The Brothers Karamazov

[bullypulpit]

It's been nearly 130 years since Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote "<i>The Brothers Karamazov</i>", but he was ever talented at plumbing the depths of the human heart. In the book the Grand Inquisitor (the Cardinal of Seville) mocks Christ for imposing on us mere human the heavy burden of conscience, explaining that it is far better to dull that conscience and rule by deceit, violence and fear.

<blockquote>Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?…We teach them that it’s not the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience…. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient…We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name…. we shall be forced to lie…. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission.” - The Grand Inquisitor, in Brothers Karamazov</blockquote>

This paragraph perfectly portrays the trap so many Americans have fallen into. That trap being the forfeiting of freedom through fear.

The Inquisition did not bother with polite euphemisms like "alternative set of procedures" which Bush administration rhetoric is filled with. They called water-boarding what it is, "<i>tortura del aqua</i>". Five hundred years later, torture is still torture, and Dostoevsky was right.

[red states rule]

It's been nearly 130 years since Fyodor Dostoevsky "<i>The Brothers Karamazov</i>", but he was ever talented at plumbing the depths of the human heart. In the book the Grand Inquisitor (the Cardinal of Seville) mocks Christ for imposing on us mere human the heavy burden of conscience, explaining that it is far better to dull that conscience and rule by deceit, violence and fear.

<blockquote>Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?…We teach them that it’s not the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience…. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient…We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name…. we shall be forced to lie…. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission.” - The Grand Inquisitor, in Brothers Karamazov</blockquote>

This paragraph perfectly portrays the trap so many Americans have fallen into. That trap bing the forfeiting of freedom through fear.

The Inguisition did not bother with polite euphemisms like "alternative set of procedures" which Bush administration rhetoric is filled with. They called water-boarding what it is, "<i>tortura del aqua</i>". Five hundred years later, torture is still torture, and Dostoevsky was right.


Appeasement has never worked throughout history, and liberals will never learn that lesson

The terrorists were delighted with the Dems win in 06, and they have openly endorsed Hillary for President

When Little Adolph made his speech at Columbia, it sounded like a speech any of the Dem Presidential candidates would make

They know with spinles Dems eunning things, they will have a free hand to spread their terror, since Dems lack the guts to stand up to them.

[bullypulpit]

Appeasement has never worked throughout history, and liberals will never learn that lesson

The terrorists were delighted with the Dems win in 06, and they have openly endorsed Hillary for President

When Little Adolph made his speech at Columbia, it sounded like a speech any of the Dem Presidential candidates would make

They know with spinles Dems eunning things, they will have a free hand to spread their terror, since Dems lack the guts to stand up to them.

You obviously lack the guts and brain power to think for yourself. If you don't recognize yourself in that passage, you are both blind and stupid...the latter is a given.

[red states rule]

You obviously lack the guts and brain power to think for yourself. If you don't recognize yourself in that passage, you are both blind and stupid...the latter is a given.

Is this the new tone Dems promised during the 06 elections? The anger and hate from the left continues to grow as their failed polices drag their poll numbers further south

[red states rule]

You obviously lack the guts and brain power to think for yourself. If you don't recognize yourself in that passage, you are both blind and stupid...the latter is a given.

I understand why you are in such a foul mood BP. Your dreams of surrender in Iraq, coddling terrorists and telling them we mean them no harm, have crashed and burned with the US military winning the fight in Iraq

On top of that, Gallup comes out with a 44% approval rating for Pres Bush - while your beloved Dem Congress is at 22%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-18-bush-poll_x.htm

[diuretic]

Whoa I stumbled into non-sequitur alley :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Liberal logic is something to behold. They NY Times thinks no terror attacks on US soil is a black mark for the CIA


C.I.A. Agents Sense Shifting Support for Methods

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 13, 2007
WASHINGTON — For six years, Central Intelligence Agency officers have worried that someday the tide of post-Sept. 11 opinion would turn, and their harsh treatment of prisoners from Al Qaeda would be subjected to hostile scrutiny and possible criminal prosecution.

Now that day may have arrived, after years of shifting legal advice, searing criticism from rights groups — and no new terrorist attacks on American soil.

The Justice Department, which in 2002 gave the C.I.A. legal approval for waterboarding and other tough interrogation methods, is reviewing whether agency officials broke the law by destroying videotapes of those very methods.

The Congressional intelligence committees, whose leaders in 2002 gave at least tacit approval for the tough tactics, have voted in conference to ban all coercive techniques, and they have announced investigations of the destruction of the videotapes and the methods they documented.

“Exactly what they feared is what’s happening,” Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, said of the C.I.A. officials he advised in that job. “The winds change, and the recriminations begin.”

The legal siege against the Bush administration’s counterterrorism programs goes far beyond the C.I.A., including lawsuits brought on behalf of hundreds of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and more than 40 challenges in court to the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program.

For some at the C.I.A., the second-guessing began in 2004 with a decision by Mr. Goldsmith, now at Harvard Law School, to withdraw the 2002 opinion on interrogation, whose sweeping constitutional claims and narrow definition of torture he found fatally flawed. But he said he regretted the way the agency had been whipsawed — accused of “risk aversion” immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, and now blamed for traducing American values by engaging in torture.

“Things that seemed to them five years ago to have airtight legal and political support are now under investigation,” he said, comparing this cycle to the Senate hearings into C.I.A. abuses in the 1970s and the criminal prosecution of C.I.A. officials in the Iran-contra affair of the 1980s.

Even a C.I.A. officer involved in capturing and questioning leaders of Al Qaeda expresses a striking ambivalence about the policies that were carried out.

John C. Kiriakou, who helped lead the team that caught the Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002, went public on ABC News this week with such a message. He said he saw intelligence reports saying that waterboarding, a technique that induces a sense of suffocation, had caused Abu Zubaydah to start talking after 35 seconds.

But Mr. Kiriakou, a 43-year-old father of four who left the agency in 2004, also said in an interview that he believed waterboarding was torture and should never be used again, because “we Americans are better than that.” He added: “I think the second-guessing of 2002 decisions is unfair. What I think is fair is having a national debate over whether we should be waterboarding.”

Legal hazards were on the minds of Bush administration officials from the beginning of the response to 9/11. The 2002 Justice Department interrogation opinion laid out some defenses interrogators might use against criminal accusations of torture.

“The administration’s success in preventing attacks has become its enemy,” said John Yoo, the former Justice official who wrote most of the 2002 opinion. Since then, he added, “The political environment has changed because people feel the threat is less than it used to be.”

Mr. Yoo’s legal opinions, though criticized as seriously flawed by some scholars, may nonetheless provide impenetrable armor for C.I.A. officers. From the beginning, wary agency officials insisted on what they called “top cover” — written Justice Department approval for what they did.

Most legal scholars say that even under a future administration, the Justice Department would not seek charges against C.I.A. officers for actions the department itself had approved.

Another obstacle to such prosecutions would be the laws passed by Congress in 2005 and 2006 granting extensive legal protection for authorized conduct. But the videotape destruction may not have such protection; the episode recalls the adage of Washington scandals — that it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up that leads to trouble.

The deaths of several prisoners who had been questioned by C.I.A. officers or contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan — but outside the detention program for high-level Qaeda prisoners — have been referred to the Justice Department. Only one C.I.A. contractor, David A. Passaro, has been prosecuted, receiving an eight-year sentence for beating an Afghan man who later died.

Still, investigations can impose a high price no matter how they end. “It’s not just the fear of going to jail,” Mr. Goldsmith said. “It’s the enormous expense of hiring lawyers. It’s seeing your reputation destroyed. It’s losing your career.”

