Apparently tortured logic is constituional as well.

The 8th Amendment deals with cruel and unusual punishment. Punishment in the context of that amendment is most likely "a penalty imposed for wrongdoing." An example of this would be ripping out all your teeth for speeding, or imprisoning you for life because you jay-walked.

To say that the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" applies to the torture of a suspect is indeed, a stretch. The term "punishment" suggests that the deed has been done, the person has been convicted, and the penalty is now being handed down. Harsh interrogaton or even torture is not a "punishment" for anything. At that point in the process it's very possible that no wrongdoing has been proven at all, and the torture therefore could not be considered a "punishment."

This analysis doesn't mean that torture is right, or that we should engage in it. It just means that the 8th Amendment as written doesn't appear to have anything to do with interrogation.

Well I disagree because the person is being punished:

1. You Are Implying He Broke The Law By Arresting Him.

2. You Are Inflicting Pain On Him For Not Giving The Answers You Want; Which Is "Punishment"

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is A Noted Sociopath Masochist. He Always Refers To The 24 Show 24 When Torture Comes Up. He Needs To Be Removed Or For Him To Go Through Exactly What He Claims Is Not Punishment Or Torture.

-Sarge

re. your post at 3:55, Well said Joe.

This whole thread is bogus anyway since Scalia never mentions "torture" at all, but is discussing "enhanced interrogation techniques" so Fromage is making an accusation in his headline that is not supported by the article.

BOWA,

I Heard Him And He Did Say Torture.

-Sarge

What a useless pile of Garbage Scalia is and anyone who supports what He says. What rotten people We have as Americans.

Larry Mohr

What a useless pile of Garbage Scalia is and anyone who supports what He says. What rotten people We have as Americans.

Larry Mohr

"This whole thread is bogus anyway since Scalia never mentions "torture" at all, but is discussing "enhanced interrogation techniques" so Fromage is making an accusation in his headline that is not supported by the article."

What in the hell do you think "enhanced interrogation techniques" are, anyway? A foot massage and a manicure?

I Heard Him And He Did Say Torture.

Sarge, in what context did he use the word "torture" -- from the article, he only uses the term in a mocking way to describe those self-righteous types who would call a "slap in the face' torture.

But did Scalia actually say real torture, you know things like breaking someone's limbs, drilling people's eyes out and putting their limbs in wood chippers are constituional?

BOWA In Was On NPR Yesterday Afternoon He Said Torture. He Attempted To Say Torture Only Happens When You Are A Prisoner, But It Is Not Torture If You Are Asking Questions, Then It Is Not Punishment.

-Sarge

"Well they are"

Great reply, dummy.

Well the Geneva Conventions are not in the Constitution and Scalia is not qualified to interpret them.

His job is to interpret the constitution of the United States, NOT International Treaties.

Scalia's opinions on international law aren't relevant no matter how wet Bowa's pussy gets when she reads them.

"Well I disagree because the person is being punished:

1. You Are Implying He Broke The Law By Arresting Him."

No you aren't. Even if so, it is not a punishment. Punishment is the penalty for wrongdoing. Interrogation is not penal in nature. It is investigative in nature. If the tactics used are considered too physical, the goal is still that of investigation and not penal.

"2. You Are Inflicting Pain On Him For Not Giving The Answers You Want; Which Is "Punishment""

The 8th Amendment is not written for the interrogation process. Read it and show me where you gather that it prohibits anything in an interrogation.

"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is A Noted Sociopath Masochist."

Noted by who?

"He Needs To Be Removed Or For Him To Go Through Exactly What He Claims Is Not Punishment Or Torture."

He never said it isn't torture. He said that the 8th Amendment doesn't cover torture in the interrogation context.

If you wrote a document about prison sentences and someone later stated that your document covered interrogations, and you came out and said "no it doesn't," that wouldn't mean that you support torture within interrogations. It just means that you differ on the analysis of what the document covers. Frankly I think it's sick that you would wish someone be tortured just for their differing (and perfectly reasonable) interpretation of the language of the Constitution.

Lokisfur waterboarding IS Torture. We convicted Japanese Miitary for doing it upon American Servicemen and Civilians. Now how can You declare that is not torture and have any symbolance of credibiity??

Larry Mohr

What I find obnoxious is the assumption that just because Scalia thinks that the 8th Amendment doesn't apply to interrogation, that this means he supports the use of torture. For all you know he could support legislation or executive orders that would limit the use of aggressive interrogation techniques. Just because you don't think the 8th Amendment covers interrogation doesn't mean you support any particular interrogation tactics. That assumption is just more bullshit from whiny leftists who don't make the effort to understand Scalia's position on much of anything. If you morons read half his opinions without seeing the name, you'd probably agree with him and think he's brilliant.

Unfortunately the folks being water-boarded are not being PUNISHED for anything. They're being INTERROGATED so that the powers that be can decide whether they OUGHT to be punished. The same system worked in the inquisition and in Nazi Germany: "Interrogate" 'em first, then try 'em, sort of, and only after that have 'em torn limb from limb. herm

"What I find obnoxious is the assumption that just because Scalia thinks that the 8th Amendment doesn't apply to interrogation, that this means he supports the use of torture.

Posted by JOE at 2008-02-13 06:16 PM"

Oh give nme a fucking break, Joe. You know that if Scalia got the chance to see some young man be tortured he would feel a thrill going up his leg.

Unfortunately the folks being water-boarded are not being PUNISHED for anything.

Given that "waterboarding" was only used 3x against known enemy combatants with actionable intel, for very specific reasons, exactly what "folks being water-boarded" now are you talking about?

No Monte, I won't. It doesn't surprise me that a bunch of liberals think that a judge's Constitutional interpretation conforms to his worldview.

If that were the case, he wouldn't have ruled in favor of flag-burning, which he is openly opposed to.

Joe - you may wish to call the Drudge Lost & Found. I think someone may have found your sense of humor.

Hey Joe it IS punishment for not giving the "Investgator" the information that He wanted so You see Joe You are wrong yet again.

Larry Mohr

I can not believe We have Americqan Citizens Yes they are American Citizens but they aren't AMericans because they would not be excusing torture away. Still thinks Waterboarding is AOKAY no matter how many times it has been done. Funny Past Americans condemned it and prosecuted those who commited it.

Larry Mohr

Waterboarding is not Constitutional. To say it is, is an insult to the Constitution

When did he say that?

If it's not torture then why are we using it? Why would anyone give up info if it's not torturous?

I wonder if Scalia would think torture--aka, enhanced interrogation--is OK if it were deployed against some of the Neocons that lied to get us into a war in Iraq?

Makes you wonder.

Why would anyone give up info if it's not torturous?

Ask John 'Shotdown' McCain

He would be the best person to answer your question.

"We hung Japanese as war criminals for waterboarding.'

But they were just Japs.

This whole thread is bogus anyway since Scalia never mentions "torture" at all, but is discussing "enhanced interrogation techniques" so Fromage is making an accusation in his headline that is not supported by the article.

Posted by Bowa
Naaaaaaa..... Would a loosie lefty do that?

What the hell have we got for leaders in Washington? Some how we have managed to do(essentially) without such useless crap. To all such leaders regardless of political alliance, Your days aren't numbered they are done. Either get out while you can or face the charges that will be brought in your case.

