US petition

[j2k4]

The USA was not the only country to fight the Japanese, yet we all treated them according to the Convention.

Hmmm.

I could have sworn it was the U.S.A. we were speaking of...

As to your last, be that as it may, "we" were not bound by the Convention to do so!

[JPaul]

Such a shame what he said was irrelevant.

I believe, one way or another, that I have addressed the entirety of your concerns as they apply to my posting, JP, but as we've all witnessed, occasionally things can become somewhat confuzzled.

I think I was exercising my right to meander a bit, as we seemed to be stuck on the point of "moral" or "not moral" as regards torture.

What do you desire I speak to?

No, I think you'll find I said it was immoral. We know what immoral means, contrary to established moral principles. I think you'll find that most countries have agreed torture is wrong, ours certainly have. I think you'll find that your own Constition thinks it is wrong. Therefore, ergo, Q.E.D. torture is immoral. That's the one point we can agree on.

[j2k4]

I believe, one way or another, that I have addressed the entirety of your concerns as they apply to my posting, JP, but as we've all witnessed, occasionally things can become somewhat confuzzled.

I think I was exercising my right to meander a bit, as we seemed to be stuck on the point of "moral" or "not moral" as regards torture.

What do you desire I speak to?

No, I think you'll find I said it was immoral. We know what immoral means, contrary to established moral principles. I think you'll find that most countries have agreed torture is wrong, ours certainly have. I think you'll find that your own Constition thinks it is wrong. Therefore, ergo, Q.E.D. torture is immoral. That's the one point we can agree on.

Yes, on that we do agree.

The use of chemical methodologies lies in a bit of a gray area (morally, I think, for both of us; conditioned on physical effect), and some (I believe I'm alone on this), such as sleep deprivation and other sensory methods, are of situational utility.

As an aside, I think to argue national/international "morals" loses significant weight when couched in the apparently requisite secular rhetoric.

Too bad, that.

[Agrajag]

As an aside, I think to argue national/international "morals" loses significant weight when couched in the apparently requisite secular rhetoric.

Too bad, that.

Why, as hobbes would be quick to point out, morality can be entirely secular.

Quite right too, in my view. Why should we insist on morality being a solely religious matter.

[Busyman]

As an aside, I think to argue national/international "morals" loses significant weight when couched in the apparently requisite secular rhetoric.

Too bad, that.

Why, as hobbes would be quick to point out, morality can be entirely secular.

Quite right too, in my view. Why should we insist on morality being a solely religious matter.

Will you quit ganging up on j2? Next thing ya know Fugs will be in here.

[j2k4]

As an aside, I think to argue national/international "morals" loses significant weight when couched in the apparently requisite secular rhetoric.

Too bad, that.

Why, as hobbes would be quick to point out, morality can be entirely secular.

Quite right too, in my view. Why should we insist on morality being a solely religious matter.

So you are saying it is quite acceptable, logical and correct for morality to be secular, and precisely the opposite as to any religious aspect?

A novel view, to say the least...

[JPaul]

Why, as hobbes would be quick to point out, morality can be entirely secular.

Quite right too, in my view. Why should we insist on morality being a solely religious matter.

So you are saying it is quite acceptable, logical and correct for morality to be secular, and precisely the opposite as to any religious aspect?

A novel view, to say the least...

I couldn't possibly comment, I have no idea what you are suggesting that I said.

What I did say was that morality did not require a religious aspect, it could be entirely secular. I did not say that morality precluded a religious aspect, merely that it did not require it.

I may have answered you, I may not, I genuinely did not understand your opening stanza.

[Rat Faced]

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

That interpretation also says that all the Taliban prisoners and any Afgan Al Queda should have been re-patrioted as soon as hostilities ceased with Afganistan... so they're still breaking it


BTW:

Which one of you Bar Stewards signed me up to the Rev Lou Sheldons newsletter? (Coalition for Traditional Values)

[maebach]

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

That interpretation also says that all the Taliban prisoners and any Afgan Al Queda should have been re-patrioted as soon as hostilities ceased with Afganistan... so they're still breaking it


BTW:

Which one of you Bar Stewards signed me up to the Rev Lou Sheldons newsletter? (Coalition for Traditional Values)

BTW: It wasn't me