And it just keeps getting deeper...

[bullypulpit]

New information has surfaced regarding the Bush administration's search for legal rationale to justify the use of torture. This time, it comes in the form of "Well gosh, if it's for the good of the country it's okay...".

<blockquote>While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public. - <a href=>NYT</a></blockquote>

It is worth noting, since Mr. Benczkowski brought up the Geneva Convention, that Article 1 of the General Provisions of the Convention states the following:

<blockquote>The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention <b><i>in all circumstances</i></b>.</blockquote>

Article 2, para3 of the General Provisions of the Convention goes on to say:
<blockquote>Although one of the Powers in conflict <b><i>may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations</i></b>. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.</blockquote>

In short, Mr. Benczkowski's attempts to assert legal authority where none exists falls as flat as the rest of the Bush administration's attempts to circumvent US law and treaty obligations regarding the issue of torture. There is no exception under US law or treaty obligation which grants the Bush administration the authority to order the torture of detainees.

For a summary of US law and treaty obligations regarding torture, go <a href=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm>HERE</a>.

[theHawk]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

[manu1959]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

totally agree.....if they are cutting the heads off reporters, hiding in mosques, hanging bodies from bridges.......they should expect to have dogs bark at them, women give them lap dances, be stacked naked, forced to stay up late and listen to rock and roll and prentend to be drowned....god help them if the every attack a frat house.....

[retiredman]

those who would deliberately ignore treaties that the US government has signed and ratified are nothing less than domestic enemies of our constitution.

[semi liberal girl]

New information has surfaced regarding the Bush administration's search for legal rationale to justify the use of torture. This time, it comes in the form of "Well gosh, if it's for the good of the country it's okay...".

<blockquote>While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public. - <a href=>NYT</a></blockquote>

It is worth noting, since Mr. Benczkowski brought up the Geneva Convention, that Article 1 of the General Provisions of the Convention states the following:

<blockquote>The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention <b><i>in all circumstances</i></b>.</blockquote>

Article 2, para3 of the General Provisions of the Convention goes on to say:
<blockquote>Although one of the Powers in conflict <b><i>may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations</i></b>. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.</blockquote>

In short, Mr. Benczkowski's attempts to assert legal authority where none exists falls as flat as the rest of the Bush administration's attempts to circumvent US law and treaty obligations regarding the issue of torture. There is no exception under US law or treaty obligation which grants the Bush administration the authority to order the torture of detainees.

For a summary of US law and treaty obligations regarding torture, go <a href=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm>HERE</a>.

OMG I wish my party would give this up. No wonder the Democrat Congress is in the low 20's to teens in apporval ratings

The US does NOT torture - unless you include liberal moonbats who torture us with BS like this thread topic :laugh2:

[semi liberal girl]

those who would deliberately ignore treaties that the US government has signed and ratified are nothing less than domestic enemies of our constitution.

I see the "preacher" is worried about the rights and comfort of terrorists who want to kill us

Given your previous posts I have read, I am not in the least bit surprised

[manu1959]

those who would deliberately ignore treaties that the US government has signed and ratified are nothing less than domestic enemies of our constitution.

unless those treaties are not in the best intrests of the people and the welfare of the nation.....in which case it is my right to speak up and challenge your claim.....to protect this nation.....and its people....

[semi liberal girl]

unless those treaties are not in the best intrests of the people and the welfare of the nation.....in which case it is my right to speak up and challenge your claim.....to protect this nation.....and its people....

Now you did it - MFM will now call you an enemy of the state and form the firing squad as he wanted to do to RSR :laugh2:

[manu1959]

Now you did it - MFM will now call you an enemy of the state and form the firing squad as he wanted to do to RSR :laugh2:

as long as they form a circle and he is in the squad.....

[retiredman]

I see the "preacher" is worried about the rights and comfort of terrorists who want to kill us

Given your previous posts I have read, I am not in the least bit surprised

if we decide, as a nation, that we no longer wish to abide by a treaty, we can abrogate it. Article VI(2) states quite unambiguously that treaties entered into by our government become the - quote- SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - unquote.

I have no desire to provide any of our enemies with any special rights. I DO, however, want to abide by our constitution. Those who would piss on our constitution are, by definition, domestic enemies thereof.

[retiredman]

unless those treaties are not in the best intrests of the people and the welfare of the nation.....in which case it is my right to speak up and challenge your claim.....to protect this nation.....and its people....


no. your right, as a citizen, is to take steps to get treaties abrogated. until they are, they should be obeyed as the supreme law of the land.

[retiredman]

Now you did it - MFM will now call you an enemy of the state and form the firing squad as he wanted to do to RSR :laugh2:

so "semi liberal girl" is a new screen name, I take it. what was your old one?

[semi liberal girl]

if we decide, as a nation, that we no longer wish to abide by a treaty, we can abrogate it. Article VI(2) states quite unambiguously that treaties entered into by our government become the - quote- SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - unquote.

I have no desire to provide any of our enemies with any special rights. I DO, however, want to abide by our constitution. Those who would piss on our constitution are, by definition, domestic enemies thereof.

I am sure the terrorists will abide by international law, and follow all the rules of society :laugh2:

I will never figire out why Democrats like you have taken over my once and proud party, and turned it into a party of pussies and wimps

All your ilk are worried about is getting more poltical power, even if it means selling out our national defense and security

I see where Hamas has endorsed Sen Obama, and other terrorists groups ahave endorsed Hillary

I understand why they are backing the Democrats this year - pussies like you will do nothing to stand up to them - and they know it

[semi liberal girl]

so "semi liberal girl" is a new screen name, I take it. what was your old one?

RSR sent me here - and everything he told me about you was 100% correct

[retiredman]

I am sure the terrorists will abide by international law, and follow all the rules of society :laugh2:

I will never figire out why Democrats like you have taken over my once and proud party, and turned it into a party of pussies and wimps

All your ilk are worried about is getting more poltical power, even if it means selling out our national defense and security

I see where Hamas has endorsed Sen Obama, and other terrorists groups ahave endorsed Hillary

I understand why they are backing the Democrats this year - pussies like you will do nothing to stand up to them - and they know it


what anyone living outside america does or does not do regarding international law does not change the fact that the constitution is quite clear about the importance of upholding all treaties.

Again...if we get into a treaty that we no longer like, we can abrogate it. Do you understand what that means?

[semi liberal girl]

what anyone living outside america does or does not do regarding international law does not change the fact that the constitution is quite clear about the importance of upholding all treaties.

Again...if we get into a treaty that we no longer like, we can abrogate it. Do you understand what that means?

This is war - and a war we need to win. Wimps like you will ensure we lose this war, by trying to fight in courts and not the battlefield

[semi liberal girl]

what anyone living outside america does or does not do regarding international law does not change the fact that the constitution is quite clear about the importance of upholding all treaties.

Again...if we get into a treaty that we no longer like, we can abrogate it. Do you understand what that means?

RSR was right. You are more interested in the coddling terrorists then defeating them

[retiredman]

This is war - and a war we need to win. Wimps like you will ensure we lose this war, by trying to fight in courts and not the battlefield

I am perfectly OK with fighting on the battlefield. If we don't want to follow a treaty, we can abrogate it in a hearbeat. Why whould you not want to follow our constitution?

and I notice that you don't answer simple questions any better than your mentor. methinks you are just his feminine alterego.

[manu1959]

no. your right, as a citizen, is to take steps to get treaties abrogated. until they are, they should be obeyed as the supreme law of the land.

i disagree.....if i wait till a government that is not protecting me to protect me i will be dead.....

[semi liberal girl]

I am perfectly OK with fighting on the battlefield. If we don't want to follow a treaty, we can abrogate it in a hearbeat. Why whould you not want to follow our constitution?

and I notice that you don't answer simple questions any better than your mentor. methinks you are just his feminine alterego.

Based on your posts, you are not very good at thinking - so I am not surprised

You are a disgrace to the Democrat party, and to the board

[retiredman]

Based on your posts, you are not very good at thinking - so I am not surprised

You are a disgrace to the Democrat party, and to the board

so why do you refuse to answer simple questions?

why shouldn't we simply abrogate any treaty that we no longer wish to abide by?

