Memo to Army Chief of Staff

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-11-05 07:10pm

The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

Just because he did something "good" with it, it doesn't make it right, nor acceptable.
Even non-Americans have rights....

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 07:14pm

Dahak wrote:The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

Just because he did something "good" with it, it doesn't make it right, nor acceptable.
Even non-Americans have rights....

I've got another one to add to that:

"The ends don't justify the means"

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 07:22pm

The Kernel wrote:
Dahak wrote:The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

Just because he did something "good" with it, it doesn't make it right, nor acceptable.
Even non-Americans have rights....
I've got another one to add to that:

"The ends don't justify the means"

You're a frighteningly little man. One man's right to comfort exceeds the rights of a bunch of soldiers to continue breathing?!

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-11-05 07:29pm

The Kernel wrote:
Dahak wrote:The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

Just because he did something "good" with it, it doesn't make it right, nor acceptable.
Even non-Americans have rights....
I've got another one to add to that:

"The ends don't justify the means"

Let me get this straight:

Means: Yelling, asking questions, firing a gun in such a manner as to not kill OR injure someone who has information who can save many lives.

Ends: Many lives are saved, one prisoner is scared, albeit unharmed, still recieving 3 squares, etc.

I don't think I need to point out how fucked up that reasoning is. His methods, while unorthodox do not necessitate incarceration. Let me show you ends not justifying the means:

Means: Man obtains information which saves lives through the use of atypical interrogation methods.

Ends: Man is demoted, his career ended, life ruined, his ability to get a good job later SEVERELY hampered, and is incarcerated in one of the toughest prisons in the country.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 07:42pm

SirNitram wrote: You're a frighteningly little man. One man's right to comfort exceeds the rights of a bunch of soldiers to continue breathing?!

And you see things only in black and white shithead. Going by your logic, we should elimated booze and guns because while they give many people comfort and pleasure, they also cause the deaths of others (do you know how many gun murders and drunk driving fatalities there are per year?). Also by that logic, we should take away the money from the rich and give it to those in society that are starving because their survival is more important then the comfort of a small group of elitists.

You don't understand that when we violate a person's civil rights and then pat the person on the back because it saved lives, we are setting a precedent that it is okay to violate civil rights as long as the intentions were good. So let's start pulling in suspects off the streets and threatening their lives until they tell us what we want to hear. Why even bother with a trial? They are obviously guilty right? Did it ever occur to your limited mind that these rights that protect you, me and the rest of America exist for a reason? And you are so quick to throw them out the window when it is convenient for you.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 07:45pm

The Kernel wrote:
SirNitram wrote: You're a frighteningly little man. One man's right to comfort exceeds the rights of a bunch of soldiers to continue breathing?!
And you see things only in black and white shithead. Going by your logic, we should elimated booze and guns because while they give many people comfort and pleasure, they also cause the deaths of others (do you know how many gun murders and drunk driving fatalities there are per year?).

Ah, you would be one of those people who don't understand that 'slippery slope' is a fallacy. Thank you, for confirming you are that ignorant.

Also by that logic, we should take away the money from the rich and give it to those in society that are starving because their survival is more important then the comfort of a small group of elitists.

Except the survival of the prisoner was never in question, you fucking looney.

You don't understand that when we violate a person's civil rights and then pat the person on the back because it saved lives, we are setting a precedent that it is okay to violate civil rights as long as the intentions were good.

Slippery slope. Again.

So let's start pulling in suspects off the streets and threatening their lives until they tell us what we want to hear. Why even bother with a trial? They are obviously guilty right? Did it ever occur to your limited mind that these rights that protect you, me and the rest of America exist for a reason? And you are so quick to throw them out the window when it is convenient for you.

Thank you for your demonstration of so many repetitions of the same fallacies, you fucking moron.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-05 07:49pm

LOL, someone who sees things even more black and white than me!

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 07:50pm

The Kernel wrote:
Ender wrote:Fun fact: In the military, you don't have all these individual rights you are going on about. So in the military, yes it does come down the the greater good vs the harm.
Red Herring. We are talking about a man who was a POW, not a member of the US military.