Overseas, C.I.A. officers implicated in rendition cases have been sought on criminal charges in Italy and Germany, though none have been arrested. And since the international pursuit of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, human rights advocates have often sought criminal charges against former officials on the principle of “universal jurisdiction” for certain grave offenses, including torture.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which unsuccessfully sought charges against former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a recent visit to France, has pledged to pursue criminal torture charges against former Bush administration officials when they travel abroad.

“The only way to restore the moral authority of our country,” said Michael Ratner, the group’s president, “is accountability.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/washington/13inquire.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[bullypulpit]

Whoa I stumbled into non-sequitur alley :laugh2:

And the really funny part is that Red doesn't even realize it. :laugh2:

[manu1959]

It's been nearly 130 years since Fyodor Dostoevsky "<i>The Brothers Karamazov</i>", but he was ever talented at plumbing the depths of the human heart. In the book the Grand Inquisitor (the Cardinal of Seville) mocks Christ for imposing on us mere human the heavy burden of conscience, explaining that it is far better to dull that conscience and rule by deceit, violence and fear.

<blockquote>Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?…We teach them that it’s not the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience…. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient…We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name…. we shall be forced to lie…. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission.” - The Grand Inquisitor, in Brothers Karamazov</blockquote>

This paragraph perfectly portrays the trap so many Americans have fallen into. That trap bing the forfeiting of freedom through fear.

The Inguisition did not bother with polite euphemisms like "alternative set of procedures" which Bush administration rhetoric is filled with. They called water-boarding what it is, "<i>tortura del aqua</i>". Five hundred years later, torture is still torture, and Dostoevsky was right.

you know bully TD is one of my favs......i have read everything he has ever written multiple times......i always wonder how firmly his tongue is planted in his cheek.....when i was young i read it the way you claim....when i got older i saw it the other way round.....now.....i see that his writing is beautiful as you can see what you want.....and that for me makes his writing art....

[red states rule]

And the really funny part is that Red doesn't even realize it. :laugh2:

The difference between a lib like you BP, and a conservative like myself is that I grew out of adolescence

[bullypulpit]

The difference between a lib like you BP, and a conservative like myself is that I grew out of adolescence

HA! Now THAT'S a laugh! If you'd grown up, as you claim, you'd be capable of thinking for yourself. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[red states rule]

HA! Now THAT'S a laugh! If you'd grown up, as you claim, you'd be capable of thinking for yourself. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Your post made my point for me

[bullypulpit]

Your post made my point for me

<blockquote>Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?…We teach them that it’s not the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience…. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient…We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name…. we shall be forced to lie…. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission.” - The Grand Inquisitor, in Brothers Karamazov</blockquote>

Fits you to a "T".

[red states rule]

<blockquote>Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?…We teach them that it’s not the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience…. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient…We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name…. we shall be forced to lie…. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission.” - The Grand Inquisitor, in Brothers Karamazov</blockquote>

Fits you to a "T".

So I want to capture and kill the terrorists and you want to offer understanding and therapy to them

That is the difference between conservatives and lib when it come to fighting terrorists.

You actually think you can melt their bombs and bullets with love and compassion

I want them captured or dead

[bullypulpit]

So I want to capture and kill the terrorists and you want to offer understanding and therapy to them

That is the difference between conservatives and lib when it come to fighting terrorists.

You actually think you can melt their bombs and bullets with love and compassion

I want them captured or dead

I have no qualms about seeing them captured or dead either. So long as its done within the four corners of the law. To do otherwise is to play into the hands of said terrorists.

Oh, and you STILL can't generate an original thought. Your first sentence is a paraphrase of one of Tom DeLay's rants. Just give it up, you're barely treading intellectual water as it is.

[avatar4321]

It's been nearly 130 years since Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote "<i>The Brothers Karamazov</i>", but he was ever talented at plumbing the depths of the human heart. In the book the Grand Inquisitor (the Cardinal of Seville) mocks Christ for imposing on us mere human the heavy burden of conscience, explaining that it is far better to dull that conscience and rule by deceit, violence and fear.

<blockquote>Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?…We teach them that it’s not the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience…. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient…We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name…. we shall be forced to lie…. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission.” - The Grand Inquisitor, in Brothers Karamazov</blockquote>

This paragraph perfectly portrays the trap so many Americans have fallen into. That trap being the forfeiting of freedom through fear.

The Inquisition did not bother with polite euphemisms like "alternative set of procedures" which Bush administration rhetoric is filled with. They called water-boarding what it is, "<i>tortura del aqua</i>". Five hundred years later, torture is still torture, and Dostoevsky was right.

you mean the fear that your social security check will get paid? fear that kids lunches will be paid for? Fear of cuts in education? Fear that someone is actually going to be moral and encourage others to do the same? Fear that your non existant rights will be taken away? Fear that by actually protecting oursrelves that people wont like us? Fear of the rich?

Contrast that with the conservaive philosophy. There is no need to fear because we can take care of the problems that face this great nation because we are Americans and freedom can overcome all problems.

[bullypulpit]

you mean the fear that your social security check will get paid? fear that kids lunches will be paid for? Fear of cuts in education? Fear that someone is actually going to be moral and encourage others to do the same? Fear that your non existant rights will be taken away? Fear that by actually protecting oursrelves that people wont like us? Fear of the rich?

Contrast that with the conservaive philosophy. There is no need to fear because we can take care of the problems that face this great nation because we are Americans and freedom can overcome all problems.

Ummm...You've pretty much missed the point entirely. And the "conservative philosophy", as it currently stands, is the cause of most of our current problems.

[red states rule]

I have no qualms about seeing them captured or dead either. So long as its done within the four corners of the law. To do otherwise is to play into the hands of said terrorists.

Oh, and you STILL can't generate an original thought. Your first sentence is a paraphrase of one of Tom DeLay's rants. Just give it up, you're barely treading intellectual water as it is.

By all means BP, keep trying to fight and win a PC war. Have you even given any thought as to why Pres Bush is rising in the polls, and your Dems are falling?

Try looking at your continued desire to undermine the war, how we are fighting the terrorists, and the non stop desire of Reid and Pelosi to surrender in Iraq

Your side is consumed with losing this war, and doing all you can to help the terrorists. The voters are seeing that and turning against you

[red states rule]

you mean the fear that your social security check will get paid? fear that kids lunches will be paid for? Fear of cuts in education? Fear that someone is actually going to be moral and encourage others to do the same? Fear that your non existant rights will be taken away? Fear that by actually protecting oursrelves that people wont like us? Fear of the rich?

Contrast that with the conservaive philosophy. There is no need to fear because we can take care of the problems that face this great nation because we are Americans and freedom can overcome all problems.

Libs goal is to get as many people as possible on some government program. The last thing libs want is for people to be able to take care of their own needs

That would cripple Dems power, since they would have nothing to bribe the voter with

Dems want to lock people in to a never ending cycle of dependency. Like the drug dealer on the corner, they want you dependent on them for your next fix.

[bullypulpit]

By all means BP, keep trying to fight and win a PC war. Have you even given any thought as to why Pres Bush is rising in the polls, and your Dems are falling?

Try looking at your continued desire to undermine the war, how we are fighting the terrorists, and the non stop desire of Reid and Pelosi to surrender in Iraq

Your side is consumed with losing this war, and doing all you can to help the terrorists. The voters are seeing that and turning against you

So, you're basically saying that the rule of law is irrelevant and the Constitution is fit for little more than toilet paper. And BTW, please, by all means enlighten us as to just what is meant by "success" in Iraq? A permanent occupation? A democracy imposed on a people who never asked for one and utterly fail to understand the principles of democracy in the first place?