[semi liberal girl]

so why do you refuse to answer simple questions?

why shouldn't we simply abrogate any treaty that we no longer wish to abide by?

In war time, I do not give a damn about a worthless treaty. Only winning the war by any and all means

[retiredman]

In war time, I do not give a damn about a worthless treaty. Only winning the war by any and all means

so we'll have to agree to disagree. Abrogating a treaty does not take much time or effort.... and it is certainly more appropriate than pissing on the constitution while simultaneously telling the whole world that our word means shit.

[semi liberal girl]

so we'll have to agree to disagree. Abrogating a treaty does not take much time or effort.... and it is certainly more appropriate than pissing on the constitution while simultaneously telling the whole world that our word means shit.

Well your word means shit - you have prven that with your posts

As far as the terrorists. I want them dead or loclked up. While you want them protected, while handcuffing the war effort

Like many in my party are doing

[manu1959]

so we'll have to agree to disagree. Abrogating a treaty does not take much time or effort.... and it is certainly more appropriate than pissing on the constitution while simultaneously telling the whole world that our word means shit.

at this point....what the world thinks of me is not too important.....and i don't see a group of people that want us to fail .... abrogating a treaty that is furthering their domestic attack on this nation....

[retiredman]

Well your word means shit - you have prven that with your posts

As far as the terrorists. I want them dead or loclked up. While you want them protected, while handcuffing the war effort

Like many in my party are doing

I want none of my enemies protected. I want the constitution protected. when our military members take their oaths of enlistment or commission, they swear, not to defend America, but to defend the constitution. That is not by accident.

Again...why would you not simply abrogate the treaty rather than send a message to every country in the whole world that when we sign a treaty with them, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on?

[semi liberal girl]

at this point....what the world thinks of me is not too important.....and i don't see a group of people that want us to fail .... abrogating a treaty that is furthering their domestic attack on this nation....

Who gives a damn what others think of the US? When they need help they always dial area code 202

[manu1959]

I want none of my enemies protected. I want the constitution protected. when our military members take their oaths of enlistment or commission, they swear, not to defend America, but to defend the constitution. That is not by accident.

Again...why would you not simply abrogate the treaty rather than send a message to every country in the whole world that when we sign a treaty with them, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on?

treaties that hurt america are not worth the paper they are printed on .....

[retiredman]

at this point....what the world thinks of me is not too important.....and i don't see a group of people that want us to fail .... abrogating a treaty that is furthering their domestic attack on this nation....


are you suggesting that our reputation as a responsible member of the community of nations is not worth maintaining? Why would ANY country ever enter into any treaty with us if we made it clear that we had no intention of following them?

[retiredman]

treaties that hurt america are not worth the paper they are printed on .....


then abrogate them...

if you do not follow them, you piss on the constitution, which is quite valuable.

[manu1959]

Who gives a damn what others think of the US? When they need help they always dial area code 202

i have said for a long time that we should stop answering the phone....no more troops...no more money.....close all our bases and come on home and defend and invest in america.....

[manu1959]

then abrogate them...

if you do not follow them, you piss on the constitution, which is quite valuable.

i piss on the treay for it is allowing you to piss on the nation that was founded by the constitution....soon you will no longer have a constitution to defend for the treaties will set it alight....

[retiredman]

i piss on the treay for it is allowing you to piss on the nation that was founded by the constitution....soon you will no longer have a constitution to defend for the treaties will set it alight....


so we're done. I rarely continue conversations with folks who TRY to be moronic.

[manu1959]

so we're done. I rarely continue conversations with folks who TRY to be moronic.

and you wonder why people insult you.....

but you know i am right ... you are defending the very treaties that are going to destroy the constituion and the nation it was founded upon....for if i was wrong you would not resort to insults.....

[retiredman]

and you wonder why people insult you.....

but you know i am right ... you are defending the very treaties that are going to destroy the constituion and the nation it was founded upon....for if i was wrong you would not resort to insults.....

you are wrong AND you are a moron. I am not defending ANY treaties. I am defending the constitution. If we no longer wish to abide by the terms of a treaty, we have a relatively simply procedure by which we abrogate it and announce to the other signatories that we are OUT. By following the constitution, we announce to the world that our word means something. Our founding fathers understood the importance of that and, therefore, included Art. VI(2) in the constitution. I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. I took that seriously. those who would piss on the constitution are nothing less than domestic enemies thereof. period.

[Yurt]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

martial law....unconstitutional?

[manu1959]

you are wrong AND you are a moron. I am not defending ANY treaties. I am defending the constitution. If we no longer wish to abide by the terms of a treaty, we have a relatively simply procedure by which we abrogate it and announce to the other signatories that we are OUT. By following the constitution, we announce to the world that our word means something. Our founding fathers understood the importance of that and, therefore, included Art. VI(2) in the constitution. I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. I took that seriously. those who would piss on the constitution are nothing less than domestic enemies thereof. period.


you don't need to post proof that i right more than once.....

and

i say you are a domestic enemy and your blind support of enemies foreign and domestic is dangerous.....

[retiredman]

you don't need to post proof that i right more than once.....

and

i say you are a domestic enemy and your blind support of enemies foreign and domestic is dangerous.....

so...as I said earlier. we're done.

[manu1959]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
martial law....unconstitutional?

i say this trumps blindly following a treaty that will result in the demise of the nation......

art of war.......

[OCA]

so why do you refuse to answer simple questions?

why shouldn't we simply abrogate any treaty that we no longer wish to abide by?

Because douchebag while we wait for the government to get off its collective ass and nullify the treaty who knows how many lives will be lost or information ungained, you really aren't this stupid, are you?

The constitution and treaties are not suicide pacts.

[manu1959]

so...as I said earlier. we're done.

and as i said earlier.....your actions prove me right....

[Yurt]

then abrogate them...

if you do not follow them, you piss on the constitution, which is quite valuable.

so if you had to break the law in order to save a life, you would rather keep the law than save a life?

[manu1959]

so if you had to break the law in order to save a life, you would rather keep the law than save a life?

in a word.....yes....that is what he believes....he would uphold the constitution and let his father die for an unjust treaty...

[retiredman]

i say this trumps blindly following a treaty that will result in the demise of the nation......

art of war.......

your reading of the constitution is bass-ackwards. treaties are the supreme law of the land notwithstanding anything in the constitution or any laws of any states to the contrary..

again...if you have a problem with a treaty, why not simply abrogate it, rather than sending a message to the world that our word is not to be trusted?

no one has ever suggested that we blindly follow any treaty that will result in our demise. DOn't like it? abrogate it. Until then, it remains the supreme law of the land and those who would advocate ignoring it piss on the constitution. That is fact.

[manu1959]

your reading of the constitution is bass-ackwards. treaties are the supreme law of the land notwithstanding anything in the constitution or any laws of any states to the contrary..

again...if you have a problem with a treaty, why not simply abrogate it, rather than sending a message to the world that our word is not to be trusted?

no one has ever suggested that we blindly follow any treaty that will result in our demise. DOn't like it? abrogate it. Until then, it remains the supreme law of the land and those who would advocate ignoring it piss on the constitution. That is fact.

i thought you had dismissed me as a moron......

i would abrogate all treaties .... but i am not king.....

i say you are pissing on the constitution by defending a treaty that will destroy the constituion and the nation founded by it....

[retiredman]

i thought you had dismissed me as a moron......

i would abrogate all treaties .... but i am not king.....

i say you are pissing on the constitution by defending a treaty that will destroy the constituion and the nation founded by it....

I am pissing on the constitution by defending it? I defend NO treaty. I defend the constitution, which states that ALL treaties shall be the supreme law of the land.

we don't have a king. Have you written your congressman, senators and the president urging them to abrogate all treaties? Have you mounted a campaign to run for congress or the senate because your elected congressional delegation has not acted in your interests? If not, then you are simply a blowhard gadfly.

[actsnoblemartin]

im still having a hard time understanding how something

the geneva convention said "all fighter fighting in a countries army... like american soldiers are protected under the geneva convention but it didnt say any schmuck who decided to wage war gets the protection

how are you making that leap?