They say that impeachment is off the table? Peloesi, your job will be given to someone that will do it. The same for all of our legislatures, work as you were elected to or resign. There are people interested in improving the US. It seems fairly obvious you aren't.

Those approval numbers that suck, that is your performance index. Neither party has anything to be proud of.

While not meaning this as a threat. Remember the old joke about the revolution?

When the revolution come the first ones against the wall will be the attorneys. I'll leave the rest to you over worked imagination.

A pure example of judges legislating from the bench. This is why we need to put conservative judges on the courts and keep these lib judges at home.

Hold on a sec, my wife is calling me...

I'm back, my bad folks, she just told me that Scalia was a conservative.

A ding for zap. That is the same word I got nailed for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!

zap=zat

What do You think Enhanced Interogation Techniques are but Code word for T O R T U R E.

Larry Mohr

After viewing and participating in this debate for years, support for "torture" or whatever prissy word is used as seems to boil down to taste, in much the same manner some dogs prefer to eat cat shit over purina.

Now, conversing with dogs regarding their love of cat shit is instructive. No matter how much you reason with them, they persist in finding some special quality in the shit that makes gobbling great quantities of it worthwhile.

As a matter of fact, many dogs become wroth when their love of cat shit is questioned on gastronomic and hygenic grounds. They often counter that everyone should eat shit, and opine there's something terribly wrong (perhaps unpatriotic) with you if you don't scarf down as much as they do.

Same hypocritical pollyannas that were on the "bush defends torture" thread.

Given that "waterboarding" was only used 3x against known enemy combatants with actionable intel, for very specific reasons, exactly what "folks being water-boarded" now are you talking about?

Posted by Bowa at 2008-02-13 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Man I'm sure glad you are around here... You seem to know everything...

Got a fucking red phone to W's pad do ya?

Thank you lord someone has the courage to say so..
Waterboarding is not torture..
Liberism is tortue..

"Liberism(sic) is tortue(sic) .."

Posted by cmsa1r

illiterate flag squared

Waterboarding is not torture..

I have a rag and a bucket of water that says you'll feel otherwise.

Given that "waterboarding" was only used 3x against known enemy combatants with actionable intel

That you know of, bowa. How's rudy these days?

Hey Alexandrite let's make a very small ending to a Tranny Funnel and get a bucket of water and lets apply the Trany Funnel to His Nostriles and let us See if He thinks Waterboarding isn't torture.

Larry Mohr

"Waterboarding is not torture..

I have a rag and a bucket of water that says you'll feel otherwise."

Posted by Alexandrite

And when that's done, I have an anthill, some honey ...

I think its about time this guy retire for the good of the country.

Justice Scalia is in reality a sleazy,low life "Slime Ball" who only got his job because he's a total suck-up to anyone who has any power! His interpretations of the US Constitution are anything Corporate America tells him it is,no matter how treasonous!
Its no wonder America has lost so much respect in the world with criminal thugs like Scalia being pawned off as respectable authorities!

I have a rag and a bucket of water that says you'll feel otherwise.

Posted by Alexandrite


So sleep deprevation is torture then too?

What about hair pulling?

What about sitting in a room with a gassy fat man?

Forced to listen to country music?

I don't know if waterboarding is torture or not... but I know it works.

"Forced to listen to country music?"

I was chief engineer of KOKE AM&FM in the mid 70's, so I was paid to listen to that worthless, stupid, moronic crap.

No where near enough, though; I quit.

But forced? No.

I don't know if waterboarding is torture or not... but I know it works.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

I bet if they piped in Hillary's campaign speeches, those Camel jockies in Gittmo would sing like canaries.

"I don't know if waterboarding is torture or not... but I know it works."

No, you don't.

Hans

"No, you don't."

Probably the same argument as whether a death sentence would prevent crime. I think it's safe to say that for some it does. And for some, waterboarding breaks them. And I say good fucking job.

"Probably the same argument as whether a death sentence would prevent crime."

No, it "probably" isn't.

Hans

No, you don't.

Hans

Posted by Hans


KSM was waterboarded and gave info. It works.

Waterboarding has been around since the Inquisition (I think that's spelled wrong... zat will let us know)... and it hasn't just been used by perverted sickos. There is a reason America chose to use waterboarding on just these 3 invdividuals on a very limited basis.

Because it works.

No, it "probably" isn't.

Hans

Posted by Hans


Just can't get away from that liberal talking point that it never works...

It does. People break.

"It does. People break."

Point made.

You did.

Hans

Point made.


You did.

Hans

Posted by Hans


Making sense too difficult for you?

what?

"Making sense too difficult for you?"

Consider the source. He's the number one cut-n-paste specialist on the board today. I think the steak knives have "prolly" worn out and he's cruising for the matching set of recliners.

"There is a reason America chose to use waterboarding on just these 3 invdividuals on a very limited basis."

I presume The A Hole would be equally nonchalant if we executed only three innocent people in American prisons. herm

I presume The A Hole would be equally nonchalant if we executed only three innocent people in American prisons. herm

Posted by herm


Actually I'm very much opposed to the death penalty (in almost every situation)...

Partly because it doesn't work to slow crime. But mostly because I think its wrong.

Liberism is a mental disorder..
Torture is a procedure to restore order..
Let us torture all the liberals..
Why worry about torture if you are not committing a crime?. Liberals always defend their enemies and hate people who protect them
It is really easy to torture a liberal; just show them President Bush's' pics. They get worked up..
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Idiots are depressed waiting for the government to deliver false promises. Get out off the Ridline and Prozac you idiots...

"Liberism is a mental disorder.."

Self-retorting retort.

Hans

"Partly because it doesn't work to slow crime."

It most certainly does for one person.

Liberals are flag voters; they are directed by CNN, MSNBC, MEDIA MATTERS AND PORN SITES on how to vote. They can not have a constructive ideas, always sing the same song "Impeach Bush" & " we are so bad" we need to be loved around the world.
Hey if your parents did not hug you, Chaves and Castro will not. So you either stand up or end your miserable lives and see if I care. I can can care less who is the president cause I work hard for myself. It is idiots who I can not stand, Yes you..
I am over taxed to transgender and drug addicts can have a meal and a home....damn it...give my taxes back...

It most certainly does for one person.

Posted by happyending


That is certainly true, but then again keeping them in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives would accomplish the same thing.

Hans your sister is here she spent the night..this is not a grammar class you idiot..
You are too stupid to be on the blog...
Are you out of depression pills? I will send your sister to the store on her way back home.

"They can not have a constructive ideas, always sing the same song"

Posted by a dittohead at 2008-02-13 09:44 PM

"...would accomplish the same thing."

Perhaps from societies perspective. From the victim's perspective? Worlds apart. I side on the victim. We all have choices to make and if you make one that gets yourself on death row (and it's proven b-a-r-d), you fucked up. Life's to short to rehab everyone.

"Life's to short to rehab everyone."

Posted by Pontius Pilate at 2008-02-13 09:50 PM

Life's to short to rehab everyone.

I didn't say anything about rehab... I said solitary for the rest of their lives. I don't think murderers should ever be allowed to rejoin society, but I don't think our government should be killing people who aren't a threat anymore either.

