LA was not saved
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I thought he just wanted to play a round of Irrelevant Numbers
He does. Which (in my humble opinion) is all the more reason for people like you who don't think by jerking their knees to respond with intelligence and insight. It makes him look even more foolish. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Good advise. However, when taking his bate on this issue (he gives damn few opportunities on other issues) you have to know at this point that it ultimately is an exercise in futility. And going into it knowing that, it's often hard to resist the path of the Devil's Advocate. Which is a great argument for ignoring him all together. But sometimes taking the bate is pretty hard to resist as well.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
By torture. http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/[^]
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
And then we have this Torture used to extract false confessions[^] In related news Bush's Desaparecidos[^]
Excellent! Getting all your ducks in a row to bring the previous administration into your kangaroo courts like some kind of South American junta. Obama's legacy is getting better all the time.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
but most of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture and they were all used
Says you. Why are you so concerned with something being percieved as torture? You can't possibly argue that by slapping and depriving these people of some sleep that it will hurt our troops, they get far worse treatment than waterboarding if they're interogated. So what's your stake in this? Is it purely political? Do you have a brother at Gitmo? Seriously, what drives you to obsess over this so much?
oilFactotum wrote:
And it failed to do that.
Did it? We've been safe... Up until The One was put into power anyway.
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps you are attempting to suggest that torture was used responsibly. Well Abu Ghraib definitively put the lie to that one.
Abu Graib wasn't tourture, wasn't sanctioned, wasn't CIA, and isn't relavant.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Says you.
Says the United States. We've convicted people for using the exact same methods of torture.
BoneSoft wrote:
with something being percieved as torture?
It is torture.
BoneSoft wrote:
So what's your stake in this?
It is a crime. Not just a crime, but a war crime. Our political leaders should not be considered above the law. It hurts us more than it helps us. As Admiral Blair said:
“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
I think we are better than that. To find ourselves in the company of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Vietnam and Cambodia is deeply offensive. I think an institutionalized regime of torture would seep back into the US. Just look at how quickly we witnessed the casual brutality of Lindy Englund. Abu Ghraib is the direct result of the decisions to torture.
BoneSoft wrote:
Abu Graib wasn't tourture, wasn't sanctioned,
Wrong on both counts.
-
Excellent! Getting all your ducks in a row to bring the previous administration into your kangaroo courts like some kind of South American junta. Obama's legacy is getting better all the time.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
some kind of South American junta.
If we let the previous administration get by with committing war crimes that is exactly what we will have become. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/obama-bush-and-the-rule-of-law.html[^]
And so Obama's refusal to investigate war crimes is itself against the law. And so torture's cancerous route through the legal and constitutional system continues, contaminating the future as well as the past, rendering the US incapable of upholding Geneva against other nations, because it has violated Geneva itself, and giving to every tyrant on the planet a justification for the torture of prisoners. In this scenario, America becomes a city on a hill, where the rule of law is optional and torture acceptable if parsed into legal memos that do not pass the most basic professional sniff-test. America becomes a banana republic.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
some kind of South American junta.
If we let the previous administration get by with committing war crimes that is exactly what we will have become. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/obama-bush-and-the-rule-of-law.html[^]
And so Obama's refusal to investigate war crimes is itself against the law. And so torture's cancerous route through the legal and constitutional system continues, contaminating the future as well as the past, rendering the US incapable of upholding Geneva against other nations, because it has violated Geneva itself, and giving to every tyrant on the planet a justification for the torture of prisoners. In this scenario, America becomes a city on a hill, where the rule of law is optional and torture acceptable if parsed into legal memos that do not pass the most basic professional sniff-test. America becomes a banana republic.