[red states rule]

So, you're basically saying that the rule of law is irrelevant and the Constitution is fit for little more than toilet paper. And BTW, please, by all means enlighten us as to just what is meant by "success" in Iraq? A permanent occupation? A democracy imposed on a people who never asked for ons and utterly fail to understand the principles of democracy in the first place?

Terrorists are not covered under the US Constitution. Why is it so hard for you libs to uderstand that point?

Imposed democracy? You would rather have Saddam in power and not letting the peiople of Iraq vote?

Yes you would, since it was a Republican who took him out

[bullypulpit]

Terrorists are not covered under the US Constitution. Why is it so hard for you libs to uderstand that point?

Imposed democracy? You would rather have Saddam in power and not letting the peiople of Iraq vote?

Yes you would, since it was a Republican who took him out

Since, under the Constitution, US treaty obligations have the full force of federal law, and the United States IS signatory to the UN Conventions Against Torture AND the Geneva Conventions. Given this they are, in a sense, covered under the Constitution in that neither President Bush nor any member of his administration can authorize any action taken with regard to US detainees which would violate those treaty obligations without violating US law.

And, yes, an imposed democracy. Or rather an imposed Shi'ite theocracy with ever deepening ties to Iran. And, just in case you've forgotten, it was Republicans who propped Saddam up in the first place.

Now, let's address that little issue of the rule of law. Your stance continues to indicate that the rule of law is irrelevant and the Constitution is simply a "...god-damned piece of paper...".

And please define "success" in Iraq.

[red states rule]

Since, under the Constitution, US treaty obligations have the full force of federal law, and the United States IS signatory to the UN Conventions Against Torture AND the Geneva Conventions. Given this they are, in a sense, covered under the Constitution in that neither President Bush nor any member of his administration can authorize any action which would violate those treaty obligations without violating US law.

And, yes, an imposed democracy. Or rather an imposed Shi'ite theocracy with ever deepening ties to Iran. And, just in case you've forgotten, it was Republicans who propped Saddam up in the first place.

Keep wanting to extend terrorusts US Constitutional right BP - it is sinking your party

I guess the 70% turnout in Iraqs 3 elections were at gunpoint?

You libs just can't admit you fucked up big time by betting against the US military and sidign with the terrorists

[bullypulpit]

Keep wanting to extend terrorusts US Constitutional right BP - it is sinking your party

I guess the 70% turnout in Iraqs 3 elections were at gunpoint?

You libs just can't admit you fucked up big time by betting against the US military and sidign with the terrorists

Wrong...! Wrong...! Wong...! You, and every other right wing-nut water-head, keep trying to revive that dead horse just so you can keep beating it. Not Constitutional rights...Just the rule of law. Speaking of which, you just keep dodging the questions:

<blockquote><h2>Your stance continues to indicate that the rule of law is irrelevant and the Constitution is simply a "...god-damned piece of paper...". If this is not the case, please clarify your stance as your statements continue to indicate otherwise.

And please define "success" in Iraq.</h2></blockquote>

Are you going to address these issues, or continue to dance around them?

[red states rule]

Waterboarding has been used three times in 5 years - and each time it got info from the terrorists, and saved lives

Terrorists are not entitled to US Constitutional rights - despite your lame attempts to say they are

[glockmail]

Since, under the Constitution, US treaty obligations have the full force of federal law, and the United States IS signatory to the UN Conventions Against Torture AND the Geneva Conventions. ..... Of course thes only cover actual soldiers who wear uniforms and abide by said rules, a fact overlooked by liberals.

[red states rule]

Of course thes only cover actual soldiers who wear uniforms and abide by said rules, a fact overlooked by liberals.

To libs, the GC is like the US Constitution. It is like a Bill Clinton intern, so it can be twisted into many different positions

[bullypulpit]

Of course thes only cover actual soldiers who wear uniforms and abide by said rules, a fact overlooked by liberals.

Wrong. The SCOTUS in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the GITMO detainees, and by implication all other terrorist suspects in US custody. The UN Convention Against Torture applies to ALL persons regardless of whether their status as civilian or combatant. Both facts which you and other water-carriers for the Bush administration routinely ignore.

[red states rule]

Wrong. The SCOTUS in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the GITMO detainees, and by implication all other terrorist suspects in US custody. The UN Convention Against Torture applies to ALL persons regardless of whether their status as civilian or combatant. Both facts which you and other water-carriers for the Bush administration routinely ignore.

The primary duty of the US government is to protect its people and its borders. Libs seem to more interedted in the well being of its enemies but granting "rights" to the terrorists

Waterbording was used three times in 4 years, and each time we got information that saved lives

That does not matter to libs like you, you are still engaged in your war on Pres Bush and reality

[bullypulpit]

Waterboarding has been used three times in 5 years - and each time it got info from the terrorists, and saved lives

Terrorists are not entitled to US Constitutional rights - despite your lame attempts to say they are

And your proof of this...? I mean besides just because the Bush administration and its dogbodies said so?

The rule of law is a fundamental protection for all people, even terrorists, under both treaty and international law. When we abandon the rule of law we abandon all that made this country great.

Now, please address the following issues which you have consistently failed to address:

<blockquote><h2>Your stance continues to indicate that the rule of law is irrelevant and the Constitution is simply a "...god-damned piece of paper...". If this is not the case, please clarify your stance as your statements continue to indicate otherwise.

And please define "success" in Iraq.</h2></blockquote>

Your continued failure implies a certain degree of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. But we've come to expect that from you.

[red states rule]

And your proof of this...? I mean besides just because the Bush administration and its dogbodies said so?

The rule of law is a fundamental protection for all people, even terrorists, under both treaty and international law. When we abandon the rule of law we abandon all that made this country great.

Now, please address the following issues which you have consistently failed to address:

<blockquote><h2>Your stance continues to indicate that the rule of law is irrelevant and the Constitution is simply a "...god-damned piece of paper...". If this is not the case, please clarify your stance as your statements continue to indicate otherwise.

And please define "success" in Iraq.</h2></blockquote>

Your continued failure implies a certain degree of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. But we've come to expect that from you.

As much as you like to paint the US as a terrorist nation, waterborading has only been used three time - and it worked

It seems 35 seconds of discomfort to a terrorist is unacceptable to libs - while the terrorists behead, stone, or burn alive their captives

Terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights, and they do have GC protection since they do not meet the requirements of the GC

As far as Iraq, the success is happening. Iraq is taking over more of their cities - the British handed over Basera. More and more are joining the Police and military to handle the security, AQ is all but run out of Baghdad, and with the liberal media not reporting on Iraq as mush as they did when things were bad - you know we are winning

[bullypulpit]

As much as you like to paint the US as a terrorist nation, waterborading has only been used three time - and it worked

It seems 35 seconds of discomfort to a terrorist is unacceptable to libs - while the terrorists behead, stone, or burn alive their captives

Terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights, and they do have GC protection since they do not meet the requirements of the GC

As far as Iraq, the success is happening. Iraq is taking over more of their cities - the British handed over Basera. More and more are joining the Police and military to handle the security, AQ is all but run out of Baghdad, and with the liberal media not reporting on Iraq as mush as they did when things were bad - you know we are winning

:dance:

[red states rule]

:dance:

Mu BP you realy countered those facts like a typical lib - you ignored them :lol:

[glockmail]

Wrong. The SCOTUS in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the GITMO detainees, and by implication all other terrorist suspects in US custody. The UN Convention Against Torture applies to ALL persons regardless of whether their status as civilian or combatant. Both facts which you and other water-carriers for the Bush administration routinely ignore. :link:

Although I'd do it in a heart-beat to save my fellow Americans.

[red states rule]

:link:

Although I'd do it in a heart-beat to save my fellow Americans.

