January 10, 200521 yr Torture? Not if cheerleaders do it, lawyer claims By Jenny Booth, Times Online Forcing naked Iraqi prisoners to pile themselves in human pyramids was not torture, because American cheerleaders do it every year, a court was told today. A lawyer defending Specialist Charles Graner, who is accused of being a ringleader in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, argued that piling naked prisoners in pyramids was a valid form of prisoner control. "Don?t cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" said Guy Womack, Sergeant Graner?s lawyer, in opening arguments to the ten-member military jury at the reservist?s court martial. Sergeant Graner and Private Lynndie England, with whom he fathered a child and who is also facing a court-martial, became the faces of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal after they appeared in photographs that showed degraded, naked prisoners. The prosecution showed some of those pictures in their opening argument, including one of naked Iraqi men piled on each other and another of Ms England holding a crawling naked Iraqi man on a leash. Sergeant Charles Graner I would.... I mean.... HOW CAN YOU USE A LAWYER LIKE THIS?! rest of the article
January 10, 200521 yr Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident
January 11, 200521 yr Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident 652460[/snapback] Youre saying they didnt do anything wrong in their treatment of the prisoners? Without being patronizing, Id like to know how you, being a Christian, reconcile the allowance of such methods with one's own faith? Any other Christian who thinks these methods are not a mistake can also answer.
January 11, 200521 yr He should've gone with the Chewbacca defense. :thumbup "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company producer and entertainer and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. I know he seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey. The defense rests."
January 11, 200521 yr Author If I was 100% convinced someone had info that could prevent another 9/11, I would have no problem feeding their arm into a blender slowly if I thought that would make them talk. 652762[/snapback] I don't see what that has to do with the incident unless you believe Iraq was planning to attack America with another 9/11 attack. If you believe that I would love to see your proof. And if anything tactics like these would anger the enemy and I would think make them more determined to succeed and to fight.
January 11, 200521 yr Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident 652460[/snapback] I agree. Screw those f***ing terrorists. Let them be treated in the most inhumane ways possible. They get what they deserve. I am glad that they were tortured and I support the soldiers who did what they did. Terrorists are not people, who should care how we treat them!
January 11, 200521 yr Without being patronizing, Id like to know how you, being a Christian, reconcile the allowance of such methods with one's own faith? Any other Christian who thinks these methods are not a mistake can also answer. If there is true seperation of church and state, then there is no issue. Its something for academics to debate, but a nation should not be bound by artificial religion based notions of goodness or badness when its survival is at stake. If I was 100% convinced someone had info that could prevent another 9/11, I would have no problem feeding their arm into a blender slowly if I thought that would make them talk. If it were a choice between my countrymen and a terrorist, the terrorist loses that coin toss every single time. :plain "morality" is something only the winners get to debate. A phyrric moral victory enjoyed from the comfort of the grave is not desirable to me. 652762[/snapback] We have a winner.
January 11, 200521 yr Author Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident 652460[/snapback] I agree. Screw those f***ing terrorists. Let them be treated in the most inhumane ways possible. They get what they deserve. I am glad that they were tortured and I support the soldiers who did what they did. Terrorists are not people, who should care how we treat them! 652776[/snapback] So if another country came in and invaded America and took American's into prison and tortured them mercilessly just because they are American's fighting to keep their homeland theirs I guess you would be okay with that to right?
January 11, 200521 yr Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident 652460[/snapback] I agree. Screw those f***ing terrorists. Let them be treated in the most inhumane ways possible. They get what they deserve. I am glad that they were tortured and I support the soldiers who did what they did. Terrorists are not people, who should care how we treat them! 652776[/snapback] Interesting perspective. But look not at the principle but at the laws that govern the way the world wages war. NO country can torture prisoners, it does not matter what kind of people they are.
January 11, 200521 yr Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident 652460[/snapback] I agree. Screw those f***ing terrorists. Let them be treated in the most inhumane ways possible. They get what they deserve. I am glad that they were tortured and I support the soldiers who did what they did. Terrorists are not people, who should care how we treat them! 652776[/snapback] So if another country came in and invaded America and took American's into prison and tortured them mercilessly just because they are American's fighting to keep their homeland theirs I guess you would be okay with that to right? 652782[/snapback] Something tells me that is a bit different. I doubt that Americans would resort to suicide bombing and killing civilians in order to defend their country. Speaking for myself. Me being American and all.
January 11, 200521 yr Author Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident 652460[/snapback] I agree. Screw those f***ing terrorists. Let them be treated in the most inhumane ways possible. They get what they deserve. I am glad that they were tortured and I support the soldiers who did what they did. Terrorists are not people, who should care how we treat them! 652776[/snapback] So if another country came in and invaded America and took American's into prison and tortured them mercilessly just because they are American's fighting to keep their homeland theirs I guess you would be okay with that to right? 652782[/snapback] Something tells me that is a bit different. I doubt that Americans would resort to suicide bombing and killing civilians in order to defend their country. Speaking for myself. Me being American and all. 652788[/snapback] Fighting is fighting. I would hate to think Americans would just lay down and be like "okay just be over with it." And I don't think the invader would sit by and let the violent American's revolt, rather throw them in prisons, it doesn't matter how you fight. So if you think us throwing Iraqis in jail and torturing them is okay because they fight against our troops then you must agree with the fact that if another country invaded America it would be okay for them to toss american's in jail and torturing them because they resisted.
January 11, 200521 yr Fighting is fighting but your logic is flawed. They (Iraqi insurgency) fight in such a way that they may deserve this kind of treatment, whereas American citizens would not target civilians and suicide bomb. I am not saying what the troops like Lindy England did was right, because it was wrong.