[actsnoblemartin]

maineman, I tried pm'ing you this but your inbox is full so ill do so here

I remember putting up a post about how in 2004 the united states ratified the treaty but put in very lawyeristic language, that sounded as if it said we can do whatever we want

are you aware of this?

and if so does it change your opinion on legality?

[manu1959]

I am pissing on the constitution by defending it? I defend NO treaty. I defend the constitution, which states that ALL treaties shall be the supreme law of the land.

we don't have a king. Have you written your congressman, senators and the president urging them to abrogate all treaties? Have you mounted a campaign to run for congress or the senate because your elected congressional delegation has not acted in your interests? If not, then you are simply a blowhard gadfly.

so a treaty that prevents you from defending your country should be honoured over the country and constitution itself......

and yes i have written them but i have those crazy bitches from california that sell govt land to their freinds....

i no i would not run for office i say what it did to my father.....

and look at you with more insults.....while trying to claim the moral high ground in other threads......you see you are what i have held you up to be.....

[OCA]

im still having a hard time understanding how something

the geneva convention said "all fighter fighting in a countries army... like american soldiers are protected under the geneva convention but it didnt say any schmuck who decided to wage war gets the protection

how are you making that leap?

Imagine that....."a hard time understanding"................will wonders never cease?

[retiredman]

so a treaty that prevents you from defending your country should be honoured over the country and constitution itself......

and yes i have written them but i have those crazy bitches from california that sell govt land to their freinds....

i no i would not run for office i say what it did to my father.....

and look at you with more insults.....while trying to claim the moral high ground in other threads......you see you are what i have held you up to be.....

a treaty signed should be honored until it is abrogated. what part of that is so hard for you to understand? what part of 'supreme law of the land" is not clear to you? I am not "insulting" you by suggesting that you are a blowhard gadfly. If I had called you a buttfucking child molesting fag, that would be an insult....but I didn't. gadfly is an accurate assessment of your style. You would prefer to piss on the constitution rather than simply take the steps to abrogate a treaty that no longer served our national interest and, by so doing, maintain our credibility in the community of nations.

[manu1959]

Imagine that....."a hard time understanding"................will wonders never cease?

why do you pick on people......what purpose does it serve.....

[manu1959]

a treaty signed should be honored until it is abrogated. what part of that is so hard for you to understand? what part of 'supreme law of the land" is not clear to you? I am not "insulting" you by suggesting that you are a blowhard gadfly. If I had called you a buttfucking child molesting fag, that would be an insult....but I didn't. gadfly is an accurate assessment of your style. You would prefer to piss on the constitution rather than simply take the steps to abrogate a treaty that no longer served our national interest and, by so doing, maintain our credibility in the community of nations.

it is easy to understand......but if it is hurting the country and its people i don't think it should be honoured......

if bush signed a treaty that said all terrorists should be shot on site you would back and honour that until it was abrogated.....

i believe our credibility is taking a greater hit by not standing up for ourselves....

how nice...yet more insults from he who claims not to insult.....

[retiredman]

it is easy to understand......but if it is hurting the country and its people i don't think it should be honoured......

if bush signed a treaty that said all terrorists should be shot on site you would back and honour that until it was abrogated.....

i believe our credibility is taking a greater hit by not standing up for ourselves....

how nice...yet more insults from he who claims not to insult.....

again. no insults at all. It is clear that you do not understand the concept of abrogation, you do not honor the constitution, and you do not understand the importance of America being a country that honors our obligations to the world community. Again....if you had wanted to opt out of the geneva convention or the UN treaty on torture, you should have had your republican buddies do so when they were in the majority in both chambers. I do not recall a single piece of legislation proposed by any republican to abrogate either treaty.

[manu1959]

again. no insults at all. It is clear that you do not understand the concept of abrogation, you do not honor the constitution, and you do not understand the importance of America being a country that honors our obligations to the world community. Again....if you had wanted to opt out of the geneva convention or the UN treaty on torture, you should have had your republican buddies do so when they were in the majority in both chambers. I do not recall a single piece of legislation proposed by any republican to abrogate either treaty.

it is clear that you don't get it ..... you are more of a conservative than pretty much anyone on this board .....

[retiredman]

it is clear that you don't get it ..... you are more of a conservative than pretty much anyone on this board .....

I get it. you are too lazy to take the time to abrogate treaties you don't care for, and don't give a shit about how America interacts with any other country... and you don't give a shit about the constitution. is that all?

[Yurt]

so mfm, you would not break the law to save the life of a loved one?

[actsnoblemartin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions
Bowing to Justices, Administration Says It Will Apply Treaties to Terror Suspects

By Charles Babington and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.

The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said.

[actsnoblemartin]

what baffles me is the argument that well, if we dont torture them. Our troops wont get tortured.

Secondly, why are liberals so obsessed with being pure and moral only when they agree with it.

if this was abortions or homosexuality they would have no problems calling anyone who doesnt agree a homophobe, and anti-woman

guess purity and morality only matter when you agree with it a.k.a. liking/agreeing with the law

[retiredman]

so mfm, you would not break the law to save the life of a loved one?


silly question. If the right is so against the geneva convention and the UN convention on torture, why not introduce legislation abrogating those treaties? They did teach you about abrogation at night law school didn't they?

[Yurt]

silly question. If the right is so against the geneva convention and the UN convention on torture, why not introduce legislation abrogating those treaties? They did teach you about abrogation at night law school didn't they?

your insults are not counter punch here mfm. typical, more lies from you. i did not insult you, i asked you a question, a very good question in fact. that you won't answer it proves how good a question it really is. why is it your won't answer the question?

[actsnoblemartin]

if torture were legal, wouldyou have a problem with it?

just wondering how you feel about torture in general, whether you share the john mccain view of its wrong or the george bush view thats its ok


silly question. If the right is so against the geneva convention and the UN convention on torture, why not introduce legislation abrogating those treaties? They did teach you about abrogation at night law school didn't they?

[retiredman]

if torture were legal, wouldyou have a problem with it?

just wondering how you feel about torture in general, whether you share the john mccain view of its wrong or the george bush view thats its ok

as long as torture is against the geneva convention and against the UN convention on torture, I think it is bad policy to do so.... not only does it send a signal to the whole world that our word cannot be trusted, but it also sends a signal to the whole world and any and all potential enemies of ours in any and all future wars, that torturing OUR boys captured on the battlefield is perfectly OK with us.

[actsnoblemartin]

you have a point that the u.s. should keep its word.

I respect that, I think if the u.s. feels it needs to torture it should have ratified the treaty, and should get out it.

A nation must have its morals.


as long as torture is against the geneva convention and against the UN convention on torture, I think it is bad policy to do so.... not only does it send a signal to the whole world that our word cannot be trusted, but it also sends a signal to the whole world and any and all potential enemies of ours in any and all future wars, that torturing OUR boys captured on the battlefield is perfectly OK with us.

[Kathianne]

as long as torture is against the geneva convention and against the UN convention on torture, I think it is bad policy to do so.... not only does it send a signal to the whole world that our word cannot be trusted, but it also sends a signal to the whole world and any and all potential enemies of ours in any and all future wars, that torturing OUR boys captured on the battlefield is perfectly OK with us.

Well it seems you have Martin with you....

[actsnoblemartin]

how does this impact the u.s.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

Military Commissions Act of 2006

The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006), enacting Chapter 47A of title 10 of the United States Code (as well as amending section 2241 of title 28), is an Act of Congress (Senate Bill 3930[1]) signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[2], the Act's stated purpose is "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[3]

[actsnoblemartin]

Im not saying im against torture, but the u.s. must not sign any treaty that says we wont torture, and then torture and pretends its on a high horse.

I have not decided if their are exceptions to the rule yet.


Well it seems you have Martin with you....

[actsnoblemartin]

see this to me sounds like the u.s. is saying, sure we'll sign youre treaty but were not bound by it

maineman, does this sound like their hiding in the fine print we can do it still

Since 2004, the Convention has received new attention in the world press because of the stress and duress interrogation techniques used on detainees by United States military personnel, most notably at the Abu Ghraib prison and Bagram prison. The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."[4] The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States.[5] Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.[6][7] "Human rights have been a cornerstone of American values since the country's birth and the United States is committed to support the work of the UN Commission in promoting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."[8]

[actsnoblemartin]

it seems maineman is right on this one

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

nternational and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non-citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called “security detainee” or “unlawful combatant.” And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute.

