I wish some of you would get your terms right

[sirs]

Or more accurately, apply them when appropriate.  It's bad enough dealing with Tee's misguided hyperbolic rants of how out of control our military is, or Lanya's op-ed parade of how Bush is a war criminal, so why not actually try applying terms appropriately.

Let's start with "Torture".  There's a continued tactic of those with BDS who claim that we "torture", that the Bush administration condones "torture", that those who support our war on Terror and efforts at interrogating captured prisoners advocate "torture".  All despite the continued on-the-record proclaimations that we don't.  It sure does appear the left distorts the term "torture", in an effort to apply it to anything that may be considered "uncomfortable".  In reality however "uncomfortable" does NOT equal "torture".

I do believe that folks like Bush or those who support the war have been very up front in NOT condoning torture.  And I do beleive that term is appropriately applied to the physical personifications of torture such as the tearing of nails, breaking of bones, piercing body parts, joint dislocations, basically the stuff done to John McCain when he was a POW at the hands of the Vietcong

Sadly, it does appear that the left, in their fervor to condemn anything & everything Bush, applies "torture" to mean anything that might remotely bring discomfort or psychologocal duress to an enemy combantant.  And heaven forbid if they don't get "legal representation".  This is a war, not some criminal investigation.  The enemy has made it clear what their intentions are.  Now, you don't have to believe that, you don't have to believe Bush, you don't have to believe me.  What would be a breath of fresh air however, would be in you folks honestly applying terms, where they're appropriate.  Which includes refraining from knee jerk accusations that anyone that doesn't agree with your POV must be a supporter of "torture"

Can you folks do that?


Now, shall we move on to "tax cuts for the rich" & "states rights"?

[_JS]

Now, shall we move on to "tax cuts for the rich" & "states rights"?

Giving newspeak lessons are we?

[BT]

_JS says:Giving newspeak lessons are we?

When one considers the amount of misinformation that goes along with the phrase tax cuts for the rich, perhaps newspeak is in order.

And when one considers the recent states rights movements concerning assisted suicide and medicinal marijuana one would be correct in assuming that states rights is not synomynous with racist keeping the dark folks down politics.

[_JS]

States' Rights died when its main supporters flipped sides to get George W. Bush elected in 2000. Mostly this administration has only supported States' Rights when it helped the Federal Government to dump unfunded mandates onto states, or to play states off on one another as in the case of the Katrina aftermath. A real states' rights supporter should look to Canada as a role model. Provinces there have real power over the federal government - to the point that the fed has to negotiate with them! States' rights in the United States exists only where the Federal Government allows it, and with the "War on Terror" (points to me for alluding back to the original post) I don't see that coming back anytime soon.

Seriously, medicinal marijauna is nothing. Evangelicals don't want legalized drugs, so we won't have them.

Tax cuts for the rich are what they are. Perhaps when the right-wing stops telling people how poor farmers and low income working class have had to sell everything they owned to pay off the "death taxes" (bald faced lies) then we can discuss your newspeak. Bob Corker runs an ad here that uses the above lies, right out there for all to hear.

I'll simply use the phrase, "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

As for "torture", and legal rights Sirs. The first word you need to define and with a real definition, not something a third grader might use, is "war."

I don't recall any declaration of war. Who are we at war against? What are we at war against? Ideas? Some nebulous group of people that you ill-define as "islamofascists?"

[sirs]

As for "torture", and legal rights Sirs. The first word you need to define and with a real definition, not something a third grader might use, is "war."

I know the definitions of both.  I just wish the anti-war folks would apply them appropriately.  Being made to listen to loud music isn't torture.  Being made to NOT get the daily required 8 hours of sleep is not torture.  Being humiliated is NOT torture.  And taking prisoners during a time of war, does not translate into requiring automatic legal representation nor full geneva convention protections if the enemy has chosen not to abide by the requirements of being protected by them

If you missed the "declaration", just go back to when Congress gave Bush full authority to go after our enemy.  When they decide to represent a specific country, then perhaps you'll see a formal declaration.  And we're at war against an enemy that'd like to see us all dead.  At leat that's what they've sayed publically.

[_JS]

Being humiliated is NOT torture.

On the contrary, a United Nations definition of torture in a 1987 treaty to which the United States is a signee (called UNCAT) the following is the formal definition of torture.

1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Notice that the pain or suffering can be mental and certainly humiliation can be severe enough to be considered torture. Also notice another interesting aspect of UNCAT in Article 2:

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Just something to note for later.

And taking prisoners during a time of war, does not translate into requiring automatic legal representation nor full geneva convention protections if the enemy has chosen not to abide by the requirements of being protected by them

There is no war. That's the problem. There is a policy of internment and that's nothing new or creative. It is also not very effective.

[sirs]

There is no war. That's the problem.

Well, there you have your finger precisely on the problem, and another perfect example of this thread.   We are indeed at war, whether you wish to believe it or not.  I suppose until Congress officially decrees it, it must not exist, right?  I don't recall congress declaring that the sky is blue, but on cloudless days, I'm still acknowledging that it is.  You don't?  By all means though, keep the head buried in the sand Js.  See no evil, hear no evil, right?     

[domer]

Much more accurately, the world is facing a crisis embodied in a malignant movement, part of whose tactics are using terror on an apparently growing and persistent scale. But to use the word "war" to summarize this struggle is both simple-minded and distorting. First, palpably, the use of "war" signals a primary reliance on military means, which our misadventure in Iraq (but not Afghanistan) puts to the lie there and in so many other material sites. (Consider the dilemmas with North Korea and Iran, for example, or Chavez's chauvinism.) Second, as much as this struggle is a matter of controlling behavior, it is also and first a struggle of ideas and pathways of culture. The ultimate cure for the world's present ills is an honest exchange of ideas and modes of living with an aim toward a true and stable resolution. In a sense, this could be (one of a number in our history) of turning points. As such a decidedly over-emphasized orientation to literal war is a a complicating factor of grand proportions. That is not to say military conflict will not be necessary; it will be. But as in Iraq, so elsewhere: wrong policy choices and wrong execution can aggravate the overall picture, which must be our primary focus.

[_JS]

Ridiculousness aside Sirs, you cannot even properly identify the enemy in your war.

We are at war, sure, in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not talking about Congress declaring war, obviously that is a trite notion that was abandoned long ago. Yet, entering wars on nebulous entities, that's a problem.

September 11 showed us a few things. First, it welcomed us to the world at large. We're a superpower, but the truth is that our power has severe limits. We and the Soviets liked to think that we ran the world, but in many ways we didn't control anything. It is a lesson we still have yet to learn apparently. We also needed better security and I think we're working towards that, poorly in some areas and over-zealously in others. But, the drive is there to get it right from many parts of the political spectrum.

Yet, a war on terrorism? No. It is stupid and destined to fail just on its very concept. In fact, to look at your analogy of the three monkeys - I think it is you and others who "believe" in this war that have no real concept of the world outside of the United States. You cannot declare a war on a nebulous notion. Even you and your leaders cannot define the enemy well.

[sirs]

Ridiculousness aside Sirs, you cannot even properly identify the enemy in your war.

Actually I can.  They are the folks, who in the name of Islam, have pledged to kill any non-muslim who doesn't convert, to rid the region of any influence of Western Civilization, and to build a global governing body based on their mutated version of Islam

See, not so hard, is it

Domer did hit a pertinent point that the truest analogy is that of a cancer.  One that continues to spread, and one that left unchecked will.......well history has taught us once.  We'll have to see if we learned our lesson the 1st go around.  So far, Anti-war and anti-Bush folks aside, we are doing a better job this go around of identifying the threat EARLY, vs waiting for it to become an imminent global power

Sept 11th was simply a wake up call.  Seems some folks still keep wanting to hit the snooze button.

[_JS]

Apparently you ignored most of Domer's post.

So it is a "war" versus an idea. You've said so yourself. An idea that very few people have.

How exactly does one fight a war against an idea? Or, is holding the idea and espousing it OK, so long as you don't do anything about it? Or is even believing in a worldwide Islamic state a threat, even if you do nothing about it?

Is internment the proper solution?

[sirs]

Apparently you ignored most of Domer's post.

No, I picked out the pertient point to it.  I'm not required to "take it or leave it"

So it is a "war" versus an idea. You've said so yourself.

Not quite, but close.  It's a war vs the people that have that idea

An idea that very few people have.

Bzzzzzz, wrong again.  It's a malignancy that already infects thousands upon thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers.  But just in case you were about to pull some hyperbolic charge, I'm not advocating concentration camps for people that think that way.  I'm advocating taking out as many as possible the ones who've actually taken up arms in that cause, and actively planning attacks against our way of life, in the name of that idea.   See the difference?

[_JS]

Bzzzzzz, wrong again.  It's a malignancy that already infects thousands upon thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers.  But just in case you were about to pull some hyperbolic charge, I'm not advocating concentration camps for people that think that way.  I'm advocating taking out as many as possible the ones who've actually taken up arms in that cause, and actively planning attacks against our way of life, in the name of that idea.   See the difference?

People make decisions for themselves Sirs, how can an idea be a "malignancy" that is "infecting" thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers (what is an Islamic sympathizer?)?

I never said anything about concentration camps, you brought that up without me ever saying a word. I asked if internment was the answer. Is internment the solution?

You're advocating killing people taking up arms in the name of that cause, but I suggest you don't even know which terrorist groups support such a cause. What if a terrorist group has no such belief, will they be left alone?

[sirs]

People make decisions for themselves Sirs, how can an idea be a "malignancy" that is "infecting" thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers

When the idea is to kill anyone who isn't Muslim or happens to be an Israeli.  And with a continual thought process being instilled at birth, THAT spread becomes a malignancy

what is an Islamic sympathizer?

Someone that supports the above "idea".  Now you're not going to pull the dren that I'm referring to all Muslims now, are you??

I never said anything about concentration camps.

Will that's good, because it sure seemed to be getting steered in that direction, with the accusatory tone I was getting from you

You're advocating killing people taking up arms in the name of that cause, but I suggest you don't even know which terrorist groups support such a cause

Asked and answered already, Hamas, Hezbollah, AlQeada, Islamic Jihad, etc., etc., etc.  They all have a foundation, spearheaded by AlQeada, of killing non-muslims, especially Israelis, with the hope of establishing an Islamic based global governing body.  Albeit with their twisted form of Islam.  You know, the ones who have been publically pledging such as their goal.  They also appear to have no problem killing actual Muslims who don't share the same agenda. 

[Amianthus]

I don't recall any declaration of war.

It was called "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107