No, I'm actually pretty sure trumping up a bunch of charges in order to eliminate the political opposition is much more representative of a junta than is roughing up a few terrorists to save people's lives. See, thats the part you keep leaving out. Most people kind of like having their lives saved in a way that does not in any way endanger their own freedoms and liberties.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
No, I'm actually pretty sure trumping up a bunch of charges in order to eliminate the political opposition is much more representative of a junta than is roughing up a few terrorists to save people's lives. See, thats the part you keep leaving out. Most people kind of like having their lives saved in a way that does not in any way endanger their own freedoms and liberties.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm actually pretty sure trumping up a bunch of charges in order to eliminate the political opposition
You've made dozens of posts either saying that Bush should be investigated by Congress since people thought he broke the law, that it was Congress's job to ride herd on the Executive Branch, or that Bush was obviously innocent because no-one in Congress was investigating him. Now it looks like there may be a Congressional investigation as well as a possible parallel one by the Attorney General who is, after all, supposed to investigate charges of criminality by Government Officials - and you are whining about it? :confused: Maybe you should be careful what you wish for.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
oilFactotum wrote:
but most of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture and they were all used
Says you. Why are you so concerned with something being percieved as torture? You can't possibly argue that by slapping and depriving these people of some sleep that it will hurt our troops, they get far worse treatment than waterboarding if they're interogated. So what's your stake in this? Is it purely political? Do you have a brother at Gitmo? Seriously, what drives you to obsess over this so much?
oilFactotum wrote:
And it failed to do that.
Did it? We've been safe... Up until The One was put into power anyway.
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps you are attempting to suggest that torture was used responsibly. Well Abu Ghraib definitively put the lie to that one.
Abu Graib wasn't tourture, wasn't sanctioned, wasn't CIA, and isn't relavant.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
what drives you to obsess over this so much?
His desire for revenge and retribution on the filthy Neocons who cheated the Goreacle and Hanoi Jane's friend out of their rightful presidencies consumes him. He burns with rage that can only be quelled by the blood of every single member of the Bush administration, and every CIA, DIA and FBI bureacrat who failed to reject instructions to do their job. Nothing comes second to his partisan rage. It must be sated, even if it destroys his own party.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm actually pretty sure trumping up a bunch of charges in order to eliminate the political opposition
You've made dozens of posts either saying that Bush should be investigated by Congress since people thought he broke the law, that it was Congress's job to ride herd on the Executive Branch, or that Bush was obviously innocent because no-one in Congress was investigating him. Now it looks like there may be a Congressional investigation as well as a possible parallel one by the Attorney General who is, after all, supposed to investigate charges of criminality by Government Officials - and you are whining about it? :confused: Maybe you should be careful what you wish for.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
and you are whining about it?
I'm not whining about it, I'm all for it. The fact that, given the attitude of anti-American zealots like oily, it is highly unlikely that there will be any ability on the part of those in charge from keeping it civil and at least marginally respectful of the office of the presidency. It will become an absolute circus of anti-American vitriole played out on a world stage for all to see. You add a little more economic decline to that scenario, and there will damned sure be someone drawing a line in the sand somewhere. In the end, I believe Bush and co will by vindicated on all charges. But even if they are not, the historic significance of it will be impossible to obfuscate. Historically, Bush did nothing that much differently from many of our greatest national heros. If Obama, oily, et al, really want to line up against that history, more the better. That is precisely where I want them. Obama is already doing an excellent job of trashing 233 years of American history before some of the most dispicable cretins the planet has ever known, now he is going to condemn Bush as the criminal for defending the country? Excellent! The pieces could not be played any more perfectly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
what drives you to obsess over this so much?
His desire for revenge and retribution on the filthy Neocons who cheated the Goreacle and Hanoi Jane's friend out of their rightful presidencies consumes him. He burns with rage that can only be quelled by the blood of every single member of the Bush administration, and every CIA, DIA and FBI bureacrat who failed to reject instructions to do their job. Nothing comes second to his partisan rage. It must be sated, even if it destroys his own party.
