NY Times Accuses Troops of War Crimes

[red states rule]

This is so typical of the liberal NY Times, they have become the offical publisher of the left wing nuts that now run the Dem party, and the real problem is not the terrorists but the "fear" of terrorism


Looking at America

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.

It was not the first time in recent years we’ve felt this horror, this sorrowful sense of estrangement, not nearly. This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001.

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

We have read accounts of how the government’s top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — and both American and international law — to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.

Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didn’t go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.

In other foreign lands, the C.I.A. set up secret jails where “high-value detainees” were subjected to ever more barbaric acts, including simulated drowning. These crimes were videotaped, so that “experts” could watch them, and then the videotapes were destroyed, after consultation with the White House, in the hope that Americans would never know.

The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners — some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports — to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress.

These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?_r=3&hp&oref=login&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[DrJohn]

I have a question:

Is torture a 'war crime' ?

[red states rule]

I have a question:

Is torture a 'war crime' ?

The US does not "torture" but the left loves to say we do

[DrJohn]

The US does not "torture" but the left loves to say we do


OK.
Isn't waterboarding considered torture everywhere?
What about what McCain says about waterboarding?

[red states rule]

OK.
Isn't waterboarding considered torture everywhere?
What about what McCain says about waterboarding?

Waterboarding was used only three times, has not been used in years, and when it was used the terrorists cracked in less then one minute

That is not torture - if you want torture look at what the terrorists do to their captives, not the US

[DrJohn]

Waterboarding was used only three times, has not been used in years, and when it was used the terrorists cracked in less then one minute

That is not torture - if you want torture look at what the terrorists do to their captives, not the US


John McCain believes that it is torture.
If it is done less than three times, it's OK then?

[red states rule]

John McCain believes that it is torture.
If it is done less than three times, it's OK then?

Each time it stopped attacks, and saved lives

Would you rather stop terrorist attacks or make sure the comfort level of the terrorists is maintained?

[DrJohn]

Each time it stopped attacks, and saved lives

Would you rather stop terrorist attacks or make sure the comfort level of the terrorists is maintained?



So the end always justifies the means...

[red states rule]

So the end always justifies the means...

So you would rather have dead Americans then one minute of discomfort for the terrorists (who suffer no ill effects from the waterbording BTW)

[DrJohn]

So you would rather have dead Americans then one minute of discomfort for the terrorists (who suffer no ill effects from the waterbording BTW)


I never said that. I even looked back through my posts to see if I had somehow posted those sentiments.
I just wonder where we draw the line.
I'm also not so sure that we have limited our interrogation techniques to waterboarding.
I know that I should believe our leaders but I seldom trust anything that comes out of ANY politician's mouth, regardless of party affiliation.

[red states rule]

I never said that. I even looked back through my posts to see if I had somehow posted those sentiments.
I just wonder where we draw the line.
I'm also not so sure that we have limited our interrogation techniques to waterboarding.
I know that I should believe our leaders but I seldom trust anything that comes out of ANY politician's mouth, regardless of party affiliation.

Never said you did - but if you are not willing to break the terrorists you get dead people as a result of their attacks

I can see the left now if we are hit again as we were on 9-11, and it comes out we had a terrorist in custody and we did not use every method to break him and stop the attacks

The kooks already say Pres Bush was behidn the 9-11 attacks and it was an inside job - they would have a field day with this one

As would the liberal media

[DrJohn]

You're painting us all (libs) with the same brush.

I don't believe those things and I'm pretty liberal.

[red states rule]

You're painting us all (libs) with the same brush.

I don't believe those things and I'm pretty liberal.

Then you are in the very small minoirty with Joe Lieberman

[DrJohn]

Then you are in the very small minoirty with Joe Lieberman



I'm not with Joe. There's not enough room in Bush's pocket for both him and me.

[red states rule]

I'm not with Joe. There's not enough room in Bush's pocket for both him and me.

Joe is a perfect examples of how the left treats those who disagree with them on any issues. He was their choice for VP in 2000, now he is an outcast

And I thought the left loved to have different opinions within their ranks

[retiredman]

Waterboarding was used only three times, has not been used in years, and when it was used the terrorists cracked in less then one minute

That is not torture - if you want torture look at what the terrorists do to their captives, not the US

is waterboarding prohibited by the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

[Kathianne]

is waterboarding prohibited by the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

I've just been reading through that. Seems to me the problem is they don't specify by what parameters to measure:


torture means 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.

any suffering? What about jail as punishment? Isn't that suffering? It would be to me.

Seems even the UN has problems, asking the US delegation to define:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/world/05cnd-rights.html?pagewanted=print


...

Terrorist suspects could pose a threat to security if allowed to meet with representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, as stipulated by the Geneva Conventions, Mr. Bellinger said.

The delegation from the four government departments did not include anyone from the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Bellinger said he was not authorized to talk about any intelligence activities that the Committee Against Torture inquired about in its report.

The committee said it had received evidence the United States "has established secret detention facilities, including on-board vessels, and holds unacknowledged detainees with no access to I.C.R.C., no notification of families, no oversight with regard to their treatment and, in most cases, no acknowledgment that they are even being held."

An expert from Senegal, Guibril Camara, said it was the committee's interpretation — not that of the United States — that would set the global definition of torture. "One of the parties is going to have to give way," Mr. Camara said. "And I think it's probably going to have to be you."

Other experts pressed the United States to be more explicit on Monday in defining torture. "Where would you put 'waterboarding' or other forms of inhuman treatment?" Xuexian Wang of China asked.

Mr. Bellinger did not go into detail about specific interrogation techniques used by American personnel, but said: "All components of the U.S. government are required to act in compliance with the law."

[red states rule]

is waterboarding prohibited by the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

This from the outfit that has Cuba sitting on its Human Rights Council. Yes MM, libs like you bow before the UN and fell better letting them to decide how and when the US defends itself

[Kathianne]

I've just been reading through that. Seems to me the problem is they don't specify by what parameters to measure:



any suffering? What about jail as punishment? Isn't that suffering? It would be to me.

Seems even the UN has problems, asking the US delegation to define:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/world/05cnd-rights.html?pagewanted=print

Looks like I was more or less correct in seeing a problem with the UN Convention, which like most things coming from the UN leaves quite a bit of wiggle room, then again, it seems the Senate did add some caveats prior to signing:




... TORTURE AND “CID” UNDER OTHER AMERICAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Still, torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are prohibited under international law — in particular, under several human-rights treaties ratified by the United States. Under the supremacy clause, treaties are “the supreme Law of the Land.” With that understanding, it might be said that the Constitution speaks to torture. Nevertheless, had the unadorned Constitution prohibited torture, these treaties, as well as various anti-torture statutes enacted since 1994, would have been superfluous.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit torture but not in all circumstances. Recognizing that, human-rights activists pushed for the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatments (UNCAT), which were ratified by the U.S. in 1992 and 1994, respectively. Both forbid torture, and the UNCAT called for the passage of anti-torture legislation, which Congress promptly enacted.

Further, both the ICCPR and the UNCAT prohibit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID). Here, however, there is an important qualification. In consenting to both treaties, the Senate added a caveat: CID was to be understood in the U.S. as the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under the aforementioned Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. That is, CID would be controlled by governing American constitutional law — not what activist NGOs, international law professors, and foreign regimes decided terms like “degrading treatment” might mean.

So what is torture? It really doesn’t matter what Turley or I think it may mean in the abstract. We are governed by law, and torture has a statutory definition. Section 2340 of the federal criminal code defines it as a government act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering” (an exception is made for the execution of capital sentences).