Count of Monte Christo style prisons where the most human contact the prisoners ever have is a hand through a door would probably deter crime in my opinion... worth a shot.

scalia is a turd.

Whatever happened to STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM, you fat fuck?

I guess it doesn't apply when you've got brown people to torture. Scalia disgusts me.

Scalia disgusts me.

Posted by Enfilade


Well now he'll reform his whole life...

"but I don't think our government should be killing people who aren't a threat anymore either."

Why not? I'm all for making jobs, but a Monte Christo prison? There's good and evil; you have to kill the evil. I don't understand the fascination of killing one form (abortion, euthanasia) and the disatisfaction of killing another form (serial killer, terrorist).

I also don't understand how folks can be presented with two completely different constructs, yet not be able to make connections at a fundamental level.

I don't understand the fascination of killing one form (abortion, euthanasia) and the disatisfaction of killing another form (serial killer, terrorist

I'm personally against all of that

I'm all for making jobs, but a Monte Christo prison?

Why not? Reopen Alcatraz Island (and many more like it), but rebuild it so its only solitary confinement, then only send murderers there.

You'd have jobs like you mentioned, but you'd also be forever removing a lot of murderers from our society... win/win

"Not being able to make connections at a fundamental level...."

If irony were poison, you died about four minutes ago.

"Worlds apart, I side with the victim...."

Waterboarding will become torture again the instant someone you like experiences it.

At least that Neanderthal understood who he is. I've come to realize you're so confused on this subject you can't tell when you argue against your own position.

"Waterboarding will become torture again..."

I never said it wasn't torture; I just think it's a useful tool. If anyone I know becomes a terrorist, oh well...

Keep up the good work, I say.

Enjoy!

"If anyone I know becomes a terrorist...."

By which you mean to say, if anyone you know is described as one. After these last eight years, you still have no understanding of how things work.

To reframe Donner's point, if you torture the accused but he insists he is innocent, you torture him more until he sees the light.

"if you torture the accused but he insists he is innocent, you torture him more until he sees the light."

Whatever, Zed. If anyone is worth torturing, they're worth torturing to death. That's how I'd run the show.

Later, loser.

No weapon should be made unless it vaporizes.
How many soldiers return home without arms or legs?
How many soldiers are coming home mentally ill?

War is torture, but we won't outlaw it.

War is torture, but we won't outlaw it.

Posted by Petrous at 2008-02-13 10:37 PM | Reply


Too much money involed in it.

Larry Mohr

if you torture the accused but he insists he is innocent, you torture him more until he sees the light.

Posted by Zed


Waterboarding was only used on three known terrorists for a very short period of time and then it was stopped and never used again.

To suggest that has destroyed America, or that we're going around randomly torturing innocent civilians just to get them to confess is silly

War is torture, but we won't outlaw it.

Heck, we only use war as a last resort. Or so I've been told.

DOES THIS FUCKING ASSHOLE UNDERSTAND THE "CONSTITUTION"..."NO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT"..FUCK THE LAW, JUST HAND OUT THE SIX-GUNS AN LET EVERY MAN FENDS FOR HIMSELF!!! SCALIA, WHAT A FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!

"Liberism (sic)is a mental disorder.."


ha ha

I've noticed that not a single person in this thread has provided an argument for how the text of the Eighth Amendment somehow bars any kind of interrogation technique.

All I've seen from people is more of the same: waterboarding is torture, torture is wrong, Scalia is an asshole. Get it straight. SCALIA NEVER SAID THAT TORTURE ISN'T WRONG. He said that nothing in the Eighth Amendment addresses it.

It isn't his job to say whether torture is wrong. It is his job to say whether the constitution addresses it, or whether particular laws, as written, should be construed to bar it. It is the job of the president via executive orders or the legislature via written law to tell us whether torture is wrong. That is not Scalia's job and that's why he has never said anything either way.

The Eighth Amendment addresses punishment. Penalties for committing bad acts. It does not address interrogation techniques. People who argue that enhanced interrogation constitute "punishment" might be correct in the abstract. But that's not the context of the Eighth Amendment. And nobody has offered any information to the contrary.

Waterboarding was only used on three known terrorists for a very short period of time and then it was stopped and never used again

You would know this-how?
That's an awfully certain statement for someone on a political blog.

Hey Joe You know how I can tell You are dead wrong and so is Scalia We prosecuted Our own for torturing in Vietnam. If it was Constitutional Then they were Prosecuted for something that was AOKAY by the Constitutional Standards. What say You NOW Joe.

Larry Mohr

Given that "waterboarding" was only used 3x against known enemy combatants with actionable intel, for very specific reasons, exactly what "folks being water-boarded" now are you talking about?

Posted by Bowa


Waterboarding was only used on three known terrorists for a very short period of time and then it was stopped and never used again.


Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole



It seems both Bowa and A-hole have perfected the right wing talking points. They seem to believe whatever the admin tells them, without question.

If waterboarding is ever ruled torture, then Bush is an admitted war criminal, which would cause me to change my mind and support televised executions.

We only broke the law 3 times and they were very bad men! We did it to protect you, America.

-The Bush administration.

Hey, they've never lied to us before, right?

Waterboarding was only used on three known terrorists for a very short period of time and then it was stopped and never used again.

And all videos of this "very short period" and "limited use" are now deleted. How convenient.

Joe,


I've noticed that not a single person in this thread has provided an argument for how the text of the Eighth Amendment somehow bars any kind of interrogation technique.

All I've seen from people is more of the same: waterboarding is torture, torture is wrong, Scalia is an asshole. Get it straight. SCALIA NEVER SAID THAT TORTURE ISN'T WRONG. He said that nothing in the Eighth Amendment addresses it.

I think the reason for this is that many people believe that it's the judiciary's job to decide 'what's right'.

They're wrong.

I guess some people have too much Earl Warren on the brain.

well blow me down

These "Strict Constitutionalists" actually interpret the document to suit their own prejudices against poor people. So our Scalia appointed Government can torture, kill, maime, destroy and displace millions of human beings while calling it "Freedom & Democracy"; OJ and Exxon can do what they want, but the poor and middle class are subject to the law, even including torture. Scalia deserves a dose of his own medicine. Better still would be to impeach the son-of-a-bitch.

All you right wing apologists feel safe right now, but if you are declared to be a terrorist under BushCo law you lose all rights once guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to challenge that designation. Shrub has not made us safer, or stopped terrorist attacks. He has only made things worse. All the while lying about it.

Nutcase,


I disagree with you most of the time.

Nevertheless, I have found that your statements, while often absurd on their face, are reasonably premised and not nearly so absurd when fleshed out.

Can you expound upon your last post?

"If someone is worth torturing, they're worth torturing to death...."

The man that's decided who gets tortured to this point has been George Bush, who has demonstrated himself an idiot.

Nutcases' post is brilliant, absolutely on point.

Nutcase ain't Whistling DIxie that is for Sure. He is SPOT ON Target.

Larry Mohr

Hey Joe I would love to Hear how if We prosecuted Our own and Declared Torture Illegal how their convictions were Upheld since Scalia declares that Torture is COnstitutional?? Care to Opine??