III. U.S. Law

The United States has incorporated international prohibitions against torture and mistreatment of persons in custody into its domestic law. The United States has reported to the Committee Against Torture that: “Every act of torture within the meaning of the Convention is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes. Such prosecutions do in fact occur in appropriate circumstances. Torture cannot be justified by exceptional circumstances, nor can it be excused on the basis of an order from a superior officer. “

Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court-martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134).

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death.

Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law.

[actsnoblemartin]

Kathianne. I dont necessary like all laws or this law but the bottom line we are a nation or laws and once we start taking the law into our own hands, we are no better then the terrorists.

If you dont like the law change it, otherwise its ok for peta to kill me because they dont like the law that says i can eat meat, and i can kill an abortion doctor because i dont like the law on abortion.

Nation of laws, or nation or anarchy.

Im sorry but i agree with maineman, we should not torture unless the laws are changed to allow us to do so


Well it seems you have Martin with you....

[actsnoblemartin]

as i said recently, im declaring independant, im nobodies pupper or fool.

So if anyone can accept me disagreeing with them, its on them.

I can only think for myself, and do what i feel is right no matter how many people turn on me, or dont like me for it.

[actsnoblemartin]

so, I was just reading something that confused me

Are we not allowed to torture no matter what?

or if they enemy combatants, their fame game?

maineman can you explain

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070720-4.html

By the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 40), the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 366), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. General Determinations. (a) The United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. Members of al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and for many other terrorist attacks, including against the United States, its personnel, and its allies throughout the world. These forces continue to fight the United States and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and they continue to plan additional acts of terror throughout the world. On February 7, 2002, I determined for the United States that members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war. I hereby reaffirm that determination.

(b) The Military Commissions Act defines certain prohibitions of Common Article 3 for United States law, and it reaffirms and reinforces the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

(b) "Geneva Conventions" means:

(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(c) "Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Sec. 3. Compliance of a Central Intelligence Agency Detention and Interrogation Program with Common Article 3. (a) Pursuant to the authority of the President under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including the Military Commissions Act of 2006, this order interprets the meaning and application of the text of Common Article 3 with respect to certain detentions and interrogations, and shall be treated as authoritative for all purposes as a matter of United States law, including satisfaction of the international obligations of the United States. I hereby determine that Common Article 3 shall apply to a program of detention and interrogation operated by the Central Intelligence Agency as set forth in this section. The requirements set forth in this section shall be applied with respect to detainees in such program without adverse distinction as to their race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth.

(b) I hereby determine that a program of detention and interrogation approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3, provided that:

(i) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices of the program do not include:

(A) torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code;

(B) any of the acts prohibited by section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code, including murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments;

(C) other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code;

(D) any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited by the Military Commissions Act (subsection 6(c) of Public Law 109 366) and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (section 1003 of Public Law 109 148 and section 1403 of Public Law 109 163);

(E) willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield; or

(F) acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of the individual;

(ii) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices are to be used with an alien detainee who is determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

(A) to be a member or part of or supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated organizations; and

(B) likely to be in possession of information that:

(1) could assist in detecting, mitigating, or preventing terrorist attacks, such as attacks within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror with the United States, or their armed forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities; or

(2) could assist in locating the senior leadership of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces;

(iii) the interrogation practices are determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, based upon professional advice, to be safe for use with each detainee with whom they are used; and

(iv) detainees in the program receive the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat and cold, and essential medical care.

(c) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall issue written policies to govern the program, including guidelines for Central Intelligence Agency personnel that implement paragraphs (i)(C), (E), and (F) of subsection 3(b) of this order, and including requirements to ensure:

(i) safe and professional operation of the program;

(ii) the development of an approved plan of interrogation tailored for each detainee in the program to be interrogated, consistent with subsection 3(b)(iv) of this order;

(iii) appropriate training for interrogators and all personnel operating the program;

(iv) effective monitoring of the program, including with respect to medical matters, to ensure the safety of those in the program; and

(v) compliance with applicable law and this order.

Sec. 4. Assignment of Function. With respect to the program addressed in this order, the function of the President under section 6(c)(3) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is assigned to the Director of National Intelligence.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, this order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prevent or limit reliance upon this order in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, or otherwise, by the Central Intelligence Agency or by any individual acting on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency in connection with the program addressed in this order.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

[Dilloduck]

if we decide, as a nation, that we no longer wish to abide by a treaty, we can abrogate it. Article VI(2) states quite unambiguously that treaties entered into by our government become the - quote- SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - unquote.

I have no desire to provide any of our enemies with any special rights. I DO, however, want to abide by our constitution. Those who would piss on our constitution are, by definition, domestic enemies thereof.

The constitution really has a defintition for those who piss on it ? :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

so, I was just reading something that confused me

Are we not allowed to torture no matter what?

or if they enemy combatants, their fame game?

maineman can you explain

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070720-4.html

By the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 40), the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 366), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. General Determinations. (a) The United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. Members of al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and for many other terrorist attacks, including against the United States, its personnel, and its allies throughout the world. These forces continue to fight the United States and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and they continue to plan additional acts of terror throughout the world. On February 7, 2002, I determined for the United States that members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war. I hereby reaffirm that determination.

(b) The Military Commissions Act defines certain prohibitions of Common Article 3 for United States law, and it reaffirms and reinforces the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

(b) "Geneva Conventions" means:

(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(c) "Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Sec. 3. Compliance of a Central Intelligence Agency Detention and Interrogation Program with Common Article 3. (a) Pursuant to the authority of the President under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including the Military Commissions Act of 2006, this order interprets the meaning and application of the text of Common Article 3 with respect to certain detentions and interrogations, and shall be treated as authoritative for all purposes as a matter of United States law, including satisfaction of the international obligations of the United States. I hereby determine that Common Article 3 shall apply to a program of detention and interrogation operated by the Central Intelligence Agency as set forth in this section. The requirements set forth in this section shall be applied with respect to detainees in such program without adverse distinction as to their race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth.

(b) I hereby determine that a program of detention and interrogation approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3, provided that:

(i) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices of the program do not include:

(A) torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code;

(B) any of the acts prohibited by section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code, including murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments;

(C) other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code;

(D) any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited by the Military Commissions Act (subsection 6(c) of Public Law 109 366) and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (section 1003 of Public Law 109 148 and section 1403 of Public Law 109 163);

(E) willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield; or

(F) acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of the individual;

(ii) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices are to be used with an alien detainee who is determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

(A) to be a member or part of or supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated organizations; and

(B) likely to be in possession of information that:

(1) could assist in detecting, mitigating, or preventing terrorist attacks, such as attacks within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror with the United States, or their armed forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities; or

(2) could assist in locating the senior leadership of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces;

(iii) the interrogation practices are determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, based upon professional advice, to be safe for use with each detainee with whom they are used; and

(iv) detainees in the program receive the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat and cold, and essential medical care.

(c) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall issue written policies to govern the program, including guidelines for Central Intelligence Agency personnel that implement paragraphs (i)(C), (E), and (F) of subsection 3(b) of this order, and including requirements to ensure:

(i) safe and professional operation of the program;

(ii) the development of an approved plan of interrogation tailored for each detainee in the program to be interrogated, consistent with subsection 3(b)(iv) of this order;

(iii) appropriate training for interrogators and all personnel operating the program;

(iv) effective monitoring of the program, including with respect to medical matters, to ensure the safety of those in the program; and

(v) compliance with applicable law and this order.

Sec. 4. Assignment of Function. With respect to the program addressed in this order, the function of the President under section 6(c)(3) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is assigned to the Director of National Intelligence.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, this order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prevent or limit reliance upon this order in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, or otherwise, by the Central Intelligence Agency or by any individual acting on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency in connection with the program addressed in this order.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Wow, there might be an exception to the take of MM? Shockers!

[avatar4321]

when the terrorists sign the treaties, ill worry about whether we are living up to our contractual agreements with them. Until then, the issue is moot.