The law does not explain what severe means. Because of 2002 OLC guidance (known infamously as the “torture memo”), much attention has been given to this question. The memo certainly defined the term too narrowly, suggesting that severe meant "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Nevertheless, even in conceding that this definition was too demanding when it withdrew the OLC memo in 2004, the Justice Department reaffirmed that the designation torture is reserved for practices causing “intense, lasting and heinous agony” (quoting a 2002 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case) which are so abominable that they stand apart from other condemnable forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

With respect to mental pain or suffering, Section 2340 does tell us that severe “means prolonged mental harm” (emphasis added). It also provides examples of the type of prolonged behavior that is prohibited: inflicting or threatening to inflict severe pain or suffering; using or threatening to use mind-altering drugs; threatening imminent death; or threatening that a third person (say, a family member) of the victim will be subjected to equivalent cruelties....

I don't think I've seen MM bring up the McCain Amendment, which is actually more clear, (though not enough), then the UN Convention, though it too is addressed by McCarthy:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=


...
IS WATERBOARDING A VIOLATION OF THE McCAIN AMENDMENT?
One might think the question whether waterboarding is torture should be academic. After all, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is also unlawful. Given that waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture, one would figure waterboarding must, a fortiori, qualify as CID. I believe that is certainly true the vast majority of the time. But the matter is not so cut and dried that we can responsibly say it is true all of the time. And the reason for this is that Congress, which has had countless opportunities to make simulated drowning illegal, has declined to do so.

In late 2005, after revelations about the “torture memo” and against the backdrop of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, Congress enacted the McCain Amendment as part of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). That Amendment eviscerates any contention (based on the theory that the Constitution does not have extra-territorial reach) that CID prohibitions do not apply overseas. The McCain Amendment, however, continued to define CID in accordance with the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. As a result, one can argue that it does not undermine the contention that those protections apply only to civilian legal proceedings, not to the detention and interrogation of alien enemy combatants in wartime.

While this admittedly technical contention remains colorable, I doubt it would or should prevail. Whatever one thinks of Senator McCain’s amendment, it was indisputably a reaction to concerns over wartime detentions. It would be bizarre to think Congress went through such an exercise only to pass something that was irrelevant to the problem it sought to address. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that, although waterboarding figured prominently in the McCain Amendment debate, Congress opted not to end any ambiguity over its legality; instead, it chose to stick with banning “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” — simulated drowning was not specified.

The consequence of this impossible vagueness was to grind interrogations to a halt. Indeed, some intelligence officers purchased litigation insurance, fearful that actions they’d taken based on Justice Department advice might nevertheless lead to investigations and ruinous legal expenses.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court decided the Hamdan case, holding that the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 3 — which the Court found to be incorporated into a statute, the Uniform Code of Military Justice — provided some protection for enemy combatants. The narrow issue in Hamdan was military commissions, not interrogations. Common Article 3, however, broadly prohibits not only irregular tribunals but also, among other things, “violence to life and person,” “torture,” “cruel treatment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” So, the question naturally arose, did Common Article 3 now govern all detention and interrogation? And if so, who gets to decide what its terms mean? Would the United States be bound by, say, the International Court of Justice’s construction of such vague terms as “outrages upon personal dignity”?

Clarification was imperative for this confused landscape. Congress endeavored to provide it in 2006 when it passed the Military Commissions Act. The MCA made clear that issues of detention and interrogation would be controlled not by Common Article 3 but by American law: specifically, the McCain Amendment.

Furthermore, recognizing that our intelligence officers needed guidelines more precise than the vaporous injunction to avoid “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, Congress amended the War Crimes Act (Section 2441 of Title 18, U.S. Code) to specify which “grave breaches” of international law could give rise to criminal prosecution. The list is long but once again (and despite the specter of waterboarding that hung over the debate) Congress elected to include “torture” and “cruel or inhumane treatment,” but not simulated drowning — or, in fact, degrading treatment, even though it, of course, is illegal under the McCain amendment....
There is much more discussion of what the McCain Amendment does, doesn't, and maybe does here. (http://volokh.com/posts/1134797975.shtml) I was going to excerpt but it would be too long and why should I do more than asked?

[red states rule]

When it comes to the UN, when trouble erupts, they will be standing on the sidelines doing nothing

[retiredman]

This from the outfit that has Cuba sitting on its Human Rights Council. Yes MM, libs like you bow before the UN and fell better letting them to decide how and when the US defends itself

I just asked you a simple question. I asked if waterboarding was considered torture in the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment?

why can't you answer it?

[Kathianne]

When it comes to the UN, when trouble erupts, they will be standing on the sidelines doing nothing

Hey, I'm not for the UN, see my new avatar? But what about torture? :coffee:

[red states rule]

Hey, I'm not for the UN, see my new avatar? But what about torture? :coffee:

Love the avatar Kathianne

What torture? The US does not torture its captives. Libs rant on about waterbording but here are the facts

1) Waterbording has not been used in years

2) It was used 3 times - and each time the terrorist cracked in less then 1 mimute

3) Each time, the information gained stopped attacks and saved lives

When it comes to stopping attacks, I do not give a damn waht our people do to get the information. I would rather have the terrorist experience some discomfort rather then see footage on TV of dead bodies after a terrorist attack

[retiredman]

Love the avatar Kathianne

What torture? The US does not torture its captives. Libs rant on about waterbording but here are the facts

1) Waterbording has not been used in years

2) It was used 3 times - and each time the terrorist cracked in less then 1 mimute

3) Each time, the information gained stopped attacks and saved lives

When it comes to stopping attacks, I do not give a damn waht our people do to get the information. I would rather have the terrorist experience some discomfort rather then see footage on TV of dead bodies after a terrorist attack

willingness to piss on the constitution. traitor.

[red states rule]

willingness to piss on the constitution. traitor.

Keep coddling the terrorists MM - you would rather have dead bodies after the attack then stop the attack

I guess it would make better press conferences for Reid and Pelosi - and that is what matters most to you

[Kathianne]

Love the avatar Kathianne

What torture? The US does not torture its captives. Libs rant on about waterbording but here are the facts

1) Waterbording has not been used in years

2) It was used 3 times - and each time the terrorist cracked in less then 1 mimute

3) Each time, the information gained stopped attacks and saved lives

When it comes to stopping attacks, I do not give a damn waht our people do to get the information. I would rather have the terrorist experience some discomfort rather then see footage on TV of dead bodies after a terrorist attack

I understand hyperbole from either side, but this was supposed to be a discussion. There were a lot of points made that may be argued from the UN Conventions, McCarthy's column, and the Volokh discussion. Can you find anything?

[retiredman]

Keep coddling the terrorists MM - you would rather have dead bodies after the attack then stop the attack

I guess it would make better press conferences for Reid and Pelosi - and that is what matters most to you

it is possible to uphold the constitution and still fight the war on terror.

It is despicable that you would think otherwise. traitor.

[Kathianne]

willingness to piss on the constitution. traitor.

I tried to answer you, since no one else did. What is your take? I think a case can be made that the UN Conventions, as signed off on by US Senate, do not forbid waterboarding.

[red states rule]

I understand hyperbole from either side, but this was supposed to be a discussion. There were a lot of points made that may be argued from the UN Conventions, McCarthy's column, and the Volokh discussion. Can you find anything?