While libs like BP would let attacks to happen while he protects the comfort of terrorists

[retiredman]

:link:

Although I'd do it in a heart-beat to save my fellow Americans.

I have absolutely no doubt that you would rip the Constitution into little pieces and dump it down the two-holer out behind your trailer to save your hound dog.

congratulations!:laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

:link:

Although I'd do it in a heart-beat to save my fellow Americans.

<blockquote>Hamdan had two immediate consequences. First, the Court held that Common Article 3, a terse provision in all four Geneva Conventions, benefits all those captured in global counterterrorism operations. Common Article 3 is the ethical baseline for wartime treatment of captured men and women: No torture. No humiliating and degrading treatment. No kangaroo courts that lack "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people." The Court's holding was necessary because back in February 2002, President Bush had issued a presidential memorandum stating that "none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda." Pressing home the point, he underscored that "Common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply" either. - <a href=http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060731&s=huq>The Nation</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission’s proceedings, concluding that the President’s authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that <b>Hamdan is entitled to that Convention’s full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear</b>. (<i>emphasis mine</i>) - <a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</a></blockquote>

So, the rule of law is meaningless to you as well. Seems to be a pattern common to the Bush administration apologists.

[glockmail]

<blockquote>Hamdan had two immediate consequences. First, the Court held that Common Article 3, a terse provision in all four Geneva Conventions, benefits all those captured in global counterterrorism operations. Common Article 3 is the ethical baseline for wartime treatment of captured men and women: No torture. No humiliating and degrading treatment. No kangaroo courts that lack "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people." The Court's holding was necessary because back in February 2002, President Bush had issued a presidential memorandum stating that "none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda." Pressing home the point, he underscored that "Common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply" either. - <a href=http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060731&s=huq>The Nation</a></blockquote>

<blockquote>The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission’s proceedings, concluding that the President’s authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that <b>Hamdan is entitled to that Convention’s full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear</b>. (<i>emphasis mine</i>) - <a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</a</blockquote>

So, the rule of law is meaningless to you as well. Seems to be a pattern common to the Bush administration apologists.

That's the best that you can do? A blog in an extreme leftist site?

[red states rule]

I have absolutely no doubt that you would rip the Constitution into little pieces and dump it down the two-holer out behind your trailer to save your hound dog.

congratulations!:laugh2:

Dems have been doing that with San Fran Nan and Harry "the war is lost" Reid trying to take over the duties of the CIC

[red states rule]

That's the best that you can do? A blog in an extreme leftist site?

That would appear to be the case

[bullypulpit]

That's the best that you can do? A blog in an extreme leftist site?

It's not a blog, it's an article in a nationally published magazine. And if you had actually followed the link to the second citation, you'd see that is was quoted directly from the decision as it was written. Loser.

[bullypulpit]

Mu BP you realy countered those facts like a typical lib - you ignored them :lol:

You only offered your opinion absent any evidence to show them as facts rather than your own mental offal.

[red states rule]

It's not a blog, it's an article in a nationally published magazine. And if you had actually followed the link to the second citation, you'd see that is was quoted directly from the decision as it was written. Loser.

It is a hit piece from a liberal rag. The Nation is best used to wrap fish and line bird cages

[red states rule]

BP, you and other libs who are screaming over the right s of terrorists should read and post on this thread

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=9823

[glockmail]

It's not a blog, it's an article in a nationally published magazine. And if you had actually followed the link to the second citation, you'd see that is was quoted directly from the decision as it was written. Loser.
I agree. Only a loser would read The Nation.

[bullypulpit]

BP, you and other libs who are screaming over the right s of terrorists should read and post on this thread

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=9823

The article in "The Nation" was an analysis of a decision by the Supreme Court. The "National Journal" article was an opinion piece by someone who has a little respect for the Constitution and the rule of law as you.

[bullypulpit]

I agree. Only a loser would read The Nation.

Brevity is the soul of wit. In your case, however, it is simply evidence of your having long since run out of intellectual ammunition regarding the issue under discussion.

[manu1959]

Brevity is the soul of wit. In your case, however, it is simply evidence of your having long since run out of intellectual ammunition regarding the issue under discussion.

well at least it is a fair fight...........

[glockmail]

Brevity is the soul of wit. In your case, however, it is simply evidence of your having long since run out of intellectual ammunition regarding the issue under discussion.
Right. The Nation is a real intellectual powerhouse, just like you.

[bullypulpit]

That's all very nice, Red...Glock. But neither of you have bothered to address the issue under discussion, much less the question I have posed both of you.

Are you willing, purely out of fear, to dispense with the rule of law and its foundation in this country, the Constitution? Nothing you have said in this thread , or elsewhere, indicates otherwise.

[red states rule]

The article in "The Nation" was an analysis of a decision by the Supreme Court. The "National Journal" article was an opinion piece by someone who has a little respect for the Constitution and the rule of law as you.

The author is Stuart Taylor Jr, a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School. He was also SC correspondent for the NY Times, and a lawyer at a DC law firm - William, Cutler and Pickering

Your law background BP?

Watching reruns of Perry Mason does not count

[bullypulpit]

The author is Stuart Taylor Jr, a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School. He was also SC correspondent for the NY Times, and a lawyer at a DC law firm - William, Cutler and Pickering

Your law background BP?

Watching reruns of Perry Mason does not count

Norman Podhoretz and the other neocon hacks have some nice sheepskins too. Doesn't make them right.

Now, answer the question please.

<center><h2>Are you willing, purely out of fear, to dispense with the rule of law and its foundation in this country, the Constitution? </h2></center>

[red states rule]

Norman Podhoretz and the other neocon hacks have some nice sheepskins too. Doesn't make them right.

Now, answer the question please.

<center><h2>Are you willing, purely out of fear, to dispense with the rule of law and its foundation in this country, the Constitution? </h2></center>

Again, terrorists are not covered under the US Constitution and the GC. Libs would rather allow the attacks to happen then violate the "rights" of terrorists

Then libs like you would stand over the dead bodies and scream why the government diid not stop the attack

[red states rule]

and we know liberals are getting desperate - thye are becoming totally unhinged


WaPo Columnist Compares Christians to KKK, Says They Love 'Torture'

After catching Harold Meyerson's latest Washington Post hatemongering against religion in general, Christians in particular, and Republicans especially, all I could say was just WOW! This thing is nearly unhinged and if you took the word Christian out and replaced it with any of the favored, protected minorities that the MSM guards like mother hens, it would be indistinguishable from the kind of pure bigotry that would result in Meyerson's utter ostracizing should it have been written about those protected classes. Calling Republicans/Christians torturers, abusers of immigrants, members of the KKK, bigots and even mean, Meyerson skipped only the Nazi and Hitler references making one wonder if his hatred for Christians isn't fully sated after all in this piece and if there is more seething bile that he decided it was better not to air?

There is absolutely no substance to Meyerson's piece at all. It is filled with lies, mischaracterizations, blatant spin and name calling. In fact, it is nothing but a 12 paragraph excuse to call Christians names, so I won't waste time trying to refute his garbage as it is so bigoted and full of lies that it defies reply -- that and it would take far more time than I'm willing to give it. But, here is a list of all the names he calls Christians and Republicans and just some of his outrageously off-base "analysis" in this piece of trash.

As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it's a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.

Rather, it's the gap between the teachings of the Gospels and the preachings of the Gospel's Own Party that has widened past the point of absurdity, even as the ostensible Christianization of the party proceeds apace.

Likewise his (George Bush's) support of torture, which he highlighted again this month when he threatened to veto House-passed legislation that would explicitly ban waterboarding.