Hey, genius, a POW is ALSO in the military. So no, its not a red herring.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 07:52pm

When you use logic to justify a violation of civil rights and that logic can then be directly applied to other more heinous violations it isn't a fallacy to extrapolate and apply that logic elsewhere. Notice that I never suggested it WOULD lead to that, I said that by your logic we could justify those things. A slippery slope fallacy is when one assumes one thing will invariably lead to another and I did no such thing. I mearly pointed out that you can't provide a moral justification for this man's actions that makes any sense.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 07:53pm

Ender wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
Ender wrote:Fun fact: In the military, you don't have all these individual rights you are going on about. So in the military, yes it does come down the the greater good vs the harm.
Red Herring. We are talking about a man who was a POW, not a member of the US military.
Hey, genius, a POW is ALSO in the military. So no, its not a red herring.

And there are very specific rules for dealing with POW's as outlined by the Geneva Convention that have nothing to do with the US Armed Services laws.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 07:54pm

The Kernel wrote:When you use logic to justify a violation of civil rights and that logic can then be directly applied to other more heinous violations it isn't a fallacy to extrapolate and apply that logic elsewhere.

I see you totally miss why slippery slope is a fallacy as well! Are you actively trying to prove that you're a moron?

Notice that I never suggested it WOULD lead to that, I said that by your logic we could justify those things. A slippery slope fallacy is when one assumes one thing will invariably lead to another and I did no such thing.

Flat. Out. Lie.

Going by your logic, we should elimated booze and guns because while they give many people comfort and pleasure, they also cause the deaths of others (do you know how many gun murders and drunk driving fatalities there are per year?).

Since I said nothing about these things or that progression, it is a slippery slope.

I mearly pointed out that you can't provide a moral justification for this man's actions that makes any sense.

Sure I can. More harm was prevented than was done.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 07:58pm

The Kernel wrote:
Ender wrote:
The Kernel wrote: Red Herring. We are talking about a man who was a POW, not a member of the US military.
Hey, genius, a POW is ALSO in the military. So no, its not a red herring.
And there are very specific rules for dealing with POW's as outlined by the Geneva Convention that have nothing to do with the US Armed Services laws.

Then by all means, show me where it says "you cannot intimidate prisoners to coerce information from them" in the Geneva convention.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-11-05 07:59pm

The Geneva Convention wrote:(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

I don't really see where he violated any of those, other than knowing his soldiers roughed up the prisoner a bit (and, oh-by-the-way THEY were punished, however their actions CLEARLY violate the convention, (See violence) Whereas the officer fires a gun near the guy in order to elicit certain informtaion the officer KNEW the prisoner had posession of.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:02pm

SirNitram wrote: I see you totally miss why slippery slope is a fallacy as well! Are you actively trying to prove that you're a moron?

According to this boards announcments forum on logical fallacies:

Slippery Slope- Arguing that one bad thing will result in many others.

I did no such thing, I simply applied your logic to other situations to see if it held up. I in NO WAY insinuated that these things would become reality. Do you really think that I believe that violations of civil rights will lead to stricter alchohol and gun laws?

Flat. Out. Lie.

Going by your logic, we should elimated booze and guns because while they give many people comfort and pleasure, they also cause the deaths of others (do you know how many gun murders and drunk driving fatalities there are per year?).

Since I said nothing about these things or that progression, it is a slippery slope.

I applied you logic to a different situation to prove that it is bunk. I never suggested it would happen, nor that YOU suggested it would happen only that your logic it that situation would make no sense.

Sure I can. More harm was prevented than was done.

So the ends justify the means in your world. Fine, but that isn't a justification dingus, it is just something that people like to use to justify atrocious acts.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:04pm

Chardok wrote:
The Geneva Convention wrote:(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
I don't really see where he violated any of those, other than knowing his soldiers roughed up the prisoner a bit (and, oh-by-the-way THEY were punished, however their actions CLEARLY violate the convention, (See violence) Whereas the officer fires a gun near the guy in order to elicit certain informtaion the officer KNEW the prisoner had posession of.