The main "torture" the left is whining about is waterbording

Here is an excellent article on the subject and what we gained by using it on one terrorist



The Point | In defense of waterboarding
By Mark Bowden

No one should be prosecuted for waterboarding Abu Zubaydah.
Several investigations are under way to find out who ordered the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, apparently an effort to cover up evidence of torture. Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of destroying the tapes, I'd like to take a look at what was allegedly done to Zubaydah, and why.

When captured in Pakistan in 2002, Zubaydah was one of the world's most notorious terrorists. The 31-year-old Saudi had compiled in his young life 37 different aliases and was under a sentence of death in Jordan for a failed plot to blow up two hotels jammed with American and Israeli tourists. The evidence was not hearsay: Zubaydah was overheard on the phone planning the attacks, which were then thwarted. He was a key planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, was thought to be field commander of the attack that killed 17 U.S. sailors on the USS Cole, and was involved in planning a score of other terror attacks, successful and unsuccessful. He was considered to be a primary recruiter and manager of al-Qaeda training camps.

He was, in short, a highly successful, fully engaged, career mass murderer. Think back to those pictures of workers crouched in windows high up in the burning World Trade Center towers, choosing whether to jump to their death or be burned alive. This was in part Abu Zubaydah's handiwork.

At the time of his capture in 2002, just six months after the Sept. 11 attacks, there was strong reason to believe Zubaydah knew virtually the entire organizational structure and agenda of al-Qaeda around the world. He was supervising ongoing plots to kill hundreds if not thousands of people. He was, for obvious reasons, disinclined to share this knowledge. Subjected briefly to waterboarding - less than a minute, according to published reports - he became cooperative and provided information that, according to the government, resulted in preventing planned attacks and capturing other key al-Qaeda leaders.

In the six years that have passed since the Manhattan towers collapsed, we have gained (partly through the interrogation of men like Zubaydah) a much clearer understanding of al-Qaeda and the threat it poses. While the chance of further murderous attacks is always with us, it is fair to say few of us feel the same measure of alarm we did then. The diminishment of this threat is at least in part due to the heroic efforts of the CIA, the military, and allies around the world in targeting terrorist cells.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071223_The_Point___In_defense_of_waterboarding.h tml

[retiredman]

I tried to answer you, since no one else did. What is your take? I think a case can be made that the UN Conventions, as signed off on by US Senate, do not forbid waterboarding.

YOur articles certainly made that case. I remain unconvinced.... I think that tilting someone backwards on a board, and pour water into their mouth and nose with no certainty from the prisoner's perspective, that the water will ever stop - no certainty that drowning is not imminent - is cruel inhumane and degrading.... in the broadest sense of the words.

[red states rule]

YOur articles certainly made that case. I remain unconvinced.... I think that tilting someone backwards on a board, and pour water into their mouth and nose with no certainty from the prisoner's perspective, that the water will ever stop - no certainty that drowning is not imminent - is cruel inhumane and degrading.... in the broadest sense of the words.

Even though it stops terrorist attacks from happening?

[retiredman]

Even though it stops terrorist attacks from happening?


let me ask YOU a question: would you consider electric wires to the testicles to be cruel inhumane and degrading if it stopped a terrorist attack?

[red states rule]

let me ask YOU a question: would you consider electric wires to the testicles to be cruel inhumane and degrading if it stopped a terrorist attack?

We never used that MM

You are trying to change the subject again

[Kathianne]

The main "torture" the left is whining about is waterbording

Here is an excellent article on the subject and what we gained by using it on one terrorist



The Point | In defense of waterboarding
By Mark Bowden

...

I went back and looked. You composed the OP for this thread. So are you arguing that it doesn't matter if waterboarding is in fact torture? You certainly haven't shown that it's not.

Personally that would bother me, if indeed Bush & Co are correct and 'the US doesn't torture,' then I'd want to be convinced that waterboarding isn't torture.

After reading MM's questions for a couple days, I looked for the information myself. I don't have to convince him, just me and anyone that may be influenced. If I'd found less qualified sources, I would have picked up some doubts, certainly.

[Kathianne]

let me ask YOU a question: would you consider electric wires to the testicles to be cruel inhumane and degrading if it stopped a terrorist attack?

If not actually shocked, not. Muslim sensibilities at 'degrading' just don't measure up to common sense.

[red states rule]

I went back and looked. You composed the OP for this thread. So are you arguing that it doesn't matter if waterboarding is in fact torture? You certainly haven't shown that it's not.

Personally that would bother me, if indeed Bush & Co are correct and 'the US doesn't torture,' then I'd want to be convinced that waterboarding isn't torture.

After reading MM's questions for a couple days, I looked for the information myself. I don't have to convince him, just me and anyone that may be influenced. If I'd found less qualified sources, I would have picked up some doubts, certainly.

To me waterboarding is NOT torture. The terrorist does not suffer any lasting effects. The terrorists is back to normal a few minutes later. he has no scars, wounds, or injuries

If you want to see what torture is look at the photos of the terrorists torture chambers our troops have found

[retiredman]

We never used that MM

You are trying to change the subject again

I am not trying to change the subject. I stated that I thought waterboarding was "cruel, inhumane and degrading"....your question to that was "Even though it stops terrorist attacks from happening?" That question, along with other statements from you indicate, that from your perspective, the ends justify the means...and if waterboarding is effective, you really don't care if it is CID.... I just was trying to see if your ends justify the means philosophy had any boundaries. Are there, in fact, any types of interrogation techniques we could possibly use that you would be against, if you felt that those techniques got results?

[red states rule]

I am not trying to change the subject. I stated that I thought waterboarding was "cruel, inhumane and degrading"....your question to that was "Even though it stops terrorist attacks from happening?" That question, along with other statements from you indicate, that from your perspective, the ends justify the means...and if waterboarding is effective, you really don't care if it is CID.... I just was trying to see if your ends justify the means philosophy had any boundaries. Are there, in fact, any types of interrogation techniques we could possibly use that you would be against, if you felt that those techniques got results?

Only if we knew for sure (100% certainty) the terrorist knew there was say a nuke that was going to go off, or another 9-11 scale attack; I say do what is needed to stop the attack

What would you do MM? Say pretty please while checking the UN rule book?

[Kathianne]

YOur articles certainly made that case. I remain unconvinced.... I think that tilting someone backwards on a board, and pour water into their mouth and nose with no certainty from the prisoner's perspective, that the water will ever stop - no certainty that drowning is not imminent - is cruel inhumane and degrading.... in the broadest sense of the words.

So is 'the Constitution' in the 'broadest sense of the word' to be interpreted by individuals? Not really. As Hamdan basically proved. That to me, even in my first reading of the UN Conventions led to my initial skepticism.

[Kathianne]

Only if we knew for sure (100% certainty) the terrorist knew there was say a nuke that was going to go off, or another 9-11 scale attack; I say do what is needed to stop the attack

What would you do MM? Say pretty please while checking the UN rule book? That is the point, the UN 'rule book' doesn't say it is, as signed by US.

[red states rule]

That is the point, the UN 'rule book' doesn't say it is, as signed by US.

Unless I misunderstood MM's posts - that is what he is saying - it is covered

I say toss the book, and the PC bullshit, in the trash and stop the damn attacks

[retiredman]

Only if we knew for sure (100% certainty) the terrorist knew there was say a nuke that was going to go off, or another 9-11 scale attack; I say do what is needed to stop the attack

What would you do MM? Say pretty please while checking the UN rule book?


it is a ridiculous unrealistic scenario. 100% certainty in such a scenario is laughable.

But you answered my question: you would torture any detainee if you thought the torture would yield information. That is pissing on our constitution. You are, by your own words, an admitted domestic enemy of the state.