It's not just Bush whose catechism is a merry mix of torture and piety.
But it's on their policies concerning immigrants where Republicans -- candidates and voters alike -- really run afoul of biblical writ. Not on immigration as such but on the treatment of immigrants who are already here.

Yet the distinctive cry coming from the Republican base this year isn't simply to control the flow of immigrants across our borders but to punish the undocumented immigrants already here

the push to persecute the immigrants already among us comes distinctly, though by no means entirely, from the same Republican right that protests its Christian faith at every turn.

We've seen this kind of Christianity before in America... At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan

But nativist bigotry is strongest in the Old Time Religion precincts of the Republican Party

The most depressing thing about the Republican presidential race is that the party's rank and file require their candidates to grow meaner with each passing week.

And now, inconveniently, inconsiderately, comes Christmas, a holiday that couldn't be better calibrated to expose the Republicans' rank, fetid hypocrisy.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/12/19/waposts-harold-meyerson-bigoted-anti-religious-hypocrite

[bullypulpit]

Again, terrorists are not covered under the US Constitution and the GC. Libs would rather allow the attacks to happen then violate the "rights" of terrorists

Then libs like you would stand over the dead bodies and scream why the government diid not stop the attack

Since you have failed, thus far to answer the question, one can only conclude that the rule of law is meaningless to you, and you find the Constitution fit only for toilet paper. You, and your ilk, are a pack of sniveling cravens, willing to sacrifice the very foundations of this nation at the faintest hint of a threat...Fearful little people unwilling to accept the fact that freedom entails risk and obligates us to defend those freedoms. You deserve neither the liberties you are so willing to surrender nor the security you so desperately seek.

[red states rule]

Since you have failed, thus far to answer the question, one can only conclude that the rule of law is meaningless to you, and you find the Constitution fit only for toilet paper. You, and your ilk, are a pack of sniveling cravens, willing to sacrifice the very foundations of this nation at the faintest hint of a threat...Fearful little people unwilling to accept the fact that freedom entails risk and obligates us to defend those freedoms. You deserve neither the liberties you are so willing to surrender nor the security you so desperately seek.

I have answered your lame and slanted questions. You and your fellow kook libs would rather oppose Pres Bush then defend the nation from terrorists

In your pea brain, you think if you make nice to the terrorists they will make nice to us.

If we are hit again on US soil, you kooks will blame Pres Bush for letting the attacks to happen - while ignoring the favct you undermined all the methods used to track, question, and jail the terrorists

[bullypulpit]

I have answered your lame and slanted questions. You and your fellow kook libs would rather oppose Pres Bush then defend the nation from terrorists

In your pea brain, you think if you make nice to the terrorists they will make nice to us.

If we are hit again on US soil, you kooks will blame Pres Bush for letting the attacks to happen - while ignoring the favct you undermined all the methods used to track, question, and jail the terrorists

Where, pray tell, did you answer it?

Ummm...You are, as usual, wrong. Find them, capture them, kill them if they won't surrender, those that are taken into custody, try them under the provisions of the UCMJ. If they are found guilty execute them...If they are found innocent, they must be freed. The rule of law MUST prevail.

If we should again be attacked while Bush remains in office, the fault will indeed be his. Neither he nor the Republican controlled Congress took any meaningful steps to secure our borders...our petrochemical/nuclear facilities...our ports.

Craven.

[red states rule]

Where, pray tell, did you answer it?

Ummm...You are, as usual, wrong. Find them, capture them, kill them if they won't surrender, those that are taken into custody, try them under the provisions of the UCMJ.

If we should again be attacked while Bush remains in office, the fault will indeed be his. Neither he nor the Republican controlled Congress took any meaningful steps to secure our borders...our petrochemical/nuclear facilities...our ports.

Craven.

Your entire lame argument is built of liberal crap. Terrorists are not covered under the US Constitution or the GV. They do not have the rights you day they have

Thanks to the methods we use, we have not been hit again. Yet you are your fellow libs do not credit Pres Bush. But you admitted if we are hit again - Pres Bush is to blame. Once again, the lieft wants it both ways

What are Dems doing to secure the border - they want a revolving door installed while they hand out voter registration forms to all the incoming illegals

[bullypulpit]

and we know liberals are getting desperate - thye are becoming totally unhinged


WaPo Columnist Compares Christians to KKK, Says They Love 'Torture'

After catching Harold Meyerson's latest Washington Post hatemongering against religion in general, Christians in particular, and Republicans especially, all I could say was just WOW! This thing is nearly unhinged and if you took the word Christian out and replaced it with any of the favored, protected minorities that the MSM guards like mother hens, it would be indistinguishable from the kind of pure bigotry that would result in Meyerson's utter ostracizing should it have been written about those protected classes. Calling Republicans/Christians torturers, abusers of immigrants, members of the KKK, bigots and even mean, Meyerson skipped only the Nazi and Hitler references making one wonder if his hatred for Christians isn't fully sated after all in this piece and if there is more seething bile that he decided it was better not to air?

There is absolutely no substance to Meyerson's piece at all. It is filled with lies, mischaracterizations, blatant spin and name calling. In fact, it is nothing but a 12 paragraph excuse to call Christians names, so I won't waste time trying to refute his garbage as it is so bigoted and full of lies that it defies reply -- that and it would take far more time than I'm willing to give it. But, here is a list of all the names he calls Christians and Republicans and just some of his outrageously off-base "analysis" in this piece of trash.

As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it's a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.

Rather, it's the gap between the teachings of the Gospels and the preachings of the Gospel's Own Party that has widened past the point of absurdity, even as the ostensible Christianization of the party proceeds apace.

Likewise his (George Bush's) support of torture, which he highlighted again this month when he threatened to veto House-passed legislation that would explicitly ban waterboarding.

It's not just Bush whose catechism is a merry mix of torture and piety.
But it's on their policies concerning immigrants where Republicans -- candidates and voters alike -- really run afoul of biblical writ. Not on immigration as such but on the treatment of immigrants who are already here.

Yet the distinctive cry coming from the Republican base this year isn't simply to control the flow of immigrants across our borders but to punish the undocumented immigrants already here

the push to persecute the immigrants already among us comes distinctly, though by no means entirely, from the same Republican right that protests its Christian faith at every turn.

We've seen this kind of Christianity before in America... At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan

But nativist bigotry is strongest in the Old Time Religion precincts of the Republican Party

The most depressing thing about the Republican presidential race is that the party's rank and file require their candidates to grow meaner with each passing week.

And now, inconveniently, inconsiderately, comes Christmas, a holiday that couldn't be better calibrated to expose the Republicans' rank, fetid hypocrisy.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/12/19/waposts-harold-meyerson-bigoted-anti-religious-hypocrite

As per your usual practice, you cut-and-paste crap without bothering to look at its sources. You didn't even read the article this particular screed referenced, thus missing the point of the source article.

<blockquote>My concern isn't the rift that has opened between Republican political practice and the vision of the nation's Founders, who made very clear in the Constitution that there would be no religious test for officeholders in their enlightened new republic. Rather, it's the gap between the teachings of the Gospels and the preachings of the Gospel's Own Party that has widened past the point of absurdity, even as the ostensible Christianization of the party proceeds apace. - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801634_pf.html>Hard-liners for Jesus</a></blockquote>

Harold Meyerson's criticism wasn't of Christianity, but rather of those who claim to be Christian's in order to further a political agenda while ignoring the tenets of their claimed faith. In other words, hypocrites. Rather like you.

[red states rule]

As per your usual practice, you cut-and-paste crap without bothering to look at its sources. You didn't even read the article this particular screed referenced, thus missing the point of the source article.