Larry Mohr

This type of thinking is typical of someone who is a genius but has no common sense.

Zed says, "Nutcases' post is brilliant, absolutely on point."

I'm sure glad you replied, since I was worried that the nutcase would avoid trying to reason his claims! I know you will ...

Let's start here:

These 'Strict Constitutionalists' actually interpret the document to suit their own prejudices against poor people."

I'm as dense as you all claim I am, because I just can't think of how this is done!?! Could you explain, please?

"So our Scalia appointed Government can torture, kill, maime, destroy and displace millions of human beings while calling it "Freedom & Democracy" ..."

How do strict constitutionalists accomplish this feat of power? I feel cheated that I haven't moved my 'millions', tortured my share and maimed any terrorists! Why am I denied?

"OJ and Exxon can do what they want, but the poor and middle class are subject to the law, even including torture."

I didn't know that Scalia was in charge of the OJ case? Wasn't that also attributed to Bush? How do Exxon and I get away with all of this murder and mayhem? How did I do it ... Bush?

"Scalia deserves a dose of his own medicine. Better still would be to impeach the son-of-a-bitch."

He needs to be moved, tortured, maimed and made poor?

"All you right wing apologists feel safe right now, but if you are declared to be a terrorist under BushCo law you lose all rights once guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to challenge that designation. Shrub has not made us safer, or stopped terrorist attacks. He has only made things worse. All the while lying about it."

What terrorist attack has been made on the USA, since the Iraq invasion? How would I lose my rights, if the 3 US terrorists aren't losing theirs?

Please answer as to what is so brilliant and true about this nutcase's claims ...

from above...

Scalia never mentions "torture" at all, but is discussing "enhanced interrogation techniques"

-BOWA


Just exactly what do you think "enhanced interrogation techniques" include: Parcheesi?

like duh dude... (grin)


Scalia reminds me of a character strait from
Goodfellas or the Sopranos...

Hes got "Gangsta" written all over him...

Once again, this just shows the lengths the Rethuglicans will go to, to get "their brand" of American Justice...they're still pining for another
G. Dubya "the Duke" Hickasaurus Cowboy...

Texas Gaschamber anyone??

"2003 May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected, etc."

How does this relate to those who interpret the Constitution strictly? How did Scalia cause these actions to happen from the bench?

Are we on the same page (not likely) ...?

What terrorist attack has been made on the USA, since the Iraq invasion? How would I lose my rights, if the 3 US terrorists aren't losing theirs?

Please answer as to what is so brilliant and true about this nutcase's claims ...


Posted by tadowe at 2008-02-14 09:04 AM | Reply

www.infoplease.com

2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 2931, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 1119, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

You had asked how many terrorist attacks have been upon the USA and there they are Taddy. Sorry the information hurts You.
Larry Mohr

When is someone going to get around to water boarding some of our soldiers and posting the videos on the web?

I think it would be fun to see our troops water boarded don't you?

I mean heck, it's not like it is torture or anything.

I bet our soldiers can last longer then those other killers.

Maybe Simon could be the judge.

Let's water board our own troops and toughen them up.

Or would some of you not like that?

Stop torturing me, Bowa

You've been posting that Smoking Gun thing every week for the last two years....

There have been 28 attacks within US borders since 9-11, but you'd never know it from listening to the Republican spin machine. Most have been lone attackers, a Cesna into a Florida highrise, the ElAl Airline Ticket counter in LA Airport, Trolley Square in Salt Lake City...The spin machine continues to claim success, even pretending they had no warnings before 9-11 and getting away with that blatant lie. Rice's lifetime friend chaired the 9-11 committee and censored anything and everything to the dismay of the Jersey girls.

Politics is ALWAYS a fight between the rich and the poor, because the best interests of those two groups are always at odds. The labels Communist, Capitalist, Conservative, Liberal mostly serve to confuse the public as to what is going on in every country, with or without elections. They provide an intellectual distraction while wholesale stealing takes place.

The UnDemocratic nature of our legal system should be obvious to any thinking person and transcends the individual Scalia and the issue of torture. If you're rich you get more time, attention and influence. Thus OJ gets 11 months of the Courts time and Exxon gets 18 years to fight the Valdez fines. A poor black man, falsely accused of murder, would be lucky to get three days of Court time. Its not that we have no justice, its that the price of access is off the charts.

The PNAC planned and carried out an unprovoked attack on Iraq, which we are paying for and they are profiting from. They commit these crimes with complete legal immunity. One of Cheney's stated goals in August 2000 was to raise the price of oil. He has very successful in using his position of power to implement his goals at the expense of everyone else in the country. He was also an Enron team player and helped that company fuck everyone in California. Scalia backed him on it by helping him keep all of his dirty deals secret.

Stop torturing me, Bowa You've been posting that Smoking Gun thing every week for the last two years....

As long as people continue to call "waterboarding" torture I believe it is important to show the distinction between waterboarding and the real torture practiced regularly by our enemies-- and show what self-righteous hypocrites the Lefties here really are.

We do waterboard our own troops, it's called "training", NOT TORTURE.

Larry-

"Hey Joe You know how I can tell You are dead wrong and so is Scalia We prosecuted Our own for torturing in Vietnam. If it was Constitutional Then they were Prosecuted for something that was AOKAY by the Constitutional Standards. What say You NOW Joe."

My guess is they were prosecuted for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is a set of laws that apply worldwide and has nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States. Like I said - people are free to write laws that make torture illegal. All that Scalia is saying is that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution does not address interrogation. If you can prove that the soldiers in Vietnam were somehow prosecuted for violating someone's 8th Amendment rights, then go right ahead. That's not what happened.

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Anyone can be the judge, but a reasonable reading of this amendment could include protections against torture. Note there is no mention of conviction or crime at all simply punishment is mentioned. I do not think it is a stretch to say that torture is a punishment for not being forthcoming with information.

We sentenced Japanese officers to 18 years in prison for waterboarding our soldiers after WWII.

I have never heard even one commant from Lefties showing the outrage at al-qaeda for using such techhniques against Iraqis, Afghanis, and US soldiers. Why is that?

-BOWA

Be careful of your Generalizations BOWA.
Yes, us "Lefties", as you like to label us
show outrage at torture. That does not mean
that we are complicit with the torture done by
other countries that we deem as Enemy States.
We certainly Don't Condone such practices.

Some of us are just worried that by doing as our
enemies are doing: 1). We become just like them
2). We encourage and indeed incite worse behavior
from them.

If one of us has to be Upstanding and Morally
Correct, I would rather have it be Our Own Government, no matter that it places a few
more constraints upon the way that we handle things.

Besides, there are agreements like the Geneva Convention which are upheld by a good portion of the World's governments. If we throw it out the
window, that means everyone else will. Do we really want that? Are we really prepared for that
type of world? I don't think so.

There is a reason why we don't just go willy nilly
and Assasinate the leaders of countries that we find
offensive, that's because if we did, they would do the same thing. Every action has its consequences.

It has been my experience that Evil begets Evil. And Morality, over time, and with a fair amount of education and patience, begets more moral behavior.

So here it is officially, from a quote "Lefty", unquote...

