No, I was just being a smart ass....quit being so paranoid.
That was the Declaration of Independence...and with that equality they also mentioned the responsibilities that came with it. I suggest you do some research.
Rights come with responsibilities.
Everyone is equal under the law. Laws of the land, laws of Nature, and laws of war.
And, under the laws of war, we could have summarily executed the bas s on the field of combat after a quick three-officer tribunal.
It's a ing war, not an MIP or DWI we're talking about.If your case is so strong, why not give them a fair trial?
Tell you what, we'll give them fair trials when the assholes stop chopping peoples' heads off. Deal?
It's not the desert of the Syrians, Iranians, Chechens, etc. either, but I don't see your ass crying over on Al Qaeda's message boards about that."in the desert shooting at American troops"
It's not the Americans' desert to be running around in, is it? you ing stupid twerp. The Americans are the BOGUS invaders, going after their oil in their country.
Damn boutons, you are the most pathetic, whiniest, wimpliest little pussy I have ever seen.
Not to mention a hypocrite.
[QUOTE]At some point you had to stop to think what you'd posted and thought "If ever was caught by alqueda, I very well damn know i wouldn't be given a fair trial. I'd be beheaded if demands were not met. But hey, that's beyond the point. I'll just ignore my own logic and type progressive blowhard material." I just wonder if you realize that the "idiot" you were talking to happens to think like a bunch of other "idiots" who served in uniform, that have a totally different oppinion than you and your hot air liberal ideas. The fact is, that conservatives who advocate torture only do so because it is a tool used for extracting info.
We also haven't won the war on poverty or on racism according to 99.9 percent of liberals. Therefore by your very own logic we should eliminate HUD, TANF, and the progressive tax code. WE should also do away with desegregated schools and affirmative action. But as proven your just a bunch of hot air and no analysis.When do we "end" this war? Have we won the "war" on drugs yet? You let me know when we can declare victory. Or maybe your senile flight-suited hero will declare "mission accomplished" to let you know we won. I doubt you have the mental capacity to figure it out without being told.
And by not having to give them (whose concept of a "fair" trial is less than anything worse our military has)a fair hearing under fed courts, that alone will not break our civilization. And since the cons uion does allow millitary tribunals, then we are acting within the law. Unless ofcourse you dont privately believe the cons ution itself is civilized.Moral duty to behave in a manner that befits a truly civilized people is what should drive us to do so. This "war" will not be lost because we choose to give these guys trials.
One can say the same thing about using force to stop Nazism. But you still haven't clarified to yourself or anyone why it is evil.We do not have to become evil to fight evil. That is the surest path to damnation.
No, they are more than just people. They are warriors and troops who even in our own society do not have the same rights as civilians.They are people.
The enlightment was about the way civilized society should govern themselves and how they should reason. Your argument is not anything of reason but of self righteousness.So there is no cause that we should be willing to die for? Coward.
A common charge from the right is that the left is somehow "soft" and unwilling to die for something greater than themselves.
This is simply the hyporcrisy of the right outing itself in yet another stunning display of immorality.
No small number of Americans have "given the last full measure" in defense of the ideas that sprang out of the Enlightenment.
I am more afraid that traitors like you will betray those ideals than a few people dying. I would feel the same if it were my life that was taken. I would rather the ideals we stand for live on after me, than to forsake them for temporary security.
One does not have to have a clue on what the world thinks in order to be validated. Groups are just as likely to be decieved. BUt again this was just another cheap shot. You have used world oppinion, your own code of morality, and liberalism to unjustify our military's action. But you have not used logic, the cons ution's laws, or sense of purpose.If I thought you had a clue what the rest of the world thinks on any given issue, I might respect your opinion. As it is you are as clueless as the rest of the sheep that can't think for themselves and have to rely on talking points to make your points for you.
I think your own words have indicted yourself. You stated you'd rather have our country lose lives than compromise your morals.Sorry I ain't buying it. I know how you are betraying our country, and sorry, but I won't let you get away with it without a fight.
Not even sure where to start with that pile of poop.
Half of it is simply a mis-reading of my post, the other half is simple logical fallacy.
^^How bout before even responding to anyone by calling them a fascist pig, start by qouting the law to call them such. In reality you can't post anything back because you are not sure of your own position.
AHF, you less, pre-pubescent wimp, come back when you old enough to keep up with the adults.
So their decapitatons justify the Repugs tortures?
The Repubs started this war. The Repubs invaded a foreign country that wasn't a threat to the USA. Did the Repubs make rules who could fight for the other side? Any non-Iraqis fighting the Repubs in Iraq are there ONLY because the Repubs are there.
btw, there a plenty of non-US-citizen "citizenship mercernaries" fighting for the Repubs in Iraq so they can obtain US citizenship. Maybe the Sunnis would like to rule against non-Americans figting in the US miltary, or would like to make a rule against 1000s of mercernaries and private militias fighting for US "interests" in Iraq?