<blockquote>My concern isn't the rift that has opened between Republican political practice and the vision of the nation's Founders, who made very clear in the Constitution that there would be no religious test for officeholders in their enlightened new republic. Rather, it's the gap between the teachings of the Gospels and the preachings of the Gospel's Own Party that has widened past the point of absurdity, even as the ostensible Christianization of the party proceeds apace. - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801634_pf.html>Hard-liners for Jesus</a></blockquote>

Harold Meyerson's criticism wasn't of Christianity, but rather of those who claim to be Christian's in order to further a political agenda while ignoring the tenets of their claimed faith. In other words, hypocrites. Rather like you.

It was a hit piece on Christians. Libs have blamed them for electing and reelecting Pres Bush. To kooks like you, that is an unforgivable sin

[glockmail]

That's all very nice, Red...Glock. But neither of you have bothered to address the issue under discussion, much less the question I have posed both of you.

Are you willing, purely out of fear, to dispense with the rule of law and its foundation in this country, the Constitution? Nothing you have said in this thread , or elsewhere, indicates otherwise.

The Constitution doesn't require us to tie our own hands in the face of our enemies. If I have to waterboard some terrorist to save just one American live I’d do it in a heartbeat.

[manu1959]

Since you have failed, thus far to answer the question, one can only conclude that the rule of law is meaningless to you, and you find the Constitution fit only for toilet paper. You, and your ilk, are a pack of sniveling cravens, willing to sacrifice the very foundations of this nation at the faintest hint of a threat...Fearful little people unwilling to accept the fact that freedom entails risk and obligates us to defend those freedoms. You deserve neither the liberties you are so willing to surrender nor the security you so desperately seek.

i do not believe that US laws should protect the rights of foreign soliders that are trying to destroy the US ...

[bullypulpit]

The Constitution doesn't require us to tie our own hands in the face of our enemies. If I have to waterboard some terrorist to save just one American live I’d do it in a heartbeat.

It doesn't tie our hands. It does, however, forbid what you suggest...without equivocation.

[bullypulpit]

i do not believe that US laws should protect the rights of foreign soliders that are trying to destroy the US ...

What you believe is irrelevant. US treaty obligations and federal/international law explicitly prohibit the use of torture. And terrorists aren't soldiers.

[bullypulpit]

It was a hit piece on Christians. Libs have blamed them for electing and reelecting Pres Bush. To kooks like you, that is an unforgivable sin

The original article states otherwise. It targets the hypocrites...the modern day Pharisees.

[glockmail]

It doesn't tie our hands. It does, however, forbid what you suggest...without equivocation. Not according to reasonable interpretation.

[bullypulpit]

Not according to reasonable interpretation.

And just whose interpretation might that be? Federal law and US treaty obligation, which carries the full weight of law under the Constitution, make it very clear that there are no exceptional circumstances under which torture may be employed by US personnel. This is stated explicitly in Article 2, Para.2 of the <a href=http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm>Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment</a>, which states as follows:

<blockquote>No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.</blockquote>

There is no room for interpretation, "reasonable" or otherwise.

You can find further links to US and international law on the issue at <a href=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm>Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody</a>

[glockmail]

And just whose interpretation might that be? Federal law and US treaty obligation, which carries the full weight of law under the Constitution, make it very clear that there are no exceptional circumstances under which torture may be employed by US personnel. This is stated explicitly in Article 2, Para.2 of the <a href=http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm>Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment</a>, which states as follows:

<blockquote>No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.</blockquote>

There is no room for interpretation, "reasonable" or otherwise.

You can find further links to US and international law on the issue at <a href=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm>Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody</a>


Waterboarding ain't torture. Of course, some girlie-men would call having to wear too-tight shoes torture. Perhaps that's where the issue lies.

[red states rule]

Waterboarding ain't torture. Of course, some girlie-men would call having to wear too-tight shoes torture. Perhaps that's where the issue lies.

and waterdoarding has been used 3 times in the last 4 years

BP ignores that fact

[bullypulpit]

Waterboarding ain't torture. Of course, some girlie-men would call having to wear too-tight shoes torture. Perhaps that's where the issue lies.

It is torture, named by the Spanish inquisition as "<i>tortura del agua</i>". It was defined as torture when, after WWII Japanese and German interrogators who used the procedure on allied troops were convicted of torture. US troops in Viet Nam who water-boarded NVA captives were court martialed. It is settled law. Get over it. Come to think of it, why don't you let me water-board you and see how long it takes you to start screaming like a little girl?

[red states rule]

It is torture, named by the Spanish inquisition as "<i>tortura del agua</i>". It was defined as torture when, after WWII Japanese and German interrogators who used the procedure on allied troops were convicted of torture. US troops in Viet Nam who water-boarded NVA captives were court martialed. It is settled law. Get over it. Come to think of it, why don't you let me water-board you and see how long it takes you to start screaming like a little girl?

You want to waterboard a guy who has a different opinion then you - but you refuse to waterboard a terrorist who might tel us about a pending terrorist attack

Liberal double standards at its best

[bullypulpit]

and waterdoarding has been used 3 times in the last 4 years

BP ignores that fact

And on what do you base that assertion? Or are you simply taking the word of the Bush administration and its dogsbodies? The facts cannot be established due to the wall of secrecy erected by the Bush administration...A fact which you and your fellow travelers conveniently ignore.

[red states rule]

And on what do you base that assertion? Or are you simply taking the word of the Bush administration and its dogsbodies? The facts cannot be established due to the wall of secrecy erected by the Bush administration...A fact which you and your fellow travelers conveniently ignore.

Even your beloved terrorist coddling Dems have not produced anything to prove it has been used more then three time in 4 years

Do you have anything besides your usual rants?

[glockmail]

It is torture, named by the Spanish inquisition as "<i>tortura del agua</i>". It was defined as torture when, after WWII Japanese and German interrogators who used the procedure on allied troops were convicted of torture. US troops in Viet Nam who water-boarded NVA captives were court martialed. It is settled law. Get over it. Come to think of it, why don't you let me water-board you and see how long it takes you to start screaming like a little girl?


Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

I prefer the dictionary definition to the PC version shared by liberals. Certain didvisions of the US military use it for training exercises, further indication that it is not torture.

I don't find your physical threats at all intimidating, just an indication that you are losing the argument. :coffee:

[bullypulpit]

Even your beloved terrorist coddling Dems have not produced anything to prove it has been used more then three time in 4 years

Do you have anything besides your usual rants?

The Bush administration has not produced any information proving that it hasn't used waterboarding on any more detainees. Until such evidence is forthcoming, I will believe the worst.

[glockmail]

The Bush administration has not produced any information proving that it hasn't used waterboarding on any more detainees. Until such evidence is forthcoming, I will believe the worst.
Asking the president to prove a negative. That seems open-minded and fair.

[bullypulpit]

I prefer the dictionary definition to the PC version shared by liberals. Certain didvisions of the US military use it for training exercises, further indication that it is not torture.

I don't find your physical threats at all intimidating, just an indication that you are losing the argument. :coffee:

For your edification, let me direct to an article by the former Chief of Training at the US Navy's SERE school in San Diego.

<center><a href=http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/>Waterboarding is Torture...Period</a></center>

I think, if you actually read the article, you will find the author to be no liberal.

[glockmail]

For your edification, let me direct to an article by the former Chief of Training at the US Navy's SERE school in San Diego.

<center><a href=http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/>Waterboarding is Torture...Period</a></center>

I think, if you actually read the article, you will find the author to be no liberal.

He is no longer in the postion to make that decision.

[bullypulpit]

Asking the president to prove a negative. That seems open-minded and fair.

Not at all. Just show America, and the world, that waterboarding hasn't been used since they claim it was last used.

[bullypulpit]

He is no longer in the postion to make that decision.