[glockmail]

New information has surfaced regarding the Bush administration's search for legal rationale to justify the use of torture....


The premis here is deeply flawed so the rest of this lengthy post is complete bullshit. Waterboarding terrorists for intel ain't torture.

[theHawk]

I DO, however, want to abide by our constitution. Those who would piss on our constitution are, by definition, domestic enemies thereof.
Well by that definition Obama and most Democrats are domestic enemies. Obama blantantly disregards the second amendment and his proposed federal government takeover of people's health care is 100% unconstitutional.

[actsnoblemartin]

In general the u.s. should honor its treaties but im not comfortable saying no torture no matter what. Getting information that saves our boys is more important then our so called purity as a natioin.

[retiredman]

In general the u.s. should honor its treaties but im not comfortable saying no torture no matter what. Getting information that saves our boys is more important then our so called purity as a natioin.

then advocate the abrogation of treaties we have signed that outlaw torture. That is an easy thing to do. Until we do that, violating those treaties sends a clear signal to the rest of the world that our word means nothing. Do you really want every other nation on the face of the earth to completely distrust and devalue the integrity of the United States of America?

And our founding fathers KNEW that. That is why they created Article VI(2) of the constitution. They KNEW that, in the community of nations, it would be essential that America's word be trusted around the world.

[manu1959]

when the terrorists sign the treaties, ill worry about whether we are living up to our contractual agreements with them. Until then, the issue is moot.

exactly.........i am sure us being a "signatory" will come in handy when they cut your head off, drag you through the streets and hang you from a bridge for drawing a cartoon of a dude with a beard.......sure em glad i have a constitution to protect me from that.....

[actsnoblemartin]

I do, i dont see the point of letting international law determine or influence our law.

But what is perplexing is, this sounds like a bad lawsuite

George bush and the cons vs the constitution and the dems

does the constitution say we cant torture no matter what , no exceptions and if so why are we violating it?




then advocate the abrogation of treaties we have signed that outlaw torture. That is an easy thing to do. Until we do that, violating those treaties sends a clear signal to the rest of the world that our word means nothing. Do you really want every other nation on the face of the earth to completely distrust and devalue the integrity of the United States of America?

And our founding fathers KNEW that. That is why they created Article VI(2) of the constitution. They KNEW that, in the community of nations, it would be essential that America's word be trusted around the world.

[actsnoblemartin]

maineman, what about that. He has a point, the terrorists dont give a shit about any of our treaties


exactly.........i am sure us being a "signatory" will come in handy when they cut your head off, drag you through the streets and hang you from a bridge for drawing a cartoon of a dude with a beard.......sure em glad i have a constitution to protect me from that.....

[manu1959]

maineman, what about that. He has a point, the terrorists dont give a shit about any of our treaties

he wants us to be better than them.....unlike the way he behaves here.....

[manu1959]

I do, i dont see the point of letting international law determine or influence our law.

But what is perplexing is, this sounds like a bad lawsuite

George bush and the cons vs the constitution and the dems

does the constitution say we cant torture no matter what , no exceptions and if so why are we violating it?

the dems constitutionalists..........holy shit i just peed my pants......they only believe the constitution is there to be changed....except when they don't

[retiredman]

I do, i dont see the point of letting international law determine or influence our law.

But what is perplexing is, this sounds like a bad lawsuite

George bush and the cons vs the constitution and the dems

does the constitution say we cant torture no matter what , no exceptions and if so why are we violating it?


go read article VI(2) of the constitution and tell me how you would interpret it regarding treaties that we have signed with other nations.

[retiredman]

maineman, what about that. He has a point, the terrorists dont give a shit about any of our treaties


again. read Article VI(2) of our Constitution and then read the Geneva Conventions and then read the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. You tell me what our constitution requires us to do.

[manu1959]

again. read Article VI(2) of our Constitution and then read the Geneva Conventions and then read the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. You tell me what our constitution requires us to do.

shoot them .....

[Yurt]

shoot them .....

it amazes me how someone can be against so-called torture of those who want to kill us, yet have no problem supporting abortion.

[manu1959]

it amazes me how someone can be against so-called torture of those who want to kill us, yet have no problem supporting abortion.

because the constitution says we can't kill terrorists but we can kill the unborn......

[actsnoblemartin]

I never understood how a terrorist has more rights then an un-born child
it amazes me how someone can be against so-called torture of those who want to kill us, yet have no problem supporting abortion.

[manu1959]

I never understood how a terrorist has more rights then an un-born child

mfm will you tell you....it is right there in the constitution next to if i am in the army and straight i have to shower next to a dude with wood cuz he likes me package....

[actsnoblemartin]

I nearly fell out my chair, that was :laugh2:


mfm will you tell you....it is right there in the constitution next to if i am in the army and straight i have to shower next to a dude with wood cuz he likes me package....

[OCA]

why do you pick on people......what purpose does it serve.....

The opportunity presents itself, its fun and.............for reasons already explained Ray deserves every single line.

[bullypulpit]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

So, the rule of law is "quaint and antiquated"? Sorry, but if you reject the rule of law, you reject the very foundation upon which this nation was built. The law must apply equally to all or it applies to no one, and our government becomes little better than those enemies it seeks to check.

As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will.

President Bush (aka Chimpy McPresident) has stated that the "war on terrorism" is about values, as in "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." To support the "demands of human dignity" means that one stands opposed to torture and other forms of abuse. The tortured logic of the Yoo, Gonzalez, Bybee and, now, the Benczkowski memos fly squarely in the face of that declaration of President Bush's. More likely though is that they show just how empty that high flying rhetoric actually was.

The Bush administration has never been shy about ignoring the rule of law when it suits them.

[bullypulpit]

OMG I wish my party would give this up. No wonder the Democrat Congress is in the low 20's to teens in apporval ratings

The US does NOT torture - unless you include liberal moonbats who torture us with BS like this thread topic :laugh2:

I don't know who you are, and I really don't care. Likely just another troll looking to stir up some shit. In either case, why don't you give your ears a good tug and pop yer head outta yer ass? Dismissed.

[stang56k]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

The only terroist I see is sitting in the White House.

[glockmail]

The only terroist I see is sitting in the White House. If I see one more completely unrelated to the subject totally baseless douchebag remark like that from you its neg-rep time.:finger3:

[glockmail]

I don't know who you are, and I really don't care. Likely just another troll looking to stir up some shit. In either case, why don't you give your ears a good tug and pop yer head outta yer ass? Dismissed. Oh Bully you're so articulate, open minded and nice. Typical of so many libs. :pee:

[jimnyc]

The only terroist I see is sitting in the White House.

Learn to spell before trying to insult others, dumb fuck.

[theHawk]

As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will.

Whoever said information extracted via torture should be or would be used in a court of law? The purpose of gathering any such intelligence would be to prevent terrorist attacks or to help hunt down terrorists in our war against jihadists. This is a war, not a policing action with trials to be held for each and every terrorist we come across.

[theHawk]

The only terroist I see is sitting in the White House.

So you don't believe Osama or AQ are terrorists? Suicide bombers?

[glockmail]

Whoever said information extracted via torture should be or would be used in a court of law? The purpose of gathering any such intelligence would be to prevent terrorist attacks or to help hunt down terrorists in our war against jihadists. This is a war, not a policing action with trials to be held for each and every terrorist we come across. You might just as well be talking to a wall. Libs like bullypulpit think that wars should be fought like police actions, with terrorists given all the rights and privileges given American citizens, and with the burden of capture without excessive force, evidence gathering, legal preparation, jury trials with the burden of proof on the US military, and of course an appeal process.

[retiredman]

because the constitution says we can't kill terrorists but we can kill the unborn......


stupid answer. The constitution does not mention terrorists OR fetuses.

The constitution DOES mention that any and all treaties signed by our government with foreign nations shall be the supreme law of the land.

If we reach a situation where we no longer wish to abide by a treaty that we had previously signed, we can easily abrogate it and announce to the world that we were removing ourselves from that treaty. Until we do that, the constitution is quite clear as to how that treaty must be considered.

[bullypulpit]

Whoever said information extracted via torture should be or would be used in a court of law? The purpose of gathering any such intelligence would be to prevent terrorist attacks or to help hunt down terrorists in our war against jihadists. This is a war, not a policing action with trials to be held for each and every terrorist we come across.

