can you point to a section of the Geneva Conventions that covers terrorist detainees?

Or can you just admit what I'm sure we both know. That theres nothing there that does.

So, if the USA chooses to say that a terrorist is a person who openly opposes the government, that would be well within their right?

My point is;
A terrorist is a human, and has either the rights of a civilian - or the rights of a soldier. There are no people who have no rights!