[Kathianne]

Unless I misunderstood MM's posts - that is what he is saying - it is covered

I say toss the book, and the PC bullshit, in the trash and stop the damn attacks

Then in your argument with him, you lose. Unless of course you agree that you don't care about the Constitution? You do not understand why MM said I 'certainly made that case.' Reading some of these things would help.

[red states rule]

Then in your argument with him, you lose. Unless of course you agree that you don't care about the Constitution? You do not understand why MM said I 'certainly made that case.' Reading some of these things would help.

Terrorists are not covered by the US Constitution or the GC

[glockmail]

If not actually shocked, not. Muslim sensibilities at 'degrading' just don't measure up to common sense. Muslims play victim all the time, then behead innocents.

[red states rule]

Muslims play victim all the time, then behead innocents.

after cutting off limbs, using electricty, and whips and chains on their captives

[retiredman]

Terrorists are not covered by the US Constitution or the GC

man...you are like a broken record. NO ONE in this discussion has EVER suggested that terrorists have any rights written into our constitution and NO ONE has EVER suggested that they are covered by the Geneva Conventions.

where do you GET this shit????:lol:

[Kathianne]

Terrorists are not covered by the US Constitution or the GC

It's becoming obvious that you are not following your own logical failures. I have not posted anything difficult to read or understand, in fact, that is why I did NOT include Volokh quotes, as they tend towards legal reasoning.

It seems to me that you enjoy throwing out partisan phrases, while MM enjoys baiting you with challenges about specifics. You've both wasted pages and pages of my time here and on numerous other threads. Basically I like you both, but am getting tired of your bickering.

Messageboards are certainly for entertainment, but one would hope also for honing your reasoning for believing what you claim. Once I decided to look into those UN Conventions, wasn't too hard to make your argument, which you should have done.

Now you go on another thread and say MM's is getting his 'ass kicked' here. I saw it more as another opportunity for him to try and convince others differently, after conceding I answered the question of 'whether the UN Conventions which the US signed made waterboarding illegal.' I proved, no; not as the US signed them.

[red states rule]

man...you are like a broken record. NO ONE in this discussion has EVER suggested that terrorists have any rights written into our constitution and NO ONE has EVER suggested that they are covered by the Geneva Conventions.

where do you GET this shit????:lol:

You change positions more often then a Clinton intern. One minute you are saying the US needs to honer UN pieces of paper covering the teatment of terrorists, then you say we don't

The left has been telling us terrorists are covered under the GC - so are they MM?

[retiredman]

You change positions more often then a Clinton intern. One minute you are saying the US needs to honer UN pieces of paper covering the teatment of terrorists, then you say we don't

The left has been telling us terrorists are covered under the GC - so are they MM?

You are obviously not aware of the fact that the Geneva Conventions are not UN Documents, but a series of treaties dating back to 1864.

You really aren't smart enough to even be participating in this converstion if you think that the Geneva Conventions are United Nations creations.:laugh2:

[waterrescuedude2000]

New York Slimes strikes again... Damn Liberals.

[red states rule]

New York Slimes strikes again... Damn Liberals.

The NY Times is the offical publisher of the DNC talking points.

[retiredman]

hey...RSR!


You are obviously not aware of the fact that the Geneva Conventions are not UN Documents, but a series of treaties dating back to 1864.

You really aren't smart enough to even be participating in this conversation if you think that the Geneva Conventions are United Nations creations.:laugh2:

moron.

[red states rule]

hey...RSR!



moron.

Then why does your party keep saying terrorists should be given US Constitutional rights and are covered under the GC?

Don't tell us YOU are going against your party and their standard talking points :lol:

[retiredman]

Then why does your party keep saying terrorists should be given US Constitutional rights and are covered under the GC?

Don't tell us YOU are going against your party and their standard talking points :lol:


why do YOU think that the United Nations has anything to do with the Geneva Convention?

I have repeatedly stated that I do NOT think that terrorists should be given rights afforded to citizens under our constitution, nor do I think that they are covered in any way by the geneva conventions. You, by your own blithering posts, have proven that you don't have a fucking clue what the geneva conventions are, who wrote them, and who is responsible for them.

Like I said...you really aren't smart enough to even be IN this discussion.

[red states rule]

why do YOU think that the United Nations has anything to do with the Geneva Convention?

I have repeatedly stated that I do NOT think that terrorists should be given rights afforded to citizens under our constitution, nor do I think that they are covered in any way by the geneva conventions. You, by your own blithering posts, have proven that you don't have a fucking clue what the geneva conventions are, who wrote them, and who is responsible for them.

Like I said...you really aren't smart enough to even be IN this discussion.

Keep ducking and dancing MM - that is all you have left

[Immanuel]

Waterboarding was used only three times, has not been used in years, and when it was used the terrorists cracked in less then one minute

That is not torture - if you want torture look at what the terrorists do to their captives, not the US

You made this statement about the usage of waterboarding, two or three times so far in this thread, I want to know how you know this information. Who is your source on this, please?

In regards to looking at what the terrorists do to their captives, what difference does that make? No one that I know of will argue that the muslims (especially the radicals) are saintly. To my knowledge, no one will argue that they are not barbaric animals, but does that justify a return of the favor?

The argument, "well, he did it first", never worked when I was 7. I don't think it works now either.

I think you also said that it had led to the stopping of several other attacks. Can that be proven?

Immie

[truthmatters]

RSR never lets facts get in the way of his fantasy world

[red states rule]

You made this statement about the usage of waterboarding, two or three times so far in this thread, I want to know how you know this information. Who is your source on this, please?

In regards to looking at what the terrorists do to their captives, what difference does that make? No one that I know of will argue that the muslims (especially the radicals) are saintly. To my knowledge, no one will argue that they are not barbaric animals, but does that justify a return of the favor?

The argument, "well, he did it first", never worked when I was 7. I don't think it works now either.

Immie

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

also the Washington Post, Washington Times, and several op-eds

Again, we do not torture. Libs like to keep saying we do, since they like to blame America for all the worlds problems

Some think lound music in the prison cells is torture

[retiredman]

Keep ducking and dancing MM - that is all you have left


I am not ducking and dancing. YOU are the one who was thought the Geneva Conventions were UN documents. I have always known what they were and I have always known that they did not apply to non-military detainees and I have never stated otherwise.

YOu are an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about the GC and can only spew idiotic talking points...when you strike out on your own - as you did above in your stupid GC post, you only prove how far over your head all this is.

[Immanuel]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

also the Washington Post, Washington Times, and several op-eds

Again, we do not torture. Libs like to keep saying we do, since they like to blame America for all the worlds problems

Some think lound music in the prison cells is torture

Thanks for the lnk. I'm not in a place where I can spend time searching for it.

Note: to clarify, I edited my post adding the last question, while you were replying to it, I'm sure you had not seen it.

From your link:


For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

Well, I'm sorry, but this leaves many questions unanswered. For instance, do these people know how many times it was used? Are they honest? Are they covering their asses and other questions.

The reliability of this report would have to remain in question for anyone who tries to keep an open mind.

Immie

[retiredman]

to recap:


Terrorists are not covered by the US Constitution or the GC


man...you are like a broken record. NO ONE in this discussion has EVER suggested that terrorists have any rights written into our constitution and NO ONE has EVER suggested that they are covered by the Geneva Conventions.

where do you GET this shit????:lol:


You change positions more often then a Clinton intern. One minute you are saying the US needs to honer UN pieces of paper covering the teatment of terrorists, then you say we don't.