As usual, you ignore the part which shoots your argument in the ass...

<blockquote>As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. <b><i>Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will</i></b>.</blockquote>

Torture produces little in the way of actionable, let alone reliable intel. But you really don't want to hear that, now do you.

<blockquote><b>Does the U.S. lose valuable information if torture is prohibited?</b>

Torture is as likely to yield false information as it is to yield the truth. Cesare Beccaria, the eighteenth century philosopher whose critique of torture remains influential today, observed that when a person is tortured, the "impression of pain…may increase to such a degree, that, occupying the mind entirely, it will compel the sufferer to use the shortest method of freeing himself from torment…[H]e will accuse himself of crimes of which he is innocent." Beccaria also pointed out the problem of using torture to discover the accused's accomplices: "Will not the man who [under torture falsely] accuses himself yet more readily accuse others?" [Beccaria, Cesare, Of Crimes and Punishments. (15 Nov. 2001).] . Contemporary law enforcement professionals concur. Oliver Ravel, former deputy director of the FBI, has stated that force is not effective: "people will even admit they killed their grandmother, just to stop the beatings." Indeed, the unreliability of forced confessions was one of the principal reasons that U.S. courts originally prohibited their use.

The prohibition on torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading conduct does not leave the government helpless before terrorists. Convictions in recent cases involving terrorism show that investigators currently have the means and legal methods to acquire the evidence necessary for successful prosecutions. - <a href=http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm#prohibited>Human Rights Watch</a></blockquote>

[semi liberal girl]

I don't know who you are, and I really don't care. Likely just another troll looking to stir up some shit. In either case, why don't you give your ears a good tug and pop yer head outta yer ass? Dismissed.

Yet members of my party say they welcome am open exchange of ideas and opinions. It seems you fall in the majority that say that, as long as everyone shares your opinion

The lefts rants about waterboarding have long been proven to be lies, and yet they ignore the facts and continue to do all they can to hamper and undermine thise who are trying to protect us

Why don't you learn some debate skills and try again later.

[bullypulpit]

Oh Bully you're so articulate, open minded and nice. Typical of so many libs. :pee:

Nice avatar...A fan of Hitler? How very American of you.

As for my comments regarding "semi liberal girl", had she (he?) posted a cogent and reasoned reply instead of the semi-literate, crap that was posted, she (he?) would have received a cogent and reasoned reply. So, go piss in the wind.

[bullypulpit]

it amazes me how someone can be against so-called torture of those who want to kill us, yet have no problem supporting abortion.

Non sequitur.

[retiredman]

Yet members of my party say they welcome am open exchange of ideas and opinions. It seems you fall in the majority that say that, as long as everyone shares your opinion

The lefts rants about waterboarding have long been proven to be lies, and yet they ignore the facts and continue to do all they can to hamper and undermine thise who are trying to protect us

Why don't you learn some debate skills and try again later.

did you ever explain why you were so against simple abrogation of treaties that you felt we should no longer remain a party to?

do you really think that acting honorably as a nation within the community of nations is something America should NOT worry about?

[semi liberal girl]

Nice avatar...A fan of Hitler? How very American of you.

As for my comments regarding "semi liberal girl", had she (he?) posted a cogent and reasoned reply instead of the semi-literate, crap that was posted, she (he?) would have received a cogent and reasoned reply. So, go piss in the wind.

As usual the moonbat wing of my party is once again ranting about crap they know are lies - yet they spread it around anyway

No wonder terrorists groups are backing our candidates, because they know the modern day Democrat party was a spin of jello when it comes to fighting terrorists

[semi liberal girl]

did you ever explain why you were so against simple abrogation of treaties that you felt we should no longer remain a party to?

do you really think that acting honorably as a nation within the community of nations is something America should NOT worry about?

Based on your previous posts you would rather have a successful terrorists attacks then preventing it

Enough said where your loyalities are

[retiredman]

Based on your previous posts you would rather have a successful terrorists attacks then preventing it

Enough said where your loyalities are


that is illogical. I would NEVER want to have a successful terrorist attack against anyone. Why can't you answer the two simple questions?

[semi liberal girl]

that is illogical. I would NEVER want to have a successful terrorist attack against anyone. Why can't you answer the question?

U have seen your previous posts - you would not waterboard a terrorists to stop an attack

You are more interested in making sure the terrorist's "rights" are protected then saving the lives of innocents

Plus, you can then use the successful terrorist attack in a campaign ad for Sen Obama

This is how far my party has fallen

[retiredman]

U have seen your previous posts - you would not waterboard a terrorists to stop an attack

You are more interested in making sure the terrorist's "rights" are protected then saving the lives of innocents

Plus, you can then use the successful terrorist attack in a campaign ad for Sen Obama

This is how far my party has fallen


I have never mentioned waterboarding once since your arrival on this board.... you smell more and more like an RSR troll to me!

I have no interests in protecting protecting terrorists rights beyond those that are guaranteed by treaties that we are signatories of.

What happened? did you forget your red states rule password? Just answer two simple questions:

did you ever explain why you were so against simple abrogation of treaties that you felt we should no longer remain a party to?

do you really think that acting honorably as a nation within the community of nations is something America should NOT worry about?

[stang56k]

So you don't believe Osama or AQ are terrorists? Suicide bombers?

U.S. Media Defends Phony "Al Qaeda"

[link to www.thisisby.us]

Anyone that challenges the status quo on websites that pretend at being an alternative to corporate media may know what I address here. For the rest of you, the reality our western world has been run on since an obvious whitewash at 9/11 with its gimcrack “war on terror” on the public nickel is far from a pretty one.

Case in point: I was recently banned from the site "Alternet" for daring to suggest “Al Qaeda” is largely a propaganda farce and hollow trap meant to deceive a rather gullible American public - which it certainly has. I didn’t just up and decide to make this up, by the way. Documented authors Webster Tarpley (“Synthetic Terror”) and Michael Chossudovsky (“America’s ‘War on Terrorism’”) along with a host of other well-researched journalists, academics and government insiders have said the same and more.

Sound outrageous?

Take a look at BBC documentary “THE POWER of NIGHTMARES” for what author (“Al Qaeda: the True Story of Radical Islam”) and Chief Reporter of the London Observer Jason Burke says of “Al Qaeda” exactly 12 minutes into the film:

“The idea which is critical to the FBI’s prosecution that Bin Laden ran a coherent organization with operatives and cells all around the world, of which you could be a member – is a myth. THERE IS NO “AL QAEDA” ORGANIZATION. There is no international network with a leader – with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organized capability simply DOES NOT EXIST.”

In case you missed it, Jason Burke word-for-word states, “ THERE IS NO ‘AL QAEDA’ ORGANIZATION” where “Al Qaeda” as a "terrorist network with an organized capability simply DOES NOT EXIST”. That would clearly mean “Al Qaeda” didn’t exist on 9/11. This, from a world-class journalist who lived with radical Islamists all over the Mid East and Eurasia at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Still with me so far?

Again, I would encourage anyone who wants the most basic clue on this to watch BBCs “THE POWER of NIGHTMARES” documentary which will not be broadcast in America. It outlines the fact “Al Qaeda” was originally palmed off by the FBI-Washington establishment at a Manhattan courtroom in January 2001 exploiting the crazed testimony of Jamal Al-Fadl -- a con-man militant who robbed money from former CIA asset Bin Laden. Jamal Al-Fadl agreed to make up his largely baseless conspiracy tales in the pay of U.S. government handlers. "The Power of Nightmares" further reveals the "Al Qaeda" tag was never used by Osama Bin Laden (or anyone else in the Mid East-Eurasian theatre) until AFTER 9/11 when a Washington-MSM corporate axis sold the "Al Qaeda" slogan based on paid-for testimony of Al-Fadl -- a known Sudanese liar, thief and swindler.

But of course the swindle didn't end with Jamal Al-Fadl. (It didn't start with him either)

There is ample precedent for false-flag operations that date from before CIA overthrow of at least 20 democracies since WW 2 and on to the treachery at Tonkin Gulf for Vietnam, not to mention CIA “Operation Gladio” cooked to murder innocent European civilians from the 1940s thru the 80s to frame “leftists”. It also couldn't be much of a surprise who it was that put Saddam into power and kept him there until he was officially suckered to take Kuwait for Gulf War I.