Rob Graham wrote:
His desire for revenge and retribution on the filthy Neocons who cheated the Goreacle and Hanoi Jane's friend out of their rightful presidencies consumes him. He burns with rage that can only be quelled by the blood of every single member of the Bush administration, and every CIA, DIA and FBI bureacrat who failed to reject instructions to do their job. Nothing comes second to his partisan rage. It must be sated, even if it destroys his own party.
Brilliant. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
and you are whining about it?
I'm not whining about it, I'm all for it. The fact that, given the attitude of anti-American zealots like oily, it is highly unlikely that there will be any ability on the part of those in charge from keeping it civil and at least marginally respectful of the office of the presidency. It will become an absolute circus of anti-American vitriole played out on a world stage for all to see. You add a little more economic decline to that scenario, and there will damned sure be someone drawing a line in the sand somewhere. In the end, I believe Bush and co will by vindicated on all charges. But even if they are not, the historic significance of it will be impossible to obfuscate. Historically, Bush did nothing that much differently from many of our greatest national heros. If Obama, oily, et al, really want to line up against that history, more the better. That is precisely where I want them. Obama is already doing an excellent job of trashing 233 years of American history before some of the most dispicable cretins the planet has ever known, now he is going to condemn Bush as the criminal for defending the country? Excellent! The pieces could not be played any more perfectly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Historically, Bush did nothing that much differently from many of our greatest national heros
You've already said he was one. :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
In the end, I believe Bush and co will by vindicated on all charges
You think none of them gave the order to torture?
Stan Shannon wrote:
But even if they are not,
No, I guess you don't think that. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Historically, Bush did nothing that much differently from many of our greatest national heros
You've already said he was one. :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
In the end, I believe Bush and co will by vindicated on all charges
You think none of them gave the order to torture?
Stan Shannon wrote:
But even if they are not,
No, I guess you don't think that. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
You've already said he was one.
Historically, how do you condemn Bush as a war criminal without doing the same for Lincoln, Wilson and FDR?
Oakman wrote:
You think none of them gave the order to torture?
I think the question of whether or not it was torture is the pertinent point. Were the actions taken a legitimate response to the situation as it developed? Did the president go beyond his duty to defend the nation? Those are the question that will be asked and answered. The Obama administration could well find itself in the unenviable situation of punishing a president for actions viewed by many people as completely valid and a shining example of true leadership which Obama himself is incabable of. Whatever happens, it will be a watershed moment in history, which our oily friends may well live to regret provoking.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You've already said he was one.
Historically, how do you condemn Bush as a war criminal without doing the same for Lincoln, Wilson and FDR?
Oakman wrote:
You think none of them gave the order to torture?
I think the question of whether or not it was torture is the pertinent point. Were the actions taken a legitimate response to the situation as it developed? Did the president go beyond his duty to defend the nation? Those are the question that will be asked and answered. The Obama administration could well find itself in the unenviable situation of punishing a president for actions viewed by many people as completely valid and a shining example of true leadership which Obama himself is incabable of. Whatever happens, it will be a watershed moment in history, which our oily friends may well live to regret provoking.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Historically, how do you condemn Bush as a war criminal without doing the same for Lincoln, Wilson and FDR?
War criminal? How can he be a war criminal? Over and over again, he stressed that we were not fighting soldiers in a war, but terrorists who wore no uniform and swore no alliegance to any country. After all, he and his administration said, if we are fighting a war, we will have had to abide by the Geneva Convention and we don't want to do that. Nope Bush authorized what he did to civilians, criminals, no doubt, but still civilans - who were foreign nationals, to boot. Whatever wartime exigencies might be claimed for the three you listed above, Bush chose not to accept the strictures that war would place on his actions. He was foolish to do so.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the question of whether or not it was torture is the pertinent point.
I'll side with John McCain on this. He knows more about it than you or I, and far more than Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Whatever happens, it will be a watershed moment in history, which our oily friends may well live to regret provoking.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I feel we are rushing post haste towards Dec 21, 2012.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Historically, how do you condemn Bush as a war criminal without doing the same for Lincoln, Wilson and FDR?