RSR clearly does not understand the concept of the Geneva Conventions.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I am not ducking and dancing. YOU are the one who was thought the Geneva Conventions were UN documents. I have always known what they were and I have always known that they did not apply to non-military detainees and I have never stated otherwise.

YOu are an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about the GC and can only spew idiotic talking points...when you strike out on your own - as you did above in your stupid GC post, you only prove how far over your head all this is.

Never said they were the same. You are trying desperatly to try and wiggle off the hook - which is a daily happeneing with you

[retiredman]

Never said they were the same. You are trying desperatly to try and wiggle off the hook - which is a daily happeneing with you
post 62....a good recap. shows what a liar you are in this one!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

post 62....a good recap. shows what a liar you are in this one!:laugh2:

I clearly listed them separately. Trying to cahnge the subject sicne you have been busted several times today

You need to go back and review your course

www.hop.com

[retiredman]

I clearly listed them separately. Trying to cahnge the subject sicne you have been busted several times today

You need to go back and review your course




OK...let's try this another way.... you first mentioned the constitution and the GC.... I replied that no one has said that either document (constitution OR GC) covered terrorosts, and they YOU replied: "One minute you are saying the US needs to honer UN pieces of paper covering the teatment of terrorists, then you say we don't."

What UN piece of paper had I flip flopped on in that interchange, according to you? :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

OK...let's try this another way.... you first mentioned the constitution and the GC.... I replied that no one has said that either document (constitution OR GC) covered terrorosts, and they YOU replied: "One minute you are saying the US needs to honer UN pieces of paper covering the teatment of terrorists, then you say we don't."

What UN piece of paper had I flip flopped on in that interchange, according to you? :laugh2:

I think he, like myself, assumed that the UN Conventions must have listed waterboarding, based on bad reading of your question, (surely unintentional). ;)
That's me, if I asked a question like that, I'd be sure that it went where I wanted. Like I said, I jumped in to stop brain splatter in my kitchen. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

I think he, like myself, assumed that the UN Conventions must have listed waterboarding, based on bad reading of your question, (surely unintentional). ;)
That's me, if I asked a question like that, I'd be sure that it went where I wanted. Like I said, I jumped in to stop brain splatter in my kitchen. :laugh2:


I replied specifically to his post about the constitution and the GC.... he then called me a liar for first saying we needed to honor UN pieces of paper and then saying otherwise. The implication is pretty unmistakable in that context, that RSR felt that the GC was just such a piece of paper. now he tap dances.

[Kathianne]

I replied specifically to his post about the constitution and the GC.... he then called me a liar for first saying we needed to honor UN pieces of paper and then saying otherwise. The implication is pretty unmistakable in that context, that RSR felt that the GC was just such a piece of paper. now he tap dances.

My take only, he has problems in differentiating between GC and anything from UN. I truly believe that the US should take the steps to remove ourselves from UN, but until we do, have to abide by what we sign. With that said, we have as much right as Europeans, Palestinians, Middle Easterners, South Americans, Africans to exploit all loopholes and shove it to those that do the same in return.

As for the Geneva Conventions, I think they are important to abide by, for all the reasons you've said here and elsewhere. What goes around, comes around.

[retiredman]

My take only, he has problems in differentiating between GC and anything from UN. I truly believe that the US should take the steps to remove ourselves from UN, but until we do, have to abide by what we sign. With that said, we have as much right as Europeans, Palestinians, Middle Easterners, South Americans, Africans to exploit all loopholes and shove it to those that do the same in return.

As for the Geneva Conventions, I think they are important to abide by, for all the reasons you've said here and elsewhere. What goes around, comes around.

I agree completely. The finer points of most arguments fly at a significant altitude over his head.... and then he claims that I am tapdancing when I try to use the word "ALL" correctly in a sentence. :laugh2:

He is the tarbaby, honest he is....and I know I should stop slapping him because his "tarbaby-ness" just draws me into circular arguments with a moron that are a waste of time and thought.

shame on me.

[Kathianne]

I agree completely. The finer points of most arguments fly at a significant altitude over his head.... and then he claims that I am tapdancing when I try to use the word "ALL" correctly in a sentence. :laugh2:

He is the tarbaby, honest he is....and I know I should stop slapping him because his "tarbaby-ness" just draws me into circular arguments with a moron that are a waste of time and thought.

shame on me.

You both push each other's buttons. It diminishes both of you, IMO.

[retiredman]

I will agree that allowing myself to get drawn into discussions with RSR is pointless and diminishes my stature...but you must admit that I try very hard to answer every question posed by him and address every issue brought forward by him, and you must also admit that he does NEITHER of those things. He NEVER answers a single question posed to him, and he NEVER addresses any issues I bring forward for his comment.

I may "push his buttons" because my point of view flies in the face of his dogmatic beliefs, but I always state my point of view with articulation. He, on the other hand, is incapable of expressing his own views in his own words, and when he tries, as in this UN-GC blunder, he merely paints himself into a corner and then claims I am tap dancing or lying when he realizes there is no way out.

It's a formulaic dialog - a verbal mobius strip, and shame on me for playing my role in that. ;)

[Kathianne]

I will agree that allowing myself to get drawn into discussions with RSR is pointless and diminishes my stature...but you must admit that I try very hard to answer every question posed by him and address every issue brought forward by him, and you must also admit that he does NEITHER of those things. He NEVER answers a single question posed to him, and he NEVER addresses any issues I bring forward for his comment.

I may "push his buttons" because my point of view flies in the face of his dogmatic beliefs, but I always state my point of view with articulation. He, on the other hand, is incapable of expressing his own views in his own words, and when he tries, as in this UN-GC blunder, he merely paints himself into a corner and then claims I am tap dancing or lying when he realizes there is no way out.

It's a formulaic dialog - a verbal mobius strip, and shame on me for playing my role in that. ;)

I'm not going to argue the points. If as you state, throw him on ignore or do what I do, post higher and ask him to respond. First private, then if needed, public. That's my take. Do what you wish, free speech and all that. Just contemplate if you will, how much better you could respond to myself and others if you weren't involved in :pee: matches. Just saying...

[red states rule]

My take only, he has problems in differentiating between GC and anything from UN. I truly believe that the US should take the steps to remove ourselves from UN, but until we do, have to abide by what we sign. With that said, we have as much right as Europeans, Palestinians, Middle Easterners, South Americans, Africans to exploit all loopholes and shove it to those that do the same in return.

As for the Geneva Conventions, I think they are important to abide by, for all the reasons you've said here and elsewhere. What goes around, comes around.

No I do not have a problem differentiating between GC and anything from UN. My point is, the terrorists are not covered by the GC

The terrorists do not meet this requirements as stated in the GC

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power

BTW, when did AQ sign the GC? We treat the terrroists very well, in most cases, they gain weight while in custody.

[retiredman]

No I do not have a problem differentiating between GC and anything from UN. My point is, the terrorists are not covered by the GC

The terrorists do not meet this requirements as stated in the GC

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power

BTW, when did AQ sign the GC? We treat the terrroists very well, in most cases, they gain weight while in custody.

now...here is the trick: show me ONE TIME when I have EVER suggested that the detainees from this war on terror are covered by the Geneva Convention. You can't do it.

I am not talking about the Geneva Convention AT ALL and have NEVER brought the GC into the discussion. YOU are the one who keeps harping on the GC here. Not me. I am talking about UN Conventions - treaties that we have signed - and the fact that, once signed, they become THE LAW OF THE LAND ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION. What do YOU have to say about that?

[red states rule]

now...here is the trick: show me ONE TIME when I have EVER suggested that the detainees from this war on terror are covered by the Geneva Convention. You can't do it.

