Gitmo updateFollow

FTFY.

Great O'Reilly impression, by the way.

See. I don't agree with your assessement. I *am* addressing the question: "Are these particular interrogation methods problematic?". I'm simply addressing the question by first attempting to define what falls under the heading of "problematic".

Simply responding to something and saying "that's wrong" is subjective. Coming up with a set of standards by which you determine whether something is wrong or not is objective. What I'm trying to do is figure out what the standards are here. To me, that's the first part of answering the question you posed. If you can't or wont do that *first*, then how objective can your insistence that any given interrogation method is problematic be? And if it's purely subjective, then how much weight should I (since I'm not you and therefor not bound by your subjectivity) put in it?

As I pointed out earlier, this is how you apply critical thinking skills to a problem. Not doing so, or (in this case) steadfastly refusing to even allow those standards to be defined, calls the conclusions into question. Calling an attempt to establish those standards as part of a discussion a "strawman argument" is just over the top IMO. How do you decide if something is right or wrong if you can't define what makes something "right" or "wrong"?

To me, that's a very basic and obvious question that one should have asked long before getting to the point of condemning something. That so many don't bother and are incensed when it's even suggested kinda worries me. It *should* worry you too.



Ok. That's a good start. However, have you read The 4th Convention? Specifically Article 5:



Sound familiar? It's exactly the status being granted to the detainees in gitmo.

Your assumption that the detainees fall outside the GC because they don't meet one of the criteria you *think* must be applied is not an accurate one.

I'll also point out that you are correct that the Red Cross has insisted that the detainees be granted a status defined in the GC. What you've failed to realize is that they are. Your statement *also* servess two purposes. It's a truthful statement (the Red Cross did say that), but by making it you (actually, those who you are repeating) are implying that the US is not holding those prisoners in accordance with a status defined in the GC.

But you fail to actually proove that assertion and rather rely on the fact that most people have not actually read the Conventions and thus don't know that the status of the gitmo detainees is legal under them.



The unlawful combatant definition is covered under the article I quoted. It's *not* a violation of the GC. It's following the rules of the GC. You'll note that the Red Cross has not stated that the US is in violation of the GC. The UN has not stated this either. They've made statements similar to the one you pointed out earlier and just allowed people like you to assume that the US was in violation.

It's not a particular logical fallacy as much as a debating tactic used to make it appear as though an accusation has been made, without actually making it. For example, if point at your yard and say "Yards should be kept clear so that they don't become fire hazards", there's a presumption that I'm declaring your yard to be a fire hazard. However, I didn't *actually* say that. In matter of fact, the statement I made was a truthful statement. The fact that most people hearing and seeing me will make an assumption that may be convenient for me is just that: Convenient.

Same deal here. You assume that the US is violating the Geneva Conventions by holding those detainees and interrogating them. Yet, this is not actually the case and no official international body has made that claim, nor has any official accusation of violation been leveled. But sucessive actions of pointing at gitmo and then talking about the Conventions has convinced most people that there is a violation.

And that's just "convenient" isn't it?



Really? Are you absolutely sure that's a violation of the Geneva Convention? Or have you just assumed it as I've pointed out already?

Think really hard and long on this. It's important.



Go back and look at the statements from the Red Cross (unofficial ones that is) in the context of the debating tactic I discussed above. Once you know what to look for it's *really* obvious that what's going on is that those who oppose the US in this period are doing and saying whatever they can to make it look like the US is violating every law, rule, and convention possible.

They're not creating actual arguments, just pointing out facts in a way to make people like you make assumptions that lean you in their direction. It's a pretty old technique, but as I pointed out earlier, the lack of critical thinking skills possessed by most people make them easy targets for this.

You need to assess things based on what they actually are, not what they seem to be. Doing the latter can get you into all sorts of trouble.





This was the "unofficial leaked memo" I was talking about.

Who wrote it? What this means is that one person working for the Red Cross had this "opinion" about the interrogation techniques being used. Where the techniques in violation of the law? Did they meet the legal definition of torture? Or did one person happen to think that they might and wrote this report?

Again. Look at what things actually are, not what they are made to appear to be. There's a reason why organizations like the Red Cross issue official reports on things. It's presumably so that we know that those reports are the result of analysis of the events in question and the applicable laws. It's so that we can place weight on those reports over internal ones that may simply reflect someone's own personal knee-jerk impression of something.


Don't you find it the least bit disconcerting that your position is almost exclusively based on focused interpretation of the kind of "unofficial" statements and allegations out there, even when they are completely contraty to all the official ones? Aren't you the least bit concerned that there's grave potential for misrepresentation when you do that? Doesn't that bother you?

It would bother me to hold a position that is essentially based on nothing more then unsubstantiated claims and assumptions. Silly me. I prefer to look at actual facts or at least follow those sources that have the highest likelyhood to be true. The anti-war, anti-gitmo faction seems to have chosen to do the exact opposite...

Who the f'uck is rating Virus up?

The Bush administration limited the scope of 'torture' so it is nearly impossible for anyone to actually 'torture' a detainee anymore. I think that is the relevant point. That along with the fact that any argument made to try and defend such actions as saving the lives of US troops and citizens is bunk since as proven before with the case of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi that the fraudulent forced confessions of suspected terrorists have actually led to a situation (the war in iraq) which has killed more americans than 9/11 ever did.