Bottom line?

Anyone who believes that over 900 Washington lies of proven deceit at “war on terror” in Iraq is where the deception begins and ends is sadly mistaken. Ask whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, for one. This happens to be a very BIG LIE that contains a train wreck of serial lies beginning from before a 9/11 “war on terror” cover-up that has never stopped taking lives and blood money on the public dime…

[stang56k]

If I see one more completely unrelated to the subject totally baseless douchebag remark like that from you its neg-rep time.:finger3:

Lets see how low I can go! :dance::dance::dance:

[Hagbard Celine]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

The Jack Bauer situation will never exist. Using this argument to rationalize torture is ridiculous because it can be turned around to get the exact same result. It's a non-issue. If you say "what if torture could prevent a terrorist attack," I can say "what if not torturing could prevent a terrorist attack?" Both arguments are nonsense.
What it comes down to is one question. Does America and all its ideals stand for torture and human rights violations? I say no.

[glockmail]

Nice avatar...A fan of Hitler? How very American of you.
..... Yeah I'm a big fan, being a conservative, that puts me right in line with a socialist fascist. At least in accordance with your logic, which is of course lacking.

[avatar4321]

U.S. Media Defends Phony "Al Qaeda"

[link to www.thisisby.us]

Anyone that challenges the status quo on websites that pretend at being an alternative to corporate media may know what I address here. For the rest of you, the reality our western world has been run on since an obvious whitewash at 9/11 with its gimcrack “war on terror” on the public nickel is far from a pretty one.

Case in point: I was recently banned from the site "Alternet" for daring to suggest “Al Qaeda” is largely a propaganda farce and hollow trap meant to deceive a rather gullible American public - which it certainly has. I didn’t just up and decide to make this up, by the way. Documented authors Webster Tarpley (“Synthetic Terror”) and Michael Chossudovsky (“America’s ‘War on Terrorism’”) along with a host of other well-researched journalists, academics and government insiders have said the same and more.

Sound outrageous?

Take a look at BBC documentary “THE POWER of NIGHTMARES” for what author (“Al Qaeda: the True Story of Radical Islam”) and Chief Reporter of the London Observer Jason Burke says of “Al Qaeda” exactly 12 minutes into the film:

“The idea which is critical to the FBI’s prosecution that Bin Laden ran a coherent organization with operatives and cells all around the world, of which you could be a member – is a myth. THERE IS NO “AL QAEDA” ORGANIZATION. There is no international network with a leader – with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organized capability simply DOES NOT EXIST.”

In case you missed it, Jason Burke word-for-word states, “ THERE IS NO ‘AL QAEDA’ ORGANIZATION” where “Al Qaeda” as a "terrorist network with an organized capability simply DOES NOT EXIST”. That would clearly mean “Al Qaeda” didn’t exist on 9/11. This, from a world-class journalist who lived with radical Islamists all over the Mid East and Eurasia at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Still with me so far?

Again, I would encourage anyone who wants the most basic clue on this to watch BBCs “THE POWER of NIGHTMARES” documentary which will not be broadcast in America. It outlines the fact “Al Qaeda” was originally palmed off by the FBI-Washington establishment at a Manhattan courtroom in January 2001 exploiting the crazed testimony of Jamal Al-Fadl -- a con-man militant who robbed money from former CIA asset Bin Laden. Jamal Al-Fadl agreed to make up his largely baseless conspiracy tales in the pay of U.S. government handlers. "The Power of Nightmares" further reveals the "Al Qaeda" tag was never used by Osama Bin Laden (or anyone else in the Mid East-Eurasian theatre) until AFTER 9/11 when a Washington-MSM corporate axis sold the "Al Qaeda" slogan based on paid-for testimony of Al-Fadl -- a known Sudanese liar, thief and swindler.

But of course the swindle didn't end with Jamal Al-Fadl. (It didn't start with him either)

There is ample precedent for false-flag operations that date from before CIA overthrow of at least 20 democracies since WW 2 and on to the treachery at Tonkin Gulf for Vietnam, not to mention CIA “Operation Gladio” cooked to murder innocent European civilians from the 1940s thru the 80s to frame “leftists”. It also couldn't be much of a surprise who it was that put Saddam into power and kept him there until he was officially suckered to take Kuwait for Gulf War I.

Bottom line?

Anyone who believes that over 900 Washington lies of proven deceit at “war on terror” in Iraq is where the deception begins and ends is sadly mistaken. Ask whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, for one. This happens to be a very BIG LIE that contains a train wreck of serial lies beginning from before a 9/11 “war on terror” cover-up that has never stopped taking lives and blood money on the public dime…

glad to know you are so credible.

[stang56k]

glad to know you are so credible.


:pee:
Ya, So is the MSM (Main Stream Media).... *rolls eyes*

Faux News "We distort, you comply"!

[semi liberal girl]

I have never mentioned waterboarding once since your arrival on this board.... you smell more and more like an RSR troll to me!

I have no interests in protecting protecting terrorists rights beyond those that are guaranteed by treaties that we are signatories of.

What happened? did you forget your red states rule password? Just answer two simple questions:

did you ever explain why you were so against simple abrogation of treaties that you felt we should no longer remain a party to?

do you really think that acting honorably as a nation within the community of nations is something America should NOT worry about?

I am RSR girl, and he told me alot about you. I have spent time going over your hate filled and rabid posts before I logged on

RSR was 100% correct when he told me the only thuing that matters to you is your party - and I am ashamed to say - my Democrat party

You, and others like you, are the reason we are no longer taken seriousy on national defense

[avatar4321]

:pee:
Ya, So is the MSM (Main Stream Media).... *rolls eyes*

Faux News "We distort, you comply"!

when did fox become mainstream?

[bullypulpit]

Yet members of my party say they welcome am open exchange of ideas and opinions. It seems you fall in the majority that say that, as long as everyone shares your opinion

The lefts rants about waterboarding have long been proven to be lies, and yet they ignore the facts and continue to do all they can to hamper and undermine thise who are trying to protect us

Why don't you learn some debate skills and try again later.

You're not exchanging ideas dearie...You're just blowing shit.

[bullypulpit]

that is illogical. I would NEVER want to have a successful terrorist attack against anyone. Why can't you answer the two simple questions?

Because semi-literate girl is just another troll...?

[theHawk]

As usual, you ignore the part which shoots your argument in the ass...

<blockquote>As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. <b><i>Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will</i></b>.</blockquote>



Wrong sir, its your opinion that it only produces false confessions. I'm not saying it would work all the time, but it should be an option because it could very well work.

[bullypulpit]

Yeah I'm a big fan, being a conservative, that puts me right in line with a socialist fascist. At least in accordance with your logic, which is of course lacking.

Hitler was never a socialist, despite the name of the National Socialist Party. He was a fascist though as well as a rabid nationalist and xenophobe.

As for logic, who else but a fan would use Der Führer as an avatar. Seems sound enough logic to me. It would explain your slavish support for the Bush administration, its unprecedented grab for power and attempts to establish a unitary executive...That's a dictator in less polite terms.

[glockmail]

Hitler was never a socialist, despite the name of the National Socialist Party. He was a fascist though as well as a rabid nationalist and xenophobe.

As for logic, who else but a fan would use Der Führer as an avatar. Seems sound enough logic to me. It would explain your slavish support for the Bush administration, its unprecedented grab for power and attempts to establish a unitary executive...That's a dictator in less polite terms.

Your logic: the National Socialist Party wasn't socialist, but conservative; Bush is Hitler; and I’m a Hitler fan. You must be smoking crack.
:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Because semi-literate girl is just another troll...?

I am thinking "she" is a way for the character of RSR to be written out of the script by its creator and "her" new character taking "his" place. It's better than watching Days of Our Lives.

[Yurt]

I am thinking "she" is a way for the character of RSR to be written out of the script by its creator and "her" new character taking "his" place. It's better than watching Days of Our Lives.

you only "counter-punch?" lol, another lie, rsr has not even posted in this thread.

bully:

what exactly about my statement does not logically make sense? simply giving a sound bite does not prove your point.