I am not talking about the Geneva Convention AT ALL and have NEVER brought the GC into the discussion. YOU are the one who keeps harping on the GC here. Not me. I am talking about UN Conventions - treaties that we have signed - and the fact that, once signed, they become THE LAW OF THE LAND ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION. What do YOU have to say about that?

My there is a blizzard raging in Hell - MM is going against the wants and desire of the Dems in DC

and my post was a reply to Kathy - not you

[retiredman]

My there is a blizzard raging in Hell - MM is going against the wants and desire of the Dems in DC

and my post was a reply to Kathy - not you


and hers was a reply to ME about you.

I am trying to have a discussion with you.

I have stipulated numerous times that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. I have stipulated numerous times that terrorists do not have any rights normally afforded to citizens under our constitution. So quit mentioning the constitutional rights and the GC. My point is: if waterboarding is forbidden in treaties that we have signed, does that not make the practice against the laws of the land in accordance with article VI of our constitution?

[red states rule]

and hers was a reply to ME about you.

I am trying to have a discussion with you.

I have stipulated numerous times that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. I have stipulated numerous times that terrorists do not have any rights normally afforded to citizens under our constitution. So quit mentioning the constitutional rights and the GC. My point is: if waterboarding is forbidden in treaties that we have signed, does that not make the practice against the laws of the land in accordance with article VI of our constitution?

The key word there is IF

Waterboarding is not torture

[retiredman]

The key word there is IF

Waterboarding is not torture


:link:

I really don't care what your OPINION is about waterboarding. Please provide something other than your opinion that waterboarding is NOT torture. Feel free to run away from the definition of torture in the UN Convention on Torture that we signed and, is therefore the law of the land. That really is your only avenue at this point.

[red states rule]

:link:

I really don't care what your OPINION is about waterboarding. Please provide something other than your opinion that waterboarding is NOT torture. Feel free to run away from the definition of torture in the UN Convention on Torture that we signed and, is therefore the law of the land. That really is your only avenue at this point.

This coming form you is funny - Mr Parse My Words

Bottom line is, the terrroists "suffer" for less then 1 minute - and they give up info that saves lives. You want to defend the terrorists rights, and screw stopping the terrorist attacks

I am very confident MM, if a Dem was President you would have the opposite attitude and defend him/her from attacks saying it was torture and illegal. I would be praising the Dem president for doing everything possible to save lives. My praise would be real - yours would come from DNC talking points

[actsnoblemartin]

We discussed this too. There was a part of it.

in 2004, the u.s. ratified it, but basically said some lawyer stuff, that said they can do whatever they want.

Obviously we should keep treaties, but their are exceptions to every rule, and since we saved lies by using water boarding, which i consider a 2.5 on the torture scale, vs cutting off peoples heads a ten.

I think we did the right thing.


and hers was a reply to ME about you.

I am trying to have a discussion with you.

I have stipulated numerous times that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. I have stipulated numerous times that terrorists do not have any rights normally afforded to citizens under our constitution. So quit mentioning the constitutional rights and the GC. My point is: if waterboarding is forbidden in treaties that we have signed, does that not make the practice against the laws of the land in accordance with article VI of our constitution?

[actsnoblemartin]

For what its worth, I believe waterboarding is torture, but i think torture is neccesary.

we used water boarding 3 times, and it saved lives.

Therefore, even if we broke the treaty, lives are more important then a treaty, and in some cases, their should be exceptions to rules, and 3 is not bad to me


:link:

I really don't care what your OPINION is about waterboarding. Please provide something other than your opinion that waterboarding is NOT torture. Feel free to run away from the definition of torture in the UN Convention on Torture that we signed and, is therefore the law of the land. That really is your only avenue at this point.

[actsnoblemartin]

I hate to say it, but i consider waterboarding torture, i mean I saw a demonstration on tv, but i still believe its neccesary because it has saved lives.

War is not preety, and if were not ready to do all we need to do to win, including modifying, or cancelling treaties, then we should just surrender now

my point is, why fight a war half ass?


This coming form you is funny - Mr Parse My Words

Bottom line is, the terrroists "suffer" for less then 1 minute - and they give up info that saves lives. You want to defend the terrorists rights, and screw stopping the terrorist attacks

I am very confident MM, if a Dem was President you would have the opposite attitude and defend him/her from attacks saying it was torture and illegal. I would be praising the Dem president for doing everything possible to save lives. My praise would be real - yours would come from DNC talking points

[red states rule]

I hate to say it, but i consider waterboarding torture, i mean I saw a demonstration on tv, but i still believe its neccesary because it has saved lives.

War is not preety, and if were not ready to do all we need to do to win, including modifying, or cancelling treaties, then we should just surrender now

my point is, why fight a war half ass?

Martin, if I had to choose from waterboarding a fucking terrorists or saving lives - I will waterboard the pig

He will "Suffer" for less then 30 seconds, he will give up the info, and lives will be saved

I do not give a damn about some treaty when it comes to defeating terrorists. Screw them. They will be fine after the waterboarding, unlike their captives who are dumped dead in a ditch or a river

[actsnoblemartin]

effectively, when the u.s. ratified the treaty, they said they can do whatever the fuck they want.

I put that info in another thread, so this whole point is mute

second, if it comes to surviving as a country or following some archaic, dislutional treaty that makes no sense, guess which one im choosing

I agree with torture, liberals seem to be so obsessed with a rule, and so compulsive about following it, that they cant see the forrest through the trees.

Torture saves lives, and therefore must be a viable option in some cases, where it is warranted.

2.5 is a very low number out of 10.

we cant appease the world by playing mr goody two shoes, if we wanna win this war.

where exactly again do we disagree?


Martin, if I had to choose from waterboarding a fucking terrorists or saving lives - I will waterboard the pig

He will "Suffer" for less then 30 seconds, he will give up the info, and lives will be saved

I do not give a damn about some treaty when it comes to defeating terrorists. Screw them. They will be fine after the waterboarding, unlike their captives who are dumped dead in a ditch or a river

[red states rule]

effectively, when the u.s. ratified the treaty, they said they can do whatever the fuck they want.

I put that info in another thread, so this whole point is mute

second, if it comes to surviving as a country or following some archaic, dislutional treaty that makes no sense, guess which one im choosing

I agree with torture, liberals seem to be so obsessed with a rule, and so compulsive about following it, that they cant see the forrest through the trees.

Torture saves lives, and therefore must be a viable option in some cases, where it is warranted.

2.5 is a very low number out of 10.

we cant appease the world by playing mr goody two shoes, if we wanna win this war.

where exactly again do we disagree?

I do not consider waterboarding torture. The terrorists has no lasting effects, and is fine after a few minutes

If you want to see torture - look at what the terrorists do to their captives. No where near what we do to them

[actsnoblemartin]

all im saying is two things. Its a very subjective argument.

what one considers torture, one wont.

Therefore making it almost a very lawyeristic matter

therefore, who cares what you call it, or what it is, as long as it works.

If they threaten to throw um out of a plane fine, as long as it proves it can save lives.

I am not 100% sure i am comfortable calling it torture. Yes i am flip flopping :laugh2:

Because, water boarding makes them uncomfturble, but so does sleep deprivation which lasts longer, and not being given food.

So im 50-50 on whether i think its making them uncomfortable or torture

torture is too subjective, so who cares


I do not consider waterboarding torture. The terrorists has no lasting effects, and is fine after a few minutes

If you want to see torture - look at what the terrorists do to their captives. No where near what we do to them

[red states rule]

all im saying is two things. Its a very subjective argument.

what one considers torture, one wont.