"I am outraged at the behavior of other countries, basically, at the banalty of Man in general, that he would Ever torture another human being. But given the propensity of Man to inflict harm upon Man, it seems to be part of Human Nature,
for the Moment. We have not grown that far yet, that we would be rid of it."

One last thing, to all you Republicans whom like to
label so much, and wrap yourselves in the flag and such...some of us "Lefties", just a few (insert sarcasm here), serve this country as Troops, and
in the Government, some of us even, like some people I know very well, make maps and decode things
that this countries security depends upon every day.

Just think about that "Righty" while you are warm
and comfortable in your expensive Right Wing house
that I cannot afford...

We do waterboard our own troops, it's called "training", NOT TORTURE 101Chairborne

Yea, training in enemy "torture" techniques---moron

"I do not think it is a stretch to say that torture is a punishment for not being forthcoming with information."

I do. You and everyone else who has made that argument knows it's a stretch.

Torture is not a "punishment" for not being forthcoming. Torture is a means of extracting information. Using your argument, any means used to extract information is a "punishment," including just asking the question in the first place, or getting in someone's face. Extracting information is not a punishment.

Come now Joe (Stalin?)

You can not honestly believe that the 8th does not extend it protection to prisoners that have not yet stood trial?

Furthermore, let us examine this definition:

torture
(tr'ch'r) pronunciation

n.

1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

tr.v., -tured, -turing, -tures.

1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See synonyms at afflict.
3. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.

Pay special attention to 1.

Torture, it has been proven over and over,
is a means to get someone to say exactly
what you want them to.

Almost everyone, unless they have had years of
"special training", submits and says and admits
to whatever you are accusing them of when
tortured, whether or not they have done the things
they say they have or not.

Most people will do anything, say anything, in order
to get the torture or "information gathering technique"--if you will--to stop...

And that's a fact you can take to the bank...

So how reliable is information gained under these
interogation techniques? Most often, fairly unreliable. Every so often, they get good info out
of the person they are questioning.

"You can not honestly believe that the 8th does not extend it protection to prisoners that have not yet stood trial?"

When did I say that? I said it only extends to "punishments" because that's what it says. Interrogation is not a punishment. It is a means of extracting information. If you think it's wrong, write a law saying so. The Constitution doesn't say it. That's my only argument and that's all Scalia said.

its not torture if you can hold your breath

Joseph, We were not talking about interrogation now were we? What we are talking about is torture. Did you perchance read the definition posted? Let me show it to you again:

torture
(tr'ch'r) pronunciation

n.

1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

tr.v., -tured, -turing, -tures.

1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See synonyms at afflict.
3. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.

See the pertinent information is in bold now. And I think there have been ample example of precedents that waterboarding is torture. I would say that the 8th does in fact blanket any and all punishment as there are no additional qualifiers attached to the statement.

would say that the 8th does in fact blanket any and all punishment as there are no additional qualifiers attached to the statement.

Posted by Salaryman at 2008-02-14 01:44 PM |


Correct me if I am wrong.... Every accepted technique used today would fall under that so called blanket.Including sleep deprivation, loud music playing etc. etc. etc. 1,2, and 4 of the definitions you posted.

I don't know if sleep deprivation or playing loud music would fall under cruel and unusual.

Joe-

I agree that the 8A doesn't necessarily apply as this person is not likely being punished.

However, doesn't torture violate the 5A in respect of the right against self incrimination?

Yea, training in enemy "torture" techniques---moron

Posted by navyvet50 at 2008-02-14 12:40 PM | Reply


Enemy interogation techniques you silly little ship bound cunt.

How can we as american even begin to think that this is civilized behavior?

During the last 7 years it's obvious, we have lost part of our humanity.

Things do not bode well.

"See the pertinent information is in bold now. And I think there have been ample example of precedents that waterboarding is torture. I would say that the 8th does in fact blanket any and all punishment as there are no additional qualifiers attached to the statement."

1. Nobody is saying that waterboarding isn't torture.

2. Your bold definition defines torture as "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment OR coercion." The use of the term "or" shows that torture is not ALWAYS inflicted as a means of punishment. Which is what I'm saying. In the context of an interrogation, torture is not a punishment. Therefore, the 8th Amendment doesn't apply.

_B_:

"doesn't torture violate the 5A in respect of the right against self incrimination?"

Not necessarily. If that were true, any form of interrogation would violate the 5th.

"In the context of an interrogation, torture is not a punishment."

Huh?

Of course it's a punishment, it's punishing the person for not giving the info (or not having the info)---I mean, you're not suggesting turncoats who willingly provide information are tortured, are you?

"Of course it's a punishment, it's punishing the person for not giving the info"

No it isn't. It's using a more offensive means to coerce the person to divulge whatever information it is that you're seeking. It is a violent and extreme method of interrogation. Interrogation is not punishment just because it rises to the level that makes liberals mad.

"you're not suggesting turncoats who willingly provide information are tortured, are you?"

No, I'm not. Frankly I have no idea where you came up with that.

"Of course it's a punishment, it's punishing the person for not giving the info (or not having the info)---I mean, you're not suggesting turncoats who willingly provide information are tortured, are you?"

Wha???

the real mechanism at work here is that the lack of torture is positive reinforcement for giving up information.

REMEBER though, the PRIMARY approach is positive reinforcement, not negative. before any guy gets to the point where waterboarding has to be employed to put him in an extreme undesireable alternative state, simple positive reinforvement is employed, such as, "tell me what village you are from and I will give you that cigarette you asked for".

for the tough, well trained terrorist, the positive reinforcemenneeds more significance, such as, " tell me who you worked with and you will not be waterboarded any more"

it's not actually punishment. its a horrifying state to be juxtaposed against a more desirable rewarding state. subtle but important difference.

hey Comrades, nice attempt to bring the constitution into this.

A) you Comrades hate the constitution and trample it until the time when you can find an argument (waterbpoarding scum terrorists) where you can suddenly try to apply It and uphold It.


B) Constitutional protections and rights do not apply to terrorist scum, dumbasses.

Fartknockers !

Fartknockers !

ask yovrselfs,
Komrades........

what would Komrade Josef Stalin do?

or maybe efin Komrade Che Guevarra ?

zee you at the Politboro , Kohmradtz !

this just heard from Comrade Hillary in a speech in Austin, TX::

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."

Joe are you really seriously trying to say that you can't make the leap of logic that torture is the punishment phase of interrogation? Are you really that obtuse or are you just trying to "win"by being obstinate until everyone gives up?

(Torture is) using a more offensive means to coerce the person to divulge whatever information it is that you're seeking."

How is that different from 'jail is just a more permanent means to coerce the person to stop the particular behavior'? Are prisoners ever, ever sentenced to torture? Or are you saying the torture tactics are allowable simply because they're NOT part of "the sentence"? Because one could argue everything from the arrest to the release is part of "the sentence".

"Frankly I have no idea where you came up with that."

Comparatives. You claimed "In the context of an interrogation, torture is not a punishment." Bullshit. An interrogation with cooperation doesn't include torture. Torture is punishment for not complying with the interrogation questions, otherwise, the MO would always be torture first, ask questions later. "Torture is not a punishment" reminds me of Mukasey's answer to waterboarding: he's not sure if it's torture, but it sure would be if it were done to him! I truly doubt you'd be able to convince the person being tortured he wasn't being punished. Or convince an independent observer.