[glockmail]

I am thinking "she" is a way for the character of RSR to be written out of the script by its creator and "her" new character taking "his" place. It's better than watching Days of Our Lives. Just like when you got your ass perm-banned as maineman, so came back later as manfrommaine? :lol:

[semi liberal girl]

I am thinking "she" is a way for the character of RSR to be written out of the script by its creator and "her" new character taking "his" place. It's better than watching Days of Our Lives.

You are thinking? That has to be a first :lol:

[retiredman]

you only "counter-punch?" lol, another lie, rsr has not even posted in this thread.


I am not insulting RSR at all. this character semi liberal girl arrived on the scene the very day that RSR departed. "She" has a wealth" of knowledge about me that "she" claims RSR gave to her. "He" is now gone and can be "written out of the script" for obvious reasons.

I think it is a plausible hypothesis to suggest that both RSR and SLG are screen names used by the same person.

[semi liberal girl]

Just like when you got your ass perm-banned as maineman, so came back later as manfrommaine? :lol:

God help all of us if there is more then one of the "preachers" walking around out there

[semi liberal girl]

I am not insulting RSR at all. this character semi liberal girl arrived on the scene the very day that RSR departed. "She" has a wealth" of knowledge about me that "she" claims RSR gave to her. "He" is now gone and can be "written out of the script" for obvious reasons.

I think it is a plausible hypothesis to suggest that both RSR and SLG are screen names used by the same person.

NO the only plausible hypothesis is you are a fucking asshole looking to toss more of your bullshit around the board

[Yurt]

I am not insulting RSR at all. this character semi liberal girl arrived on the scene the very day that RSR departed. "She" has a wealth" of knowledge about me that "she" claims RSR gave to her. "He" is now gone and can be "written out of the script" for obvious reasons.

I think it is a plausible hypothesis to suggest that both RSR and SLG are screen names used by the same person.

she's says she is his girlfriend, but she already told you that, so you are calling her a liar then.

[semi liberal girl]

she's says she is his girlfriend, but she already told you that, so you are calling her a liar then.

Why should me treat me any differently then he treats the rest of you? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

she's says she is his girlfriend, but she already told you that, so you are calling her a liar then.

she didn't tell me she was his girlfriend. she said that RSR had sent her. I have no knowledge of the romantic nature of their "relationship" and only surmise that they may both be constructs of the same individual.

[retiredman]

NO the only plausible hypothesis is you are a fucking asshole looking to toss more of your bullshit around the board

no. actually...you and rsr being alternative screen identities for the same individual is a pluasible hypothesis.

[semi liberal girl]

she didn't tell me she was his girlfriend. she said that RSR had sent her. I have no knowledge of the romantic nature of their "relationship" and only surmise that they may both be constructs of the same individual.

I do not have to explain anything to a twit like you. If you would read the posts instead of attacking - you would have realized who I am and why I registered

Why not crawl back under your rock and put yourself out of our misery?

[retiredman]

I do not have to explain anything to a twit like you. If you would read the posts instead of attacking - you would have realized who I am and why I registered

Why not crawl back under your rock and put yourself out of our misery?


again... I would suggest you try using different idioms as you develop this new character in order to create some believable contrast between it and the RSR character.

[semi liberal girl]

again... I would suggest you try using different idioms as you develop this new character in order to develop some believable contrast between it and the RSR character.

Since the mods busted you on another thread - it would perhaps be in your best interest to stop worrying about me and spend more time covering your tracks so as you do not get caught in a bold face lie again :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Since the mods busted you on another thread - it would perhaps be in your best interest to stop worrying about me and spend more time covering your tracks so as you do not get caught in a bold face lie again :laugh2:

That was a hoot, wasn't it? Oh, by the way, we have this new technology that takes a snapshot of the individual when he realizes he's caught in a lie. Here's what came out of it when MFM found out:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/LOki.jpg

[semi liberal girl]

That was a hoot, wasn't it? Oh, by the way, we have this new technology that takes a snapshot of the individual when he realizes he's caught in a lie. Here's what came out of it when MFM found out:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/LOki.jpg

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Wish I could rep you for that Glock

[glockmail]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Wish I could rep you for that Glock
I know I nearly bust a gut whenever I see that picture of him. :lol:

[semi liberal girl]

I know I nearly bust a gut whenever I see that picture of him. :lol:

and I thought Quintin McHale was a bit overweight for the US Navy

[glockmail]

"Earnestly" now...:laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

It would seem to me that the thread has gotten a bit off topic. But that was the whole point...Rather than actually debate the issue in meaningful terms, side track into some utterly pointless dead-end. That has been the stock in trade of the American conservative movement since 1994 and the so-called "Republican Revolution". The only revolutionary thing about it is that it took about six years for the Republicans to become more corrupt that the the Democrats could have ever thought of becoming in their 40 years as the congressional majority.

Since none of those who cheerfully support torture, the abrogation of federal law and US treaty obligation and complete disregard for the rule of law, are willing to debate the issue in any meaningful way, I will be asking a moderator to close the thread.

[retiredman]

It would seem to me that the thread has gotten a bit off topic. But that was the whole point...Rather than actually debate the issue in meaningful terms, side track into some utterly pointless dead-end. That has been the stock in trade of the American conservative movement since 1994 and the so-called "Republican Revolution". The only revolutionary thing about it is that it took about six years for the Republicans to become more corrupt that the the Democrats could have ever thought of becoming in their 40 years as the congressional majority.

Since none of those who cheerfully support torture, the abrogation of federal law and US treaty obligation and complete disregard for the rule of law, are willing to debate the issue in any meaningful way, I will be asking a moderator to close the thread.

a good call.

[glockmail]

2 Libs supporting each other in a time of need. How quaint.

How fucking queer.

[semi liberal girl]

2 Libs supporting each other in a time of need. How quaint.

How fucking queer.

When unable to compete, the liberal then goes into a diatribe on how we all need to support the terrorists tights and obey worthless treaties that will only protect the terrorists

[retiredman]

When unable to cmpete, the liberal then goes into a diatribe on how we all need to support the terrorists tightsm and obey wothless treaties that will ony protect the terrorists

even though I am not entirely sure what that sentence actually means.... will you ever explain to me why simply pressing for abrogation of treaties that you feel are no longer in our best interests is not preferable to pissing on our constitution?

and what do you really think that pictures of naked fat men have to do with this topic?:laugh2:

[semi liberal girl]

even though I am not entirely sure what that sentence actually means.... will you ever explain to me why simply pressing for abrogation of treaties that you feel are no longer in our best interests is not preferable to pissing on our constitution?

and what do you really think that pictures of naked fat men have to do with this topic?:laugh2:

You are more interested in terrorists rights then stopping their attacks

You have made that very clear

The pic was probably taken from your album while from your days in the Navy - while being the OD :laugh2:

[retiredman]

You are more interested in terrorists rights then stopping their attacks

You have made that very clear

The pic was probably taken from your album while from your days in the Navy - while being the OD :laugh2:

that is not true. Why can't you answer the questions that I ask you?

Why must you avoid real discussion and rely on silly and sophomoric humor?

[semi liberal girl]

Why must you avoid real discussion and rely on silly and sophomoric humor?

Just trying to talk to you on your level

Without much success I might add

[retiredman]

Just trying to talk to you on your level

Without much success I might add

try answering this question at an adult level:

will you ever explain to me why simply pressing for abrogation of treaties that you feel are no longer in our best interests is not preferable to pissing on our constitution?

[semi liberal girl]

try answering this question at an adult level:

will you ever explain to me why simply pressing for abrogation of treaties that you feel are no longer in our best interests is not preferable to pissing on our constitution?

Who is the adult who wants the answer? I will send a PM :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Who is the adult who wants the answer? I will send a PM :laugh2:


come on. you're new here. let's try to not devolve into the pettiness that characterizes my relationship with RSR. Why can't we try to discuss things as adults?

Can you answer the question:

will you ever explain to me why simply pressing for abrogation of treaties that you feel are no longer in our best interests is not preferable to pissing on our constitution?

[jimnyc]

With all due respect to all participants in this thread, the OP asked that I close it down for him...