Therefore making it almost a very lawyeristic matter

therefore, who cares what you call it, or what it is, as long as it works.

If they threaten to throw um out of a plane fine, as long as it proves it can save lives.

I am not 100% sure i am comfortable calling it torture. Yes i am flip flopping :laugh2:

Because, water boarding makes them uncomfturble, but so does sleep deprivation which lasts longer, and not being given food.

So im 50-50 on whether i think its making them uncomfortable or torture

torture is too subjective, so who cares

When it comes to what is done to terrorists - I don't give a damn what is done to them to stop attacks

We do not torture them - we are not breaking the law. We are breaking the terrorists

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont believe we are breaking the law, because we are acting in the best interests or our country by doing whatever it takes to survive

fuck the terrorists, they deserve everything they get

In other words, i agree with you :laugh2:


When it comes to what is done to terrorists - I don't give a damn what is done to them to stop attacks

We do not torture them - we are not breaking the law. We are breaking the terrorists

[red states rule]

I dont believe we are breaking the law, because we are acting in the best interests or our country by doing whatever it takes to survive

fuck the terrorists, they deserve everything they get

In other words, i agree with you :laugh2:

Welcome back from your brief trip to the dark side Martin

[actsnoblemartin]

aww did you miss me rsr :laugh2:


Welcome back from your brief trip to the dark side Martin

[red states rule]

aww did you miss me rsr :laugh2:

More worried about you, then missing you :lol:

[actsnoblemartin]

aww dont worry mate, i can take care of myself :laugh2:




More worried about you, then missing you :lol:

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Each time it stopped attacks, and saved lives

Would you rather stop terrorist attacks or make sure the comfort level of the terrorists is maintained? :clap: I agree screw these stupid terrorists they have no rights in my opinion :coffee:

[retiredman]

aww dont worry mate, i can take care of myself :laugh2:

I would agree....you and some cyber-porno and some Jergen's and you're all set, eh martin? I can imagine that taking care of yourself is about the only way you get taken care of! :lol:

[retiredman]

:clap: I agree screw these stupid terrorists they have no rights in my opinion :coffee:
so...you, too, are willing to piss on the constitution? good to know.

[Kathianne]

I would agree....you and some cyber-porno and some Jergen's and you're all set, eh martin? I can imagine that taking care of yourself is about the only way you get taken care of! :lol:

I think you and PB are being unnecessarily nasty.

[retiredman]

I think you and PB are being unnecessarily nasty.

we disagree.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

so...you, too, are willing to piss on the constitution? good to know.:poke: Since when was a Muslim pig terrorist an American ? fuck them. nothing in the constitution was written for them only Americans :finger3:

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

we disagree. :finger3: YOUR AN ASSHOLE :fu:

[red states rule]

:poke: Since when was a Muslim pig terrorist an American ? fuck them. nothing in the constitution was written for them only Americans :finger3:

Since MM is a liberal, and the US President is a Republican

Party before country with him

[actsnoblemartin]

if a muslim person is an american citizen that is one thing, if he is found trying to kill our troops in some foreign country thats another.

legally speaking


Since MM is a liberal, and the US President is a Republican

Party before country with him

[red states rule]

if a muslim person is an american citizen that is one thing, if he is found trying to kill our troops in some foreign country thats another.

legally speaking

To libs like MM. the poor misunderstood terrorist (i.e freedom fighter) was provoked by Pres Bush to attack our invading army

[retiredman]

:poke: Since when was a Muslim pig terrorist an American ? fuck them. nothing in the constitution was written for them only Americans :finger3:

are you aware of what article VI says regarding treaties?

[red states rule]

are you aware of what article VI says regarding treaties?

We are very aware of libs wanting to surrender and appease the terrorists

[retiredman]

We are very aware of libs wanting to surrender and appease the terrorists

that is not what I asked.

No democrat wants to surrender or appease any of our enemies. you need to retire that well worn lie and find a new talking point one liner.... what is Rush saying these days?

[red states rule]

that is not what I asked.

No democrat wants to surrender or appease any of our enemies. you need to retire that well worn lie and find a new talking point one liner.... what is Rush saying these days?

After 42 failed attempts to surrender in Iraq, you might want to tell your Dem leaders to stop.

The truth does hurt eh?

[retiredman]

After 42 failed attempts to surrender in Iraq, you might want to tell your Dem leaders to stop.

The truth does hurt eh?


no one tried to surrender. get new material RSR....you are so predictable and such a boring hack. honest.

[red states rule]

no one tried to surrender. get new material RSR....you are so predictable and such a boring hack. honest.

Sorry if the year long failure of your Dems to surrender depresses you. The truth is the truth, and your party has been telling us how the war is lost - now they ignore the progress and still want to cut and run

[retiredman]

Sorry if the year long failure of your Dems to surrender depresses you. The truth is the truth, and your party has been telling us how the war is lost - now they ignore the progress and still want to cut and run

if what you said was the "truth", you should be able to find the word "surrender" in those 42 funding bills and post those quotes here.

You need to understand the difference between fact and opinion.

[actsnoblemartin]

I think you two just like fighting

fine with me, i just think its funny.

[red states rule]

I think you two just like fighting

fine with me, i just think its funny.

MM is a lib, and he sole purpose in life is to advance the Dem agenda. Facts, logic, and the truth does not matter to him

With him, it is always party before country

[retiredman]

MM is a lib, and he sole purpose in life is to advance the Dem agenda. Facts, logic, and the truth does not matter to him

With him, it is always party before country


you know that is incorrect and insulting. again: what I want you to do is debate ME with YOUR words and use YOUR words to defend your positions and attack MINE. Instead, all you have is the same old insults over and over again.

[red states rule]

you know that is incorrect and insulting. again: what I want you to do is debate ME with YOUR words and use YOUR words to defend your positions and attack MINE. Instead, all you have is the same old insults over and over again.

Now the truth is considered an insult? Much like Hillary saying how reminding people what she said and done in the past is attacking her

[actsnoblemartin]

stop being a pussy, and respond to my pm

I get on rsr and you sir, are a mean spirited ogre.


you know that is incorrect and insulting. again: what I want you to do is debate ME with YOUR words and use YOUR words to defend your positions and attack MINE. Instead, all you have is the same old insults over and over again.

[red states rule]

stop being a pussy, and respond to my pm

I get on rsr and you sir, are a mean spirited ogre.



You have a firm grasp on the obvious

Again, all the smears and insults tosed at the troops - MM has given a pass to his party

[retiredman]

Now the truth is considered an insult?


no...you see... when you say something like:

"MM is a lib, and he sole purpose in life is to advance the Dem agenda"

that is your opinion.... which is not TRUTH. and it is an insult to me. I happen to be a proud american who loves my country and wants only the best for it.

[red states rule]

no...you see... when you say something like:

"MM is a lib, and he sole purpose in life is to advance the Dem agenda"

that is your opinion.... which is not TRUTH. and it is an insult to me. I happen to be a proud american who loves my country and wants only the best for it.

Based on your posts, your blind loyality to the party, and your spin of the insults and smears - no it is a fact MM

Your sole purpose in life is to advance the Dem agenda

[retiredman]

Based on your posts, your blind loyality to the party, and your spin of the insults and smears - no it is a fact MM

Your sole purpose in life is to advance the Dem agenda

no...it is not a fact...it is and has always been your opinion. I do not have a sole purpose in life. and certainly politics is down the list on my many purposes... and even when it comes to politics, I am not a democratic sheep... I actually participate in the process and am known in democratic circles in my state as a pragmatic moderate. you know next to nothing about me...you have no idea what my purposes are in life and you certainly have no justification to be able to judge my politics. To you...anything to the left of Rush is a lib.... you are a hack and a sheep.