"It's (waterboarding) not actually punishment...."

Fredo, stick your tongue into a light socket. The attendant experience is not really pain, but just an incentive not to do it again.

If you were in a zoo you'd throw feces at the children visiting you.

"I love how you stupid shits claim to know more about the law and Constitution than Scalia. You stick to taking it in the ass from canines, and Scalia will continue to comment on the Constitution OK Larry?"

I suspect that even Chairborne knows more about the constitution than Scalia. Were this not so, Scalia should be impeached for ignoring the constitution this often. herm

Herm,
You are a worthless little cog. That you pretend to know more than a member of the supreme court (or are even qualified to judge him and his credentials) is hilarious.

I'll bet you punch a time clock.

Herm,
You are a worthless little cog. That you pretend to know more than a member of the supreme court (or are even qualified to judge him and his credentials) is hilarious.

I'll bet you punch a time clock.

God You fucks on the Right Make Me sick. Joe Torture IS Punishment I don't know how dumb You m,ust be but if You torture someone it is because they would not go along with what You wanted so You tortured them. Oh and it is a Terroristic attack upon a person as well just so You know Joe.

Larry Mohr

Chair, that's at least as perceptive as the one willing to bet that I never was in uniform. Scalia is a disgrace to the constitution, and if he knew it and still ruled as he ruled, the disgrace would be even worse. I know four Repub uglies in robes joined him in inflicting Bush on the nation, but that decision was a low for jurisprudence anywhere. Oh - I've never punched a time clock.herm

Go fuck Yourself Chairborne and may You rot in hell.

Larry Mohr

A lot of constitutional scholars here.

What is Scalia's opinion of bombing cities of civilians? shooting people in combat? War in general? consititutional or not?

You are a worthless little cog. That you pretend to know more than a member of the supreme court (or are even qualified to judge him and his credentials) is hilarious.

Never let your knowledge get in the way of your agenda, Scalia. You can always twist things to get your way. I wonder what the other Supreme Court Justices would have to say about this? I suppose Scalia will need to recuse himself since he's publicly rendered a ruling.

Naw. That wouldn't happen. That's not a "Constitutional" requirement either.

I suppose Scalia will need to recuse himself since he's publicly rendered a ruling.

Now that is a good argument.

Where's my loan, Larry? Why are you dodging me?

We only used it 3x
We only used it 3x
We only used it 3x
We only used it 3x
No really, I believe the pentagon when they lie to me
We only used it 3x
We only used it 3x
We only used it 3x
We only used it 3x

-Bowa.

No really, I believe the pentagon when they lie to me

Fine argument if you are willing to not believe anything the Pentagon or CIA tells you ever again.

whatever.

Say good bye to the most fundamental principle of Western jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty. How much longer before torture is used in other areas, like drug laws?

The new Amerika:

In the middle of night, a SWAT team breaks down your front door, takes you out of your bed and carries you off to a secret hideaway cut off from the outside world. You won't get a trial until after years of torture, sleep deprivation and poor food. By that time, your mind is shot and you don't know what happened to you. The Joseph Padillo case opened the flood gates of more to come. It's already happening.

"Joe are you really seriously trying to say that you can't make the leap of logic that torture is the punishment phase of interrogation?"

Sure, I could make that "leap." But construing the Constitution shouldn't involve any "leaps." I'm sorry I'm not willing to "leap" all over our founding document in order for it to better fit what I think is right or wrong.

"How is that different from 'jail is just a more permanent means to coerce the person to stop the particular behavior'?"

It's not. What's your point? Jail is punishment. Interrogation in any form is not. Even if you were killed during the course of an interrogation, I wouldn't say they had punished you. I'd say they were far too aggressive in interrogating you.

"Are prisoners ever, ever sentenced to torture? Or are you saying the torture tactics are allowable simply because they're NOT part of "the sentence"?"

I never said they were allowable. I said the 8th Amendment doesn't address interrogation.

"Because one could argue everything from the arrest to the release is part of "the sentence".

No, one couldn't do that. A sentence is handed down by a judge. A judge doesn't arrest you. A judge doesn't interrogate you. To argue that an arrest is a punishment is stupid. When you are arrested, you are presumed innocent. When you are punished, you are proven guilty.

"You claimed "In the context of an interrogation, torture is not a punishment." Bullshit. An interrogation with cooperation doesn't include torture. Torture is punishment for not complying with the interrogation questions,

No, it is not. If that were the case, people who are offended by some other part of the interrogation process could claim that that part of the process is a punishment too. Is screaming questions at the witness a form of punishment because it makes his ears hurt? At what point do you draw the line that aggressive interrogation becomes a "punishment?"

In my opinion, since the 8th Amendment talks about fines and punishments, it was written as a command to the judiciary.

"Joe Torture IS Punishment I don't know how dumb You m,ust be but if You torture someone it is because they would not go along with what You wanted so You tortured them."

Wrong. If torture was a punishment, then you wouldn't pull people up after you tortured them and said "answer my questions." If torture was a punishment you would torture them and then walk out of the room. Torture is not punishment. It is a means of extracting information within the interrogation process. If you don't like it, make it illegal. Just don't rely on some unrelated portion of the Constitution and cry when Scalia tells you what it means.

If you're going to use punishment in interrogation then you would do that when the slob told you a lie.

You show him his deception and whip him a little. Treat him like a dog. But have proof that he is lying.

The way the Japs did it was to hold the nose and force a hose into a prisoners mouth. Men literally drowned. Very obviously a "punishment" according to their twisted minds, and entirely justified by their Code.

If you torture theirs, don't cry foul when they torture yours.

"It's not. What's your point? Jail is punishment. Interrogation in any form is not."

Interrogation, when the person can't leave, is jail by another name. Using your logic, 3 days in the slammer is punishment. 3 days of torture isn't.

"Even if you were killed during the course of an interrogation, I wouldn't say they had punished you."

Easier call when you're the one left alive in the equation, isn't it?

"I'd say they were far too aggressive in interrogating you."

When they killed the person. "...far too aggressive...". How positively Christian of you.

Because one could argue everything from the arrest to the release is part of "the sentence".

"No, one couldn't do that."

Of course one could. Otherwise, "time served" would be a misnomer.

"When you are arrested, you are presumed innocent. When you are punished, you are proven guilty."

A tragically ironic claim on a thread about some innocent folks being wrongfully tortured.

"...people who are offended by some other part of the interrogation process could claim that that part of the process is a punishment too. Is screaming..."

Sorry, I'm not going down that slippery slope. I'm happy to draw the line at techniques for which we've imprisoned our enemies in the past, and techniques we've signed treaties not to use.

"In my opinion, since the 8th Amendment talks about fines and punishments, it was written as a command to the judiciary."

Nice dodge. But the constitution applies to ALL of government. So...the judges can't use torture, but the cops can?!? How much different is that distinction to the innocent man on the short end of the stick? And to which branch of government do the cops belong, if not the Judiciary?

Fine argument if you are willing to not believe anything the Pentagon or CIA tells you ever again.

whatever.