January 11, 200521 yr Author Fighting is fighting but your logic is flawed. They (Iraqi insurgency) fight in such a way that they may deserve this kind of treatment, whereas American citizens would not target civilians and suicide bomb. 652807[/snapback] So you can confidently say the only people that were tortured were those who only attacked fellow Iraqis? That none of them may have found themselves in the prision because they fought against only the Americans? Sure I believe there are plenty that may have targeted other Iraqis, but I also believe American's rounded up those who were just against the cause who may not necessarily be "insurgents", just those who want to keep their land as theirs.
January 11, 200521 yr Fighting is fighting but your logic is flawed. They (Iraqi insurgency) fight in such a way that they may deserve this kind of treatment, whereas American citizens would not target civilians and suicide bomb. 652807[/snapback] So you can confidently say the only people that were tortured were those who only attacked fellow Iraqis? That none of them may have found themselves in the prision because they fought against only the Americans? Sure I believe there are plenty that may have targeted other Iraqis, but I also believe American's rounded up those who were just against the cause who may not necessarily be "insurgents", just those who want to keep their land as theirs. 652813[/snapback] You missed it What I meant was that these people are among the same that target WESTERN civilians also.
January 11, 200521 yr Give the poor lawyer a break, he's got to try something...what would you have said?
January 11, 200521 yr Author Give the poor lawyer a break, he's got to try something...what would you have said? 652842[/snapback] Talk about the intel they got out of all of this and show how it worked. Then again maybe they didn't get anything positive out of doing this.
January 11, 200521 yr Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident 652460[/snapback] Youre saying they didnt do anything wrong in their treatment of the prisoners? Without being patronizing, Id like to know how you, being a Christian, reconcile the allowance of such methods with one's own faith? Any other Christian who thinks these methods are not a mistake can also answer. 652716[/snapback] Religion is not an issue, as it never is in politics. Seperation of church and state remember? If by using these humiliation methods which are not electroshock or other such things can lead to information that can save lives then i condone it totally. Let me ask you this, if a soldier humiliates an enemy, and the enemy gives info on key enemy locations of terrorists thus saving 100s of lives would you still not condone the methods?
January 11, 200521 yr Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident 652460[/snapback] Youre saying they didnt do anything wrong in their treatment of the prisoners? Without being patronizing, Id like to know how you, being a Christian, reconcile the allowance of such methods with one's own faith? Any other Christian who thinks these methods are not a mistake can also answer. 652716[/snapback] Religion is not an issue, as it never is in politics. Seperation of church and state remember? If by using these humiliation methods which are not electroshock or other such things can lead to information that can save lives then i condone it totally. Let me ask you this, if a soldier humiliates an enemy, and the enemy gives info on key enemy locations of terrorists thus saving 100s of lives would you still not condone the methods? 652853[/snapback] Cmon legacy, you know religion plays a role in politics. You wouldnt argue its wrong of Bush to say his faith plays a role in his choices right? Seperation of church and state yes but we all know that morality plays a role, a very strong role in fact, in politics right? Im guessing a large part of your moral beliefs arise from your faith right? Im sure that faith plays a role in your decisions on politics. That can never be denied for anyone nor has anyone asked that it does. Merely that the state not undergo to promote a religion. I know you can do better than the seperation of church and state argument on this one legacy. How does the Christian side of you reconcile this with the political utilitarian side of you? Again Im not trying to be patronizing on this. We have had many discussions on this board about morality and the role of religion. As far as the aspects of whether I agree with it or not, Ill admit its vague for myself. I understand that for security purposes it has to happen. But I also watched the history channel yesterday and was reminded on how the horribley the Japanese treated our soliders during WW2. Justifications can always arise for doing the stuff.
January 11, 200521 yr Race card? Anyway, Granted its a strange defense but the problem is much like the peterson and jackson trials, that the media has been oversturated with irrlevant news stories about them. Now how exactly is torture defined and what are the limits that soldiers or interrogators must abide by in order to interrogate enemies. The Geneva convention as we all know is defintely outdated and needs to be reevaluated into a more modern agreement. The biggest mistake in Abu Ghraib was filming the incident 652460[/snapback] I agree. Screw those f***ing terrorists. Let them be treated in the most inhumane ways possible. They get what they deserve. I am glad that they were tortured and I support the soldiers who did what they did. Terrorists are not people, who should care how we treat them! 652776[/snapback] So if another country came in and invaded America and took American's into prison and tortured them mercilessly just because they are American's fighting to keep their homeland theirs I guess you would be okay with that to right? 652782[/snapback] Something tells me that is a bit different. I doubt that Americans would resort to suicide bombing and killing civilians in order to defend their country. Speaking for myself. Me being American and all. 652788[/snapback] Didn't Timothy McVeigh bomb the Federal Building in Oklahoma because he felt it was best for America because he was very anti-centralized government? Outside of that, torture is an issue I do not wish to delve in because I don't know what's torture and what isn't and what the circumstances are surrounding the person being tortured.
January 11, 200521 yr the whole thing was a mess. I've read reports that military physicians were involved (I believe more at Guantanamo than Abu Ghraib) in tailoring torture methods to an individual's medical history to make it more effective. talk about an ethical dilemma...
January 11, 200521 yr Totally agree Tonyi, but the fact remains that some religious people draw on their particular beliefs for their morals over the "morality of the era". For example no matter how prevalent homosexuality is, some people's religious beliefs just aren't going to allow them to accept it.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.