You didn't eve read the article. The truth shall set you free, but you're too much of a moral coward to embrace it.

[glockmail]

You didn't eve read the article. The truth shall set you free, but you're too much of a moral coward to embrace it.

If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique. The article says it itself. It is torture only when used outside of training or information-gathering.

Your insults are further evidence that you have lost this debate.

[bullypulpit]

The article says it itself. It is torture only when used outside of training or information-gathering.

Your insults are further evidence that you have lost this debate.

Let me add the parts you conveniently left out.

<blockquote>There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists

1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator...

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation...Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject...

3. <b><font color=red>If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives.</font></b></blockquote>

Neither you, nor your fellow apologists, nor the Bush administration itself, have a leg to stand on this this argument. Waterboarding is torture. It is a violation of US law and treaty obligation. Under said law and treaty obligations, <b>there are no circumstances under which torture is permissible</b>.

[glockmail]

Let me add the parts you conveniently left out.

<blockquote>There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists

1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator...

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation...Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject...

3. <b><font color=red>If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives.</font></b></blockquote>

Neither you, nor your fellow apologists, nor the Bush administration itself, have a leg to stand on this this argument. Waterboarding is torture. It is a violation of US law and treaty obligation. Under said law and treaty obligations, <b>there are no circumstances under which torture is permissible</b>.

You continue to ignore the fact that waterboarding is only torture when used outside the limits of interrogation and training. Your own link states that. :coffee:

[bullypulpit]

You continue to ignore the fact that waterboarding is only torture when used outside the limits of interrogation and training. Your own link states that. :coffee:

Then let me make it a little clearer for you as you obviously werent paying attention.

<h1>1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator.</h1>

There is no equivocation in that statement. Only those seeking to justify torture, such as yourself, attempt such equivocation. Oh, and, since you didn't address it, I will. If you are condoning the torture of US detainees, you are also condoning the torutre of any US military personel captured in the future.

:fu:

[glockmail]

Then let me make it a little clearer for you as you obviously werent paying attention.

<h1>1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator.</h1>

There is no equivocation in that statement. Only those seeking to justify torture, such as yourself, attempt such equivocation. Oh, and, since you didn't address it, I will. If you are condoning the torture of US detainees, you are also condoning the torutre of any US military personel captured in the future.

:fu:

Your bold text indicates that waterboarding is a torture technique. It is also a technique for interrogation and training, which is what I advocate.

Attempting to deflect the argument with unrelated issues or flipping me the bird only shows the weakness of your reply. :coffee:

[bullypulpit]

Your bold text indicates that waterboarding is a torture technique. It is also a technique for interrogation and training, which is what I advocate.

Attempting to deflect the argument with unrelated issues or flipping me the bird only shows the weakness of your reply. :coffee:

What part of...

<h1><font color=red>It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator.</font></h1>

...Are you having difficulty understanding?

[glockmail]

What part of...

<h1><font color=red>It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator.</font></h1>

...Are you having difficulty understanding? That's an opinion unsubstantiated with facts. That fact is that it was used for interrogation and yielded important intelligence. Screaming in big red fonts doesn't change that. :coffee:

[manu1959]

3. If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives.

you know what if all they did to our guys was waterboard, or stack them naked or have dogs bark at them or have pretty girls flirt with them or make em eat bacon ..... i would be ok with this statement ....

but they beat them to a pulp, cut off heads, electrocute them, drag their boddies through the streets hang them from bridges....

sorry.....i don't consider pretending to drown a terrorist torture....i consider it a punishment befitting the crime....

[bullypulpit]

That's an opinion unsubstantiated with facts. That fact is that it was used for interrogation and yielded important intelligence. Screaming in big red fonts doesn't change that. :coffee:

And your proof of this is? Links please. And please don't make shit up. It makes you look like a bigger fool than you already do. Oh, and BTW, are you down with US troops who may be captured being subjected to waterboarding?

[bullypulpit]

3. If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives.

you know what if all they did to our guys was waterboard, or stack them naked or have dogs bark at them or have pretty girls flirt with them or make em eat bacon ..... i would be ok with this statement ....

but they beat them to a pulp, cut off heads, electrocute them, drag their boddies through the streets hang them from bridges....

sorry.....i don't consider pretending to drown a terrorist torture....i consider it a punishment befitting the crime....

Ah, another who "...prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?". Be careful of the slippery slope you step onto. It will likely take you straight to hell.

[glockmail]

And your proof of this is? Links please. And please don't make shit up. It makes you look like a bigger fool than you already do. Oh, and BTW, are you down with US troops who may be captured being subjected to waterboarding?
Links have been provided to you and you ignored them here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=168051&postcount=268

:laugh2:

[glockmail]

Ah, another who "...prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?". Be careful of the slippery slope you step onto. It will likely take you straight to hell.

A lib citing hell. :lol:

[bullypulpit]

Links have been provided to you and you ignored them here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=168051&postcount=268

:laugh2:

That's old news, and the ABC interview really was more sensationalism than journalism. Mr. Kiriakou, by his own testimony, was not present during the waterboarding. As to the quality of the intelligence gained, that will remain questionable. Ron Suskind, in "The One Percent Doctrine", reveals that Zubaydah was responsible for little more than travel arrangements, and knew little of of Al Qaeda's inner workings. Until we have clear evidence, from independently verifiable sources, that the "intelligence" gained through Zubaydah's torture was actionable and "saved lives"...We will never know for certain.

Indeed in the days following 9/11 the pressure to obtain any actionable intelligence, by any means, would have been tremendous. But US treaty obligations as well as US an international law recognize no circumstances under which torture is an acceptable means of gathering intelligence.

Now, are you sure you're down with US soldiers being tortured should they be captured by hostile forces? Because that is the consequence of the Bush administration's, and its dogsbodies (such as yourself), support for the use of torture.

Your shit is weak.

[glockmail]

That's old news, and the ABC interview really was more sensationalism than journalism. Mr. Kiriakou, by his own testimony, was not present during the waterboarding. As to the quality of the intelligence gained, that will remain questionable. Ron Suskind, in "The One Percent Doctrine", reveals that Zubaydah was responsible for little more than travel arrangements, and knew little of of Al Qaeda's inner workings. Until we have clear evidence, from independently verifiable sources, that the "intelligence" gained through Zubaydah's torture was actionable and "saved lives"...We will never know for certain.

Indeed in the days following 9/11 the pressure to obtain any actionable intelligence, by any means, would have been tremendous. But US treaty obligations as well as US an international law recognize no circumstances under which torture is an acceptable means of gathering intelligence.

Now, are you sure you're down with US soldiers being tortured should they be captured by hostile forces? Because that is the consequence of the Bush administration's, and its dogsbodies (such as yourself), support for the use of torture.

.....

Its old news, so you should have known about it. I'll take the opinion of the guys who were there instead of yours.

Waterborading for training or interrogation isn't torture.

[red states rule]

A lib citing hell. :lol:

Na, hell to a liberal like BP, is having to keep their nose out of other peoples business

[bullypulpit]

Its old news, so you should have known about it. I'll take the opinion of the guys who were there instead of yours.

Waterborading for training or interrogation isn't torture.

And I'll take the opinion of 500 years of history and settled case law over a retired CIA agent looking to sell his book. Waterboarding IS torture, and no measure of twisted, tortured logic by the Bush administration and its slavish apologists, such as yourself, will change that.

Your stance is rooted in the fear the Bush administration has employed so well in the days following 9/11. In that fear, you will sanction anything so long as it is accompanied with the promise that you will not suffer. You and your fellow travelers are pathetic cravens who would see the founding principles of the Republic cast aside at the first hint of a threat. You have long since forgotten, if you ever really knew, that the freedoms we enjoy in this country entail a measure of risk and a responsibility to put oneself at risk to protect those freedoms.