Posted by eberly at 2008-02-14 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

But they were so honest about abu ghraib...

Is screaming questions at the witness a form of punishment because it makes his ears hurt?

Which is exactly like putting chemical lights in someone's ass, or drowning them. Once again, the torture we have been discovered doing is diminished by hypotheticals where "slapping" or "yelling" or "dunking" occurs.

Is this how you folks sleep at night?

Is this how you folks sleep at night?

Actually, Me and Mrs Buzz sleep with a twist light up our ass.

How do you sleep Alex?

Seriously, who are you voting for?

"If torture was a punishment, then you wouldn't pull people up after you tortured them and said "answer my questions.""

You're undermining your own point. The reason they "pull people up" is the folks know they'll be punished again if they don't "answer".


So let me get this straight: before you've been proven guilty, even before you've been charged, the police, (mainly) the enforcement arm of the judicial branch of government, can torture you in a myriad of ways a judge cannot allow the justice system to treat you if you are found guilty....

That's beyond the pale.

Stir the pot-

I asked how people that defend torture can sleep. Apparently it's by minimizing what we're actually doing(slaps instead of anal insertion) and making up "24" scenarios to justify it.

I can think of few thing LESS American than putting someone in prison for 5 years incommunicado with no charges, then torturing then. WTF happened to my country?

Didn't vote in the primary here since the delegates wouldn't count. In November, I don't know. I'll either stay home or vote for Obama. McCain and Clinton are NOT getting my vote.

Alex -

You must remember, those at GitMo are terrorists.

They are NOT POW's.

According to Wikipedia:

Qualifications
To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance", and bear arms openly. Thus, francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies may be excluded.

The key point is:

wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance",

NONE on the GitMo Terrorists fit those qualifications.

If you are so inclined, maybe we should house those prisoners of war in your house. Would you have a problem with that?

If not, I'm sure the US Government would be glad for you to detain the aformentioned Terrorists, in your name, at your house.

Keep in mind, if you accept this mission, every single terrorist in custody, wants to see your balls hanging from a stick with you attached, for the time being.

Later, they will butcher you like the American pig that you are and feed you to the fodder folks.

You must remember, those at GitMo are terrorists.

You don't know that. Which is the point.

I NEVER stated they were all innocent at gitmo, btw. But without trials and evidence, their guilt or innocence is totally at the govts discretion, which bothers the shit out of normal folk.

And frankly, I'm not surprised that yet another conservative is implying "please trust big brother". You guys used to be all about hating the govt and not trusting them when Clinton was POTUS. G Gordon Liddy was on the radio saying that the ATF sign on their hats was a bullseye. Now it's a complete fucking 180 since the POTUS is a republican. And before that HW Bush was talking about the "New World Order" and Conservatives were cumming in their pants over the prospect.

It's just partisan BS, plain and simple. Anyone that would trust the govt to be the sole arbiter of human rights and legal classifications without evidence is a pants pisser. In my not so humble opinion.

You don't know that. Which is the point.

The point is, those at GitMo have no feelings towards you. They would rather KILL you AND your family as to speak a kind word to you.

Why don't you see that???

You think our government just rounds up Muslims for the sake of rounding up Muslims?

You are so blind to what these people really want to do to you.

Oh I see: Bush=Naxi and you run like a dog?

Wake the hell up man.

Anyone that would trust the govt to be the sole arbiter of human rights and legal classifications without evidence is a pants pisser. In my not so humble opinion.

Well now you are coming around.

Do you belive MAN can and should rule you?

The point is, those at GitMo have no feelings towards you. They would rather KILL you AND your family as to speak a kind word to you.

Why don't you see that???

Then I guess Bush is a traitor for letting so many Gitmo detainees go free.

I'm sure you'll be signing a petition to get him impeached for that today, right?

You think our government just rounds up Muslims for the sake of rounding up Muslims?

They got paid a ransom in Afghanistan by warlords to turn over Taliban. Quite a few people in there were just rivals, and not terrorists at all. And our govt is full of stupid lifelong bureaucrats. I guess it was perfectly acceptable to distrust them when the POTUS was a (D) but now it's not. Just as it was OK for Sean Hannity and his ilk to bash the president every single day we were at war in Bosnia, ect...But not that it's BUSH any valid criticism of the war effort is TREASON, eh?

Don't let facts or bipartisanship get in the way of your pants pissing hypocrisy, beachbuzz/stirthepot. You haven't yet.

"Anyone that would trust the govt to be the sole arbiter of human rights and legal classifications without evidence is a pants pisser. In my not so humble opinion."

Well now you are coming around.

And you're not. You still believe Bush and co. when they tell you every person at Gitmo is a terrorist. Even though they let some of them go with no charge, explanation, or apology.

These nimrods have spent the last 7 years proving to you how stupid, reckless, and inept they are, but still you genuflect to their most basic and easily disproved talking points.

Shame on you.

BTW But without trials and evidence, their guilt or innocence is totally at the govts discretion, which bothers the shit out of normal folk.

Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. So it shouldn't bother you that Akmed the Terrorist is being detained.

Would you be so sad that Son of Sam was detained? Or Charles Manson?

Why do you people FEEL for the enemy? I have never understood this mentality.

Feels like a victims mentality. Where you abused as a child?

"Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention."

Then neither are alleged terrorists, even those later discovered to be innocent.

"it shouldn't bother you that Akmed the Terrorist is being detained"

It doesn't. It bothers me when Akmed the Shoemaker is being detained, and tortured, in my name. And when he won't give up information, he's tortured again until he does. And when that is found out to be false, they torture him some more, worse each time, of course. And when he finally gives up even more information that turns out to be false, and word comes in they caught Akmed the Terrorist...they realize he never knew anything in the first place, and let him go. That...bothers me.

You still believe Bush and co. when they tell you every person at Gitmo is a terrorist

Like I said before, do you believe "Bush and Co" would detain innocent folks if they did't have probable cause?

Bush and Co aren't in the business of Nazism. If a SOB is at Gitmo, then he deserves to be there.

Where you ever at Gitmo? No, because the BUSH Machine isn't after everone!!!

Paranoid fucks like you stir the pot of discontent in this world. You think tower 7 was brought down because of inside deomlitions?

Wake the fuck up!!!

Hold on a minute Alex...I have to take a call from Carl Rove. BRB

"If a SOB is at Gitmo, then he deserves to be there."

Guilty until proven innocent, right? And what if Ackmed is released tomorrow? Will you still say that?

It bothers me when Akmed the Shoemaker is being detained, and tortured, in my name.

Exactly.

Like I said before, do you believe "Bush and Co" would detain innocent folks if they did't have probable cause?

Oh, so we're gonna bandy about legal terms like "probable cause" but forget all the rest, like "Habeas Corpus" and "due process" and magna carta. I'll let the irony of that sink in, if possible.

If a SOB is at Gitmo, then he deserves to be there.

Since this is a lynchpin of your POV on the "war on terror"...you'd do well to actually prove this assertion, son.
Like, prove they're all guilty, and answer why Bush has let so many people who "deserved" to be a gitmo go free?