I picture Boutons red faced, steam rising from his forehead and slobbering when he wrote this thread's le.
Here's one for you, Turkey666
Can you post anything that's not over top? How about coming here with a consise argument that is not random ranting and raving? Oh and the name calling had gotten old the 1000th time you did it, it's actually sad now. Talk about the issues, there's plenty there to talk about without having to go preschool.
User, who needs concise argument when you have Doonesbury comics.
User, who needs concise argument when you have Doonesbury comics.
user, if you're talking about political cartoons, GMAFB
For my or other words posted here, I'm much serious, coherent, issue-oriented, attack posters only when attacked (which is almost constantly). eg, you have posted nothing about the ISSUES raised in this thread, only an attack on me. So take your "over the top" advice, and ram up your over-worked, ripped anus.
Below is more evidence the Darth head is compromising not only any principles that most Americans support, but compromising various depts of the US govt. Even the spooks think the guy is way outta line. The guy is insane, don't be fooled by his macho con job words. I'm sure when history looks back on the administration and the Repub war, head will be seen as the architect of failure, if not an actual criminal.
===========================
The New York Times
November 9, 2005
Report Warned C.I.A. on Tactics In Interrogation
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 - A classified report issued last year by the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general warned that interrogation procedures approved by the C.I.A. after the Sept. 11 attacks might violate some provisions of the international Convention Against Torture, current and former intelligence officials say.
The previously undisclosed findings from the report, which was completed in the spring of 2004, reflected deep unease within the C.I.A. about the interrogation procedures, the officials said. A list of 10 techniques authorized early in 2002 for use against terror suspects included one known as waterboarding, and went well beyond those authorized by the military for use on prisoners of war.
The convention, which was drafted by the United Nations, bans torture, which is defined as the infliction of "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering, and prohibits lesser abuses that fall short of torture if they are "cruel, inhuman or degrading." The United States is a signatory, but with some reservations set when it was ratified by the Senate in 1994.
The report, by John L. Helgerson, the C.I.A.'s inspector general, did not conclude that the techniques cons uted torture, which is also prohibited under American law, the officials said. But Mr. Helgerson did find, the officials said, that the techniques appeared to cons ute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under the convention.
The agency said in a written statement in March that "all approved interrogation techniques, both past and present, are lawful and do not cons ute torture." It reaffirmed that statement on Tuesday, but would not comment on any classified report issued by Mr. Helgerson. The statement in March did not specifically address techniques that could be labeled cruel, inhuman or degrading, and which are not explicitly prohibited in American law.
The officials who described the report said it discussed particular techniques used by the C.I.A. against particular prisoners, including about three dozen terror suspects being held by the agency in secret locations around the world. They said it referred in particular to the treatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is said to have organized the Sept. 11 attacks and who has been detained in a secret location by the C.I.A. since he was captured in March 2003. Mr. Mohammed is among those believed to have been subjected to waterboarding, in which a prisoner is strapped to a board and made to believe that he is drowning.
In his report, Mr. Helgerson also raised concern about whether the use of the techniques could expose agency officers to legal liability, the officials said. They said the report expressed skepticism about the Bush administration view that any ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under the treaty does not apply to C.I.A. interrogations because they take place overseas on people who are not citizens of the United States.
The current and former intelligence officials who described Mr. Helgerson's report include supporters and critics of his findings. None would agree to be identified by name, and none would describe his conclusions in specific detail. They said the report had included 10 recommendations for changes in the agency's handling of terror suspects, but they would not say what those recommendations were.
Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, testified this year that eight of the report's recommendations had been accepted, but did not describe them. The inspector general is an independent official whose auditing role at the agency was established by Congress, but whose reports to the agency's director are not binding.
Some former intelligence officials said the inspector general's findings had been vigorously disputed by the agency's general counsel. To date, the Justice Department has brought charges against only one C.I.A. employee in connection with prisoner abuse, and prosecutors have signaled that they are unlikely to bring charges against C.I.A. officers in several other cases involving the mishandling of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the current and former intelligence officials said Mr. Helgerson's report had added to apprehensions within the agency about gray areas in the rules surrounding interrogation procedures.
"The ambiguity in the law must cause nightmares for intelligence officers who are engaged in aggressive interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects and other terrorism suspects," said John Radsan, a former assistant general counsel at the agency who left in 2004. Mr. Radsan, now an associate professor at William Mitc College of Law in St. Paul, would not comment on Mr. Helgerson's report.
Congressional officials said the report had emerged as an unstated backdrop in the debate now under way on Capitol Hill over whether the C.I.A. should be subjected to the same strict rules on interrogation that the military is required to follow. In opposing an amendment sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, Mr. Goss and Vice President Cheney have argued that the C.I.A. should be granted an exemption allowing it extra la ude, subject to presidential authorization, in interrogating high-level terrorists abroad who might have knowledge about future attacks.