[actsnoblemartin]

Personal opinion:

fact is: i am against abortion.

that is a fact: I oppose abortion

opinion: i hate you

thats an opinion

this is in general

[red states rule]

no...it is not a fact...it is and has always been your opinion. I do not have a sole purpose in life. and certainly politics is down the list on my many purposes... and even when it comes to politics, I am not a democratic sheep... I actually participate in the process and am known in democratic circles in my state as a pragmatic moderate. you know next to nothing about me...you have no idea what my purposes are in life and you certainly have no justification to be able to judge my politics. To you...anything to the left of Rush is a lib.... you are a hack and a sheep.

Where you live Ted Kennedy is a moderate.

With you is it party before country - nothing else matters

[actsnoblemartin]

I think every board member should realize, it doesnt matter what someones elses opinion of you is: it only matters what your opinion of yourself is: so who cares if someone is gonna talk crap, personally insult you, or not like you

If you dont like someone: and their not being nice to you, block um, or shut up and quit whining about them

Im speaking in general

[retiredman]

Where you live Ted Kennedy is a moderate.

With you is it party before country - nothing else matters

Where I live, Ted Kennedy is a super liberal.... my state has very moderate democrats in charge.... just look at our governor.

and my country is always higher on my priority list than the party...you are wrong, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion....just don't keep trying to pass it off as fact.

[actsnoblemartin]

yes, its rsr's opinion, it is not a fact, but on the same token, why do you give a fuck what he thinks.

is your pride (ego) that big that you cant just let it go?

And dont give me any bullcrap about how i never tell rsr similar shit, i tell that dude, stop antagonizing you.

Im nobodys puppet, but im not his mother or yours.

but i will say what i think


Where I live, Ted Kennedy is a super liberal.... my state has very moderate democrats in charge.... just look at our governor.

and my country is always higher on my priority list than the party...you are wrong, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion....just don't keep trying to pass it off as fact.

[red states rule]

yes, its rsr's opinion, it is not a fact, but on the same token, why do you give a fuck what he thinks.

is your pride (ego) that big that you cant just let it go?

And dont give me any bullcrap about how i never tell rsr similar shit, i tell that dude, stop antagonizing you.

Im nobodys puppet, but im not his mother or yours.

but i will say what i think

His liberal arrogance demands he tries to defend the lies of his party

[actsnoblemartin]

im fucking pissed, that he wont acknowledge, that i try very hard to be even handed to you. and if he cant do that, then fuck him


His liberal arrogance demands he tries to defend the lies of his party

[red states rule]

im fucking pissed, that he wont acknowledge, that i try very hard to be even handed to you. and if he cant do that, then fuck him

Give it up, trying to have a civil discussion with him is a lost cause

[retiredman]

yes, its rsr's opinion, it is not a fact, but on the same token, why do you give a fuck what he thinks.

is your pride (ego) that big that you cant just let it go?

And dont give me any bullcrap about how i never tell rsr similar shit, i tell that dude, stop antagonizing you.

Im nobodys puppet, but im not his mother or yours.

but i will say what i think

Look. I have spent a long long time trying to get RSR to actually debate issues with me. Instead, he continues to rely on putting the words of other democrats in MY mouth and putting the words of cut and paste conservative editorials in HIS mouth... I will continue to try to engage him and continue to refute his insults to me about my patriotism.

[actsnoblemartin]

I am very angry with him right now, he owes me an apology.


Give it up, trying to have a civil discussion with him is a lost cause

[actsnoblemartin]

What words is he putting in your mouth.

I noticed you said that he was doing, may i ahve an example


Look. I have spent a long long time trying to get RSR to actually debate issues with me. Instead, he continues to rely on putting the words of other democrats in MY mouth and putting the words of cut and paste conservative editorials in HIS mouth... I will continue to try to engage him and continue to refute his insults to me about my patriotism.

[red states rule]

What words is he putting in your mouth.

I noticed you said that he was doing, may i ahve an example

By confronting him with facts for one

BY his defense of what his party says, does, and wants for another

[retiredman]

What words is he putting in your mouth.

I noticed you said that he was doing, may i ahve an example

an example:

"MM is a lib, and he sole purpose in life is to advance the Dem agenda. Facts, logic, and the truth does not matter to him

With him, it is always party before country"

I have never said that my SOLE purpose in life is to advance the democratic agenda. I have never said that truth logic and facts don't matter to me.... to the contrary, I have always used factual arguments and I never post editorials and try to pass them off as fact....and I spent the majority of my adult life serving my country not my party.

Why can't he debate me on issues instead of hiding behind erroneous slander?

you and I both know...because he is an intellectual lightweight who couldn't string five sentences together if you paid him.....

but you two are good buddies..... good for you. get a room.

[actsnoblemartin]

I would like to see him use less editorials and see longer posts on what he thinks.

Also, I dont think you wake up and say how can i fuck over america today, you do what you think is right

I respect that


an example:

"MM is a lib, and he sole purpose in life is to advance the Dem agenda. Facts, logic, and the truth does not matter to him

With him, it is always party before country"

I have never said that my SOLE purpose in life is to advance the democratic agenda. I have never said that truth logic and facts don't matter to me.... to the contrary, I have always used factual arguments and I never post editorials and try to pass them off as fact....and I spent the majority of my adult life serving my country not my party.

Why can't he debate me on issues instead of hiding behind erroneous slander?

you and I both know...because he is an intellectual lightweight who couldn't string five sentences together if you paid him.....

but you two are good buddies..... good for you. get a room.

[retiredman]

you asked for an example. I gave you one. there are lots more...but they all smell the same.

[actsnoblemartin]

He is entitled to believe that if he wants, and your entitled to belive what you want.

But, if your not doing what he believes, it makes it an opinion not a fact.


you asked for an example. I gave you one. there are lots more...but they all smell the same.

in other words: you made your point, but he can still believe whatever he wants.

[retiredman]

He is entitled to believe that if he wants, and your entitled to belive what you want.

But, if your not doing what he believes, it makes it an opinion not a fact.



in other words: you made your point, but he can still believe whatever he wants.

but if he continues to avoid true debate by spewing that shit, I will continue to call him on it.... and he will, no doubt, continue to enrapture and entertain you to the point where you fall off your chair and turn blue with laughter. how cute. be sure to pos rep him when he tickles your funnybone like that!

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

no one tried to surrender. get new material RSR....you are so predictable and such a boring hack. honest.:poke: WHY don't you grow a set and nutt up and admit your party the demfucks along with Liberaltarin Ron [the kook ] Paul want to puss out and run from the terrorist's it's been over 6 years and no attack on American soil thanks to President Bush and the Republicans. so too all you Liberals I say :finger3:

[red states rule]

:poke: WHY don't you grow a set and nutt up and admit your party the demfucks along with Liberaltarin Ron [the kook ] Paul want to puss out and run from the terrorist's it's been over 6 years and no attack on American soil thanks to President Bush and the Republicans. so too all you Liberals I say :finger3:

Beacause MM is a loyal lib who does what his party tells him do, when to do it, and what to say

To libs like MM, Pres Bush will never get credit for stopping attacks on US soil - but if we are hit again, MM will be one of the libs blaming Pres Bush for not stopping the attack

Even though he and his party have opposed nearly every method used to track, capture, and detain the terrorists