War criminal? How can he be a war criminal? Over and over again, he stressed that we were not fighting soldiers in a war, but terrorists who wore no uniform and swore no alliegance to any country. After all, he and his administration said, if we are fighting a war, we will have had to abide by the Geneva Convention and we don't want to do that. Nope Bush authorized what he did to civilians, criminals, no doubt, but still civilans - who were foreign nationals, to boot. Whatever wartime exigencies might be claimed for the three you listed above, Bush chose not to accept the strictures that war would place on his actions. He was foolish to do so.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the question of whether or not it was torture is the pertinent point.
I'll side with John McCain on this. He knows more about it than you or I, and far more than Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Whatever happens, it will be a watershed moment in history, which our oily friends may well live to regret provoking.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I feel we are rushing post haste towards Dec 21, 2012.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Whatever wartime exigencies might be claimed for the three you listed above, Bush chose not to accept the strictures that war would place on his actions. He was foolish to do so.
I think calling it foolish is premature. How foolish would it have been to fight a new kind of war in a purely conventional way. I think Bush showed a tremendous amount of adaptability to an entirely new kind of threat. The notion that water boarding a mass murderer to save lives is less acceptable to the American public than was purposefully killing hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children will be an interesting juxtapositioning of historic events.
Oakman wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I feel we are rushing post haste towards Dec 21, 2012.
We are sure as hell rusing towards something. If oily is correct, and the great mass of American people applaud the trial and punishment of a democratically elected commander in chief, that will still make an equally important statement about what a dramatically different country we suddenly find ourselves to be than we have ever been before.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Whatever wartime exigencies might be claimed for the three you listed above, Bush chose not to accept the strictures that war would place on his actions. He was foolish to do so.
I think calling it foolish is premature. How foolish would it have been to fight a new kind of war in a purely conventional way. I think Bush showed a tremendous amount of adaptability to an entirely new kind of threat. The notion that water boarding a mass murderer to save lives is less acceptable to the American public than was purposefully killing hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children will be an interesting juxtapositioning of historic events.
Oakman wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I feel we are rushing post haste towards Dec 21, 2012.
We are sure as hell rusing towards something. If oily is correct, and the great mass of American people applaud the trial and punishment of a democratically elected commander in chief, that will still make an equally important statement about what a dramatically different country we suddenly find ourselves to be than we have ever been before.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How foolish would it have been to fight a new kind of war in a purely conventional way
Every war's a new kind of war. Every time we fight we start off fighting the last one and end up learning as we go.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think Bush showed a tremendous amount of adaptability to an entirely new kind of threat
I think he listened to Rumsfeld and Cheney about two years too long. Had the war been fought the way the generals wanted it to be fought, we would have been home by '05.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The notion that water boarding a mass murderer to save lives is less acceptable to the American public than was purposefully killing hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children
"They fought even dirtier than we did," doesn't make what Bush did - or was manipulated into doing - any more moral, legal, or worthy of respect.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If oily is correct, and the great mass of American people applaud the trial and punishment of a democratically elected commander in chief
I don't think so. A great many of the kids in Oily's school perhaps, but not among the grownups.
Stan Shannon wrote:
that will still make an equally important statement
I'm not worried about statements. I'm worried about keeping my powder dry.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
No, I'm actually pretty sure trumping up a bunch of charges in order to eliminate the political opposition is much more representative of a junta than is roughing up a few terrorists to save people's lives. See, thats the part you keep leaving out. Most people kind of like having their lives saved in a way that does not in any way endanger their own freedoms and liberties.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
trumping up a bunch of charges
People were tortured, there is no denying that. In the US, torture is a war crime. Nothing trumped up about any of it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
any way endanger their own freedoms and liberties.
This from someone who constantly pronounces on how the government is taking away all of our freedoms. You really believe that giving the government unlimited power to spy on you, sieze you and spirit you to a secret prison - forever if they choose - and once there torture you until you are dead or insane is a smart way to go? You don't think a government with that power will not endanger your liberties and freedoms? That is nothing short of delusional.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
what drives you to obsess over this so much?