The issue of the agency's treatment of detainees arose shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, after C.I.A. officers became involved in interrogating prisoners caught in Afghanistan, and the agency sought legal guidance on how far its employees and contractors could go in interrogating terror suspects, current and former intelligence officials said.
The list of 10 techniques, including feigned drowning, was secretly drawn up in early 2002 by a team that included senior C.I.A. officials who solicited recommendations from foreign governments and from agency psychologists, the officials said. They said officials from the Justice Department and the National Security Council, which is part of the White House, were involved in the process.
Among the few known do ents that address interrogation procedures and that have been made public is an August 2002 legal opinion by the Justice Department, which said that interrogation methods just short of those that might cause pain comparable to "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death" could be allowable without being considered torture. The administration disavowed that classified legal opinion in the summer of 2004 after it was publicly disclosed.
A new opinion made public in December 2004 and, signed by James B. Comey, then the deputy attorney general, explicitly rejected torture and adopted more restrictive standards to define it. But a cryptic footnote to the new do ent about the "treatment of detainees" referred to what the officials said were other still-classified opinions. Officials have said that the footnote meant that coercive techniques approved by the Justice Department under the looser interpretation of the torture statutes were still lawful even under the new, more restrictive standards.
It remains unclear whether all 10 of the so-called enhanced procedures approved in early 2002 remain authorized for use by the C.I.A. In an unclassified report this summer, the Senate Intelligence Committee referred briefly to Mr. Helgerson's report and said that the agency had fully put in effect only 5 of his 10 recommendations. But in testimony before Congress in February Mr. Goss said that eight had.
Some former intelligence officials have said the C.I.A. imposed tighter safeguards on its interrogation procedures after the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison came to light in May 2004. That was about the same time Mr. Helgerson completed his report.
The agency issued its earlier statement on the legality of approved interrogation techniques after Mr. Goss, in testimony before Congress on March 17, said that all interrogation techniques used "at this time" were legal but declined, when asked, to make the same broad assertion about practices used over the past few years.
On March 18, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, the agency's director of public affairs, said that "C.I.A. policies on interrogation have always followed legal guidance from the Department of Justice."
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Good job with the name calling Boutons. I can't take anything you say seriously with all your "shrub, darth head, repub/repug" comments. Unless your point on this board is just to be a loud mouth, you're not accomplishing your goals. If you took the time to actually debate things with a cool head maybe people would care to listen to you. Right now, you appear to me as an angry barking dog with a possible case of rabbies. If what ideals you are championing in your statements are important to you, you should try and not alienate so many people that might have an open ear. It's too late for Dan on Yoni, don't become a characture.
Torture is awesome! Just wanted to imagine boutons jugular swell like a gardenhose while cut and pasting a Ben Sargeant Comic.
amazing imagery, gtown. You're my favorite poster
You're obviously just complimenting him so you don't get your ass handed to you on a silver platter.
________
Web shows
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:51 PM.
quiet, liberal!
*spits ice water all over monitor*
OH gee! Thanks for the compliment. WIth freinds like you, who needs toilet paper?
your non sequiturs are what I love the most, Gtown
AHF, you less, pre-pubescent wimp, come back when you old enough to keep up with the adults.
So their decapitatons justify the Repugs tortures?
The Repubs started this war. The Repubs invaded a foreign country that wasn't a threat to the USA. Did the Repubs make rules who could fight for the other side? Any non-Iraqis fighting the Repubs in Iraq are there ONLY because the Repubs are there.
btw, there a plenty of non-US-citizen "citizenship mercernaries" fighting for the Repubs in Iraq so they can obtain US citizenship. Maybe the Sunnis would like to rule against non-Americans figting in the US miltary, or would like to make a rule against 1000s of mercernaries and private militias fighting for US "interests" in Iraq?
Keep up with the adults?
Tell you what you ing twit
Go read something about the Muslim Conquests, about the Crusades, and get back to me.
What's going on right now is another phase of the same . Look at Europe, look at the Middle East. Osama has initiated another run at the Muslim Conquest of the ing world.
But like I said, idiotic bas children of the left won't get it until a couple of nukes go off here on the continental U.S., that or some jihadist shows up at your ing door and tells you to take the name of Allah or he puts a bullet between your eyes.
Keep up with the adults? Look at yourself. You don't know jack about history, show no grasping of any logic whatsoever, and grace every ing post with nothing but name calling and profanity.
So where did W. attack you on this forum to deseve all the "other words" you've posted here?For my or other words posted here, I'm much serious, coherent, issue-oriented, attack posters only when attacked (which is almost constantly)
And you deserve all the attacking you get on this forum. You have a diaper rash of the mouth, and you make Dan look like a pacificst of all things.
I don't know where to start with you. I can't figure out if you need to get a history book, get a clue, or just get some.
boutons is the liberal version of gtownspur... where there is a ying, there is a yang.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