BTW, are you sure you're down with our soldiers being tortured at the hands of enemy forces? 'Cause that's the consequence of the Administration's torture policy and your blind devotion to it.

[bullypulpit]

Na, hell to a liberal like BP, is having to keep their nose out of other peoples business

See above.

[glockmail]

And I'll take the opinion of 500 years of history and settled case law over a retired CIA agent looking to sell his book. Waterboarding IS torture, and no measure of twisted, tortured logic by the Bush administration and its slavish apologists, such as yourself, will change that.

Your stance is rooted in the fear the Bush administration has employed so well in the days following 9/11. In that fear, you will sanction anything so long as it is accompanied with the promise that you will not suffer. You and your fellow travelers are pathetic cravens who would see the founding principles of the Republic cast aside at the first hint of a threat. You have long since forgotten, if you ever really knew, that the freedoms we enjoy in this country entail a measure of risk and a responsibility to put oneself at risk to protect those freedoms.

BTW, are you sure you're down with our soldiers being tortured at the hands of enemy forces? 'Cause that's the consequence of the Administration's torture policy and your blind devotion to it. You've asked the same "BTW" question several times now and its been answered several times. Waterboarding is not torture when used for interogation or training. You can cite all the case law you want but its all irrelevant. :coffee:

[bullypulpit]

You've asked the same "BTW" question several times now and its been answered several times. Waterboarding is not torture when used for interogation or training. You can cite all the case law you want but its all irrelevant. :coffee:

You've merely deflected the question with a straw-man while utterly failing to answer it. You are becoming utterly brazen in your moral and intellectual bankruptcy. As for your "answer", you pulled it from the deepest nether regions of your arse in an effort to muddy the waters.

Are you OK with our soldiers being tortured should they be captured by enemy forces? Yes or no.

[red states rule]

You've merely deflected the question with a straw-man while utterly failing to answer it. You are becoming utterly brazen in your moral and intellectual bankruptcy. As for your "answer", you pulled it from the deepest nether regions of your arse in an effort to muddy the waters.

Are you OK with our soldiers being tortured should they be captured by enemy forces? Yes or no.

Our enemies do it anyway no matter how we treat our captives. They would not think twice about choping your head off as you try to tell them how much you want to be their friend

[bullypulpit]

Our enemies do it anyway no matter how we treat our captives. They would not think twice about choping your head off as you try to tell them how much you want to be their friend

I've never said anything about "being friends", nor has anyone else opposed to the Bush administration's policy regarding torture. And you're saying you're OK with our troops being tortured then?

Just like every other advocate of torturing detainees, you're morally and intellectually bankrupt.

[red states rule]

I've never said anything about "being friends", nor has anyone else opposed to the Bush administration's policy regarding torture. And you're saying you're OK with our troops being tortured then?

Just like every other advocate of torturing detainees, you're morally and intellectually bankrupt.

We do not torture - you saying it over like the DNC talking point it is - wil not make it true

How the hell would you fight terrorism - wave the white flag and hope they will not chop your head off?

[bullypulpit]

We do not torture - you saying it over like the DNC talking point it is - wil not make it true

How the hell would you fight terrorism - wave the white flag and hope they will not chop your head off?

A 2004 ICRC report characterized the treatment of deatainees at GITMO and elsewhere as torture. John Kiriakous recently described the techniques used against detainees as torture. FBI agents involved in the interrogations at GITMO described tyhem as torture. Sorry, but reality seems to have a liberal bias.

[red states rule]

A 2004 ICRC report characterized the treatment of deatainees at GITMO and elsewhere as torture. John Kiriakous recently described the techniques used against detainees as torture. FBI agents involved in the interrogations at GITMO described tyhem as torture. Sorry, but reality seems to have a liberal bias.

I saw a liberal bimbo of TV saying slapping, scaring, and threatening a terrorist is torture

Again, we do not torture terrorists. Libs are so obsessed with smearing their own country, they will not allow the facts to enter the discussion

[red states rule]

As far as waterbording, it has been used only 3 times BP. In addition to the link from ABC I posted on another thread - here is more



Waterboarding Has Only Been Used By The United States Three Times
By Rob on November 2, 2007 at 10:08 pm 6 Comments
And the last time was in 2003, given that it has been specifically forbidden by current CIA Director Michael Hayden.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA. . . .

As a result of Hayden’s decision, officials say, the most extreme technique left available to CIA interrogators would be what is termed “longtime standing,” which includes exhaustion and sleep deprivation with prisoners forced to stand handcuffed, with their feet shackled to the floor.

The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

In summary, we’re not waterboarding anyone currently. We haven’t waterboarded anyone since 2003, which is a decision the President made at the prompting of his CIA director. Yet for the last four years, Democrats have talked about waterboarding endlessly despite the fact that they themselves could at any time end the practice.

So why is this even an issue? If we’re not doing it, and the Democrat majority in Congress could end it at any time if we were, why all the fuss still? I think it has something to do with the fact that the left cares more about waterboarding as a rhetorical weapon against the President and Republicans than they do about the actual use of the tactic.

And hovering above all this is the fact that in one of the three instances when we did waterboard a high-level terrorist detainee...it worked beautifully. The guy spilled his guts, giving us information that stopped no fewer than 29 terror plots and likely saved thousands of lives.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/waterboarding_has_only_been_used_by_the_united_sta tes_three_times/

[glockmail]

You've merely deflected the question with a straw-man while utterly failing to answer it. You are becoming utterly brazen in your moral and intellectual bankruptcy. As for your "answer", you pulled it from the deepest nether regions of your arse in an effort to muddy the waters.

Are you OK with our soldiers being tortured should they be captured by enemy forces? Yes or no.

You've set up the straw man. Again, waterboarding is not torture when used for training and interrogation. I don't want to see anyone tortured.

More insults from you means victory for me.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

You've set up the straw man. Again, waterboarding is not torture when used for training and interrogation. I don't want to see anyone tortured.

More insults from you means victory for me.:laugh2:

Looks like BP ran away from his own thread :lol:

[bullypulpit]

Looks like BP ran away from his own thread :lol:

No, I just got tired of you two brain-dead idiots.

[red states rule]

No, I just got tired of you two brain-dead idiots.

New year, but same old BP

[bullypulpit]

New year, but same old BP

:puke3: Your shit is, has ever been, and shall always be weak. New year same Red.

[glockmail]

No, I just got tired of you two brain-dead idiots. You got tired of being wrong.

[red states rule]

You got tired of being wrong.

That is his natural state

[bullypulpit]

<blockquote>You got tired of being wrong. - Glockmail</blockquote>

<blockquote>That is his natural state - redstatesrule</blockquote>

If ignorance is bliss, you two must be delirious with ecstasy. :fu:

[red states rule]

<blockquote>You got tired of being wrong. - Glockmail</blockquote>

<blockquote>That is his natural state - redstatesrule</blockquote>

If ignorance is bliss, you two must be delirious with ecstasy. :fu:

If the deranged were blessed you would be a Saint

I see you are still adding your best to the debate. I see you never did respond to the ABC link that showed you were full of it on waterbording, and how it was used on huge numbers of terrorists

Those pesky facts keep getting in your way BP

[glockmail]

If the deranged were blessed you would be a Saint

I see you are still adding your best to the debate. I see you never did respond to the ABC link that showed you were full of it on waterbording, and how it was used on huge numbers of terrorists

Those pesky facts keep getting in your way BP
That is his natural state.

[red states rule]

That is his natural state.

Like MM, facts do cause him to meltdown and become unhinged.