The Bush admin doesn't take power because they are nazis. They do so because they are stupid lazy bureaucrats. They do it in the name of expediency. You fall for it, like you probably did when it was called NWO. Then, when Clinton was in office it was "socialism" and govt became bad again to you people. Then Bush took over and NWO became WOT(war on terror) and Big brother is your friend again!

When a dem wins we'll be back to "socialism" and talking about how evil govt is. Y'all are transparent. It's not that you hate daddy figures or big brother, just the ones with a (D) by their name.

PS- WTC was not brought down by demolition. How insulting...

"If a SOB is at Gitmo, then he deserves to be there."

He must be guilty...the police arrested him!

...has got to be up there with

I can't be out of money, I still have some checks!

I have to take a call from Carl Rove.

I guess his base has really diminished if he's taking calls from 3rd rate PWZ trolls that can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag.

But you FEEL right and good, and that is what's important. Tell KARL I said "fuck you, fat boy."

FF for Danforth.

I feel bad debating this with BB. Like I'm stealing from someone with downs syndrome.

Thought this might be a serious and in-depth debate, but was truly wrong on that count. Adios...

It doesn't. It bothers me when Akmed the Shoemaker is being detained, and tortured, in my name. And when he won't give up information, he's tortured again until he does. And when that is found out to be false, they torture him some more, worse each time, of course. And when he finally gives up even more information that turns out to be false, and word comes in they caught Akmed the Terrorist...they realize he never knew anything in the first place, and let him go. That...bothers me.

Jesus Christ Man! You should have told me one of your Kin was abused. Can you back up ANYTHING you just posted?

Where do you left wing fucks get your moxi? I really want to know. Because so far you have only givin me lies and mythology.

As soon as you post a damn link to your above bullshit, Then, I'll give you some credit.

Until then, your Shoemaker "quotes" in my book, are not Google worthy and a fraud to the Drudge. Rcade should have a field day with you.

Still a Sophmore Alex? Get a damn clue!!!

Can you back up ANYTHING you just posted?

If a SOB is at Gitmo, then he deserves to be there.


Irony is a delicious thing.

Because so far you have only givin(sic) me lies and mythology.

Torture Is Constitutional?

Then BBQ'ing whores must be also.

It said U.S. officials had concluded some detainees were kidnapped for reward money offered for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Which I earlier said:

They got paid a ransom in Afghanistan by warlords to turn over Taliban. Quite a few people in there were just rivals, and not terrorists at all.

Am I psychic? No, I just read a similar story to larrys when it came out...YEARS AGO...and I paid fucking attention.

But all we get from Peachfuzz is 'lies and mythology'. Thanks for saving me the file search, larry. Appreciated.

Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.

Golly gee, I've never heard that part either, nor did I comment upon it many times before and including today.

Educate yourself before telling other people to "wake up" beachbuzz. Pay attention to your surroundings.

Not everyone in Gitmo is guilty of something. Deal with it.

Hey No Problemo ALexandrite ANYTIME.

Larry Mohr

Larry - If you can, please help Alex make his point. I have tried and tried.

"...your Shoemaker "quotes" in my book, are not Google worthy and a fraud to the Drudge. Rcade should have a field day with you."


My quotation marks were around your words, dumbass.

And if you believe we've never punished (read: tortured) people who one day turned out to be innocent, you're an idiot.

ALex doesn't need My help He is doing just fine on His own. You just don't want the truth is all Stir You know (Cough cough cough cough hack hack hack hack hack cough cough cough cough cough)

Larry Mohr

Larry - If you can, please help Alex make his point. I have tried and tried.

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2008-02-15 02:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

There are none so blind as those that cannot see. I've asked YOU again and again to prove all these men are guilty. Or to answer why bush has let so many of them go. You refuse to do either, because you cannot...which has been my point all along.

I've beaten you like a red headed stepchild tonight, and it wasn't difficult. All you have is raw emotion, and a belief in the Bush admin that is almost religious.

You're a tool for authoritarians, Beachbuzz. Not a particularly sharp one, but a tool nonetheless.

100 Terrorists. Auhh...probably cause they needed laundry...

Come on fucking people!! Why else would they be released? Lack of evidence? Maybe?

Doen't mean the entire population of terrorists are clean.

Who here is willing to welcome them into their homes???

I thought not!

Doen't mean the entire population of terrorists are clean.

Who here is willing to welcome them into their homes???

I thought not!

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2008-02-15 02:47 AM | Reply

Clean Terrorist such an Oximoron. If a person IS a terrorist then they aren't clean are they stir??

Larry Mohr

Why else would they be released? Lack of evidence? Maybe?

So if there was lack of evidence, then every "SOB at gitmo" doesn't belong there, like you said, do they?

Doen't mean the entire population of terrorists are clean.

And since you can't read, I'll repost what I said earlier to your stupid "have terrorists in your home" idea.

I NEVER stated they were all innocent at gitmo, btw. But without trials and evidence, their guilt or innocence is totally at the govts discretion, which bothers the shit out of normal folk.
Posted by Alexandrite at 2008-02-15 01:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Idiot.

Why does it have to be "they're all guilty" or "they're all innocent" in the tiny minds of Bushbots?

Is extremism/black and white all they can understand?

There are none so blind as those that cannot see. I've asked YOU again and again to prove all these men are guilty. Or to answer why bush has let so many of them go. You refuse to do either, because you cannot...

Okay.....you got me...I can not prove OR disprove your gay sex affiliation with me.


I'm willing to overlook your tendanacies, but I will say this: GWB proved himself to the world. More than I can say for you. He had a dream and a vision for the New World Order.

Peace Out brother...

Okay.....you got me...I can not prove OR disprove your gay sex affiliation with me.


And I'M the sophomore?

Feel free to come back and have your little puppy dog nose shoved into your own mess anytime, Beachbuzz. Have fun at PWZ for the time being, as it's more your speed: A place where everyone agrees so much that their critical thinking skills have atrophied.

Alex: Thats right! All Christians are bad and evil.

hehehee

What a dick.

The sad part is Beachbuzz will likely record this as some type of Horace victory, since I bothered to pay attention to him at all.

I shudder to think how many voting age people are capable of the same poor reasoning as this kid.

Did you answer the qusetion?

Let me rephrase for you.

Can man truly govern man?

All Christians are bad and evil.

Like I said, poor reasoning skills. Where have I ever even alluded to this idea?

No where. My best friends are christian, "dick".

Pray that someone lances the boil in between your ears, and soon. Some blood isn't making it's way to your brain.

GWB proved himself to the world.

As an idiot.

He had a dream and a vision for the New World Order.

And you prove my earlier point: Big Brother is OK as long as it isn't run by Clinton, or whomever the next dem president will be. To call you a partisan hack is to do a disservice to thinking hacks like Krystol.

Can man truly govern man?

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2008-02-15 03:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh goody. I'm about to get a lesson in morality and piety from a "man" that thinks 'guilty before innocent' and approves of fucking torture. I can barely conceal my giddy anticipation.

I'm serious.

Can man rule man?

Oh goody. I'm about to get a lesson in morality and piety from a "man" that thinks 'guilty before innocent' and approves of fucking torture. I can barely conceal my giddy anticipation.

So beyond that....

I told you I was serious...

Can man rule man?

If you want to redeem some dignity, argue your pro