His desire for revenge and retribution on the filthy Neocons who cheated the Goreacle and Hanoi Jane's friend out of their rightful presidencies consumes him. He burns with rage that can only be quelled by the blood of every single member of the Bush administration, and every CIA, DIA and FBI bureacrat who failed to reject instructions to do their job. Nothing comes second to his partisan rage. It must be sated, even if it destroys his own party.
:laugh:
Rob Graham wrote:
It must be sated, even if it destroys his own party.
Let's hope and pray it comes to that. ;)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Says you.
Says the United States. We've convicted people for using the exact same methods of torture.
BoneSoft wrote:
with something being percieved as torture?
It is torture.
BoneSoft wrote:
So what's your stake in this?
It is a crime. Not just a crime, but a war crime. Our political leaders should not be considered above the law. It hurts us more than it helps us. As Admiral Blair said:
“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
I think we are better than that. To find ourselves in the company of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Vietnam and Cambodia is deeply offensive. I think an institutionalized regime of torture would seep back into the US. Just look at how quickly we witnessed the casual brutality of Lindy Englund. Abu Ghraib is the direct result of the decisions to torture.
BoneSoft wrote:
Abu Graib wasn't tourture, wasn't sanctioned,
Wrong on both counts.
oilFactotum wrote:
Says the United States. We've convicted people for using the exact same methods of torture.
Who has been arrested for causing sleep deprivation?
oilFactotum wrote:
It is torture.
There aren't that many people who think that slapping, sleep deprivation, or most of the other 'enhanced' techniques are torture. And even if they could be classified as such... Where's the line Oily? Can we still make a mean face at them? Or would that hurt their feelers and put the "international community's" sensabilities in a tizzy? Cuz at some point, I don't care who likes it or what you call it. If it doesn't leave a mark and they can walk away from it in one piece and there's no real chance of injury or death, it ain't torture. I don't care if watching the Grammies can legally be called torture, I don't care what the UN, EU, Islamic extremists, or any other international body thinks or defines. If a little slapping is enough to make them run home to mommy, then maybe they shouldn't be putting themselves in positions to be nabbed by the CIA on suspicion of terrorist activity. I'm all for us saying no torture. But let's not leave our balls at home while defining the word.
oilFactotum wrote:
It is a crime.
So is jay walking, smoking weed, tying your horse to the windmill in the middle of Main street in some places, nominating a candidate for the presidency who's not legally qualified to hold the position, and many many other things. You're not constantly harping on those.
oilFactotum wrote:
I think we are better than that. To find ourselves in the company of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Vietnam and Cambodia is deeply offensive.
Agreed. We shouldn't be pulling off body parts, or hooking jumper cables to people's pink parts, or ramming things under finger nails, or starving prisoners for years, or containing them in bambo cages outside in their own filth. We should be good interogators and just slap them around a bit and keep them from sleeping.
oilFactotum wrote:
Abu Ghraib is the direct result of the decisions to torture.
Where's your evidence for that? You really think those retards wouldn't have been horsing around if they thought the CIA wasn't mean to terrorists?!? :wt
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Says the United States. We've convicted people for using the exact same methods of torture.
Who has been arrested for causing sleep deprivation?
oilFactotum wrote:
It is torture.
There aren't that many people who think that slapping, sleep deprivation, or most of the other 'enhanced' techniques are torture. And even if they could be classified as such... Where's the line Oily? Can we still make a mean face at them? Or would that hurt their feelers and put the "international community's" sensabilities in a tizzy? Cuz at some point, I don't care who likes it or what you call it. If it doesn't leave a mark and they can walk away from it in one piece and there's no real chance of injury or death, it ain't torture. I don't care if watching the Grammies can legally be called torture, I don't care what the UN, EU, Islamic extremists, or any other international body thinks or defines. If a little slapping is enough to make them run home to mommy, then maybe they shouldn't be putting themselves in positions to be nabbed by the CIA on suspicion of terrorist activity. I'm all for us saying no torture. But let's not leave our balls at home while defining the word.
oilFactotum wrote:
It is a crime.