Exactly my point. He didn't violate the Geneva convention. He may have violated the standard of human rights most american's are afforded, but in the military you don't get that. So he didn't violate a damn thing.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:04pm

Ender wrote:Then by all means, show me where it says "you cannot intimidate prisoners to coerce information from them" in the Geneva convention.

It looks like Chardok beat me to it. Try looking up violence in a dictionary.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-11-05 08:04pm

_____EDIT______________

There is NOTHING in the geneva convention against using intimdation to gain information relavent to saving the lives of friendly soldiers.

The geneva convention as it pertains to prisoners of war

A personal sidenote:

As a former ground pounder (Well, Mounted ground pounder *Snicker* DEATH BEFORE DISMOUNT (MP Corps Motto)) If I heard about this and I was in the unit which avoided the ambush, I would revere this man as a God, and give a hearty Fuck you to anyone who says he is anything less.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:06pm

Ender wrote:Exactly my point. He didn't violate the Geneva convention. He may have violated the standard of human rights most american's are afforded, but in the military you don't get that. So he didn't violate a damn thing.

I'm sorry, but I need to ask once again. What does military law have to do with this situation?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 08:07pm

The Kernel wrote:
Sure I can. More harm was prevented than was done.
So the ends justify the means in your world. Fine, but that isn't a justification dingus, it is just something that people like to use to justify atrocious acts.

It's so 'atrocious' to scare a man. You fucking disgust me. Show me where a man is granted the right not to be scared. Show me, you irrelevent little drone.

The needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few; those that scream 'the ends don't justify the means' don't understand that we do not live in the land of lollipops and happy endings. Sometimes some must be sacrificed in order for a larger group to continue. But in the obviously hemoragged brains of people like you, no sacrifice can be made of the few. I am damn glad people like you aren't in power. You'd destroy civilization.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-11-05 08:07pm

The Kernel wrote:
Ender wrote:Then by all means, show me where it says "you cannot intimidate prisoners to coerce information from them" in the Geneva convention.
It looks like Chardok beat me to it. Try looking up violence in a dictionary.

Webster.com wrote:One entry found for violence.

Main Entry: vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression

I DARE you to get into a semantics debate over any other definition than definition 1. It. Is. War.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:09pm

The Kernel wrote:
Ender wrote:Then by all means, show me where it says "you cannot intimidate prisoners to coerce information from them" in the Geneva convention.
It looks like Chardok beat me to it. Try looking up violence in a dictionary.

I suggest you follow your own advice.

Violence - Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

Firing a gun in the air is not violence.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:09pm

How about this part?

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

You don't think threatening someone with a gun is intimidation?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-11-05 08:11pm

GRAGH! Meant to say get into a debate over any definition other than #1. It. Is. War. SHIT! Can a Mod just plaster this up there so I'm not artificially inflating my postcount?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:12pm

The Kernel wrote:
Ender wrote:Exactly my point. He didn't violate the Geneva convention. He may have violated the standard of human rights most american's are afforded, but in the military you don't get that. So he didn't violate a damn thing.
I'm sorry, but I need to ask once again. What does military law have to do with this situation?

*sigh* For the intellegence impared:

He did not violate the geneva convention. Therefore, he could only be prosecuted if he violated military law. That is how it relates. however, as I have pointed out, he did not violate Military law. He may have violated American Civil Law (the rights accorded by you brought up), but that is not relevent.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:13pm

SirNitram wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
Sure I can. More harm was prevented than was done.
So the ends justify the means in your world. Fine, but that isn't a justification dingus, it is just something that people like to use to justify atrocious acts.
It's so 'atrocious' to scare a man. You fucking disgust me. Show me where a man is granted the right not to be scared. Show me, you irrelevent little drone.

The needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few; those that scream 'the ends don't justify the means' don't understand that we do not live in the land of lollipops and happy endings. Sometimes some must be sacrificed in order for a larger group to continue. But in the obviously hemoragged brains of people like you, no sacrifice can be made of the few. I am damn glad people like you aren't in power. You'd destroy civilization.

Awww, poor baby. Is this entirely irrelevent rant the best you can do? As for the right not to be scared, take a look at my preceding quote from the Geneva Convention dickfuck.