So is jay walking, smoking weed, tying your horse to the windmill in the middle of Main street in some places, nominating a candidate for the presidency who's not legally qualified to hold the position, and many many other things. You're not constantly harping on those.
oilFactotum wrote:
I think we are better than that. To find ourselves in the company of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Vietnam and Cambodia is deeply offensive.
Agreed. We shouldn't be pulling off body parts, or hooking jumper cables to people's pink parts, or ramming things under finger nails, or starving prisoners for years, or containing them in bambo cages outside in their own filth. We should be good interogators and just slap them around a bit and keep them from sleeping.
oilFactotum wrote:
Abu Ghraib is the direct result of the decisions to torture.
Where's your evidence for that? You really think those retards wouldn't have been horsing around if they thought the CIA wasn't mean to terrorists?!? :wt
BoneSoft wrote:
Who has been arrested for causing sleep deprivation?
Are you really so ill informed? You have no excuse it's all been posted before. The Death Penalty was imposed[^]
BoneSoft wrote:
There aren't that many people who think that slapping, sleep deprivation, or most of the other 'enhanced' techniques are torture.
Just most of the civilized world. Outside of the hard core right that has turned the republican party into the party of torture and now equate criticism of torture as criticism of conservativism, most people recognize it has torture. Reference above, we have executed people for this.
BoneSoft wrote:
If it doesn't leave a mark and they can walk away from it in one piece and there's no real chance of injury or death, it ain't torture.
Yes, it is. US statute and the treaties we have signed (which are US law) say otherwise. Look it up. No real chance of death? Then why have so many detainees died? Repost[^]
BoneSoft wrote:
oilFactotum wrote: It is a crime. So is jay walking, smoking weed, tying your horse to the windmill in the middle of Main street in some places, nominating a candidate for the presidency who's not legally qualified to hold the position, and many many other things. You're not constantly harping on those
What an utterly dishonest response.
What oilFactotum actually wrote:
It is a crime. Not just a crime, but a war crime. Our political leaders should not be considered above the law.
BoneSoft wrote:
Where's your evidence for that?
We've been through this already. You're willful ignorance is getting tedious.
BoneSoft wrote:
horsing around
X|
-
I have never in my entire life seen anyone so willing to commit national sucicide under the guise of following some meaningless bullshit rule that is open to interpretation. I really want to hear what you have to say the next time some fucking fanatic blows some shit up. I realize it'll be Bush's fault but I want to hear you say it.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I have never in my entire life seen anyone so willing to commit national sucicide under the guise of following some meaningless bullsh*t rule that is open to interpretation.
Seriously? You really believe that the only thing standing between us and our complete destruction as a nation at the hands of a small group of extremists is torture? Well the terrorists have definitely lived up to their name. You are indeed terrified completely out of your mind.
-
:laugh:
Rob Graham wrote:
It must be sated, even if it destroys his own party.
Let's hope and pray it comes to that. ;)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Let's hope and pray it comes to that.
Don't assume that the destruction of the Liberals would mean that folks would suddenly have a hankering for the Bush-Cheney style of politics, either. Whatever Obama has turned out to be, he was elected because the United States had had enough to the bumbling greedy incompetence of the Republicans. The shame is that while many average citizens are worried about losing their jobs, many more are trying to figure out if they will have to work until they are 75 before they can retire, and policy wonks like you and me are looking at Iran about to go nuclear, North Korea firing ICBM, Russia on the rise, China flexing his economic and military might, and Pakistan about to become an Islamic theocracy armed with 60 nuclear weapons Washington is paralysing itself arguing about things that happened eight years ago and criminalising political differences. There can't be anyone who hates America who isn't delighted with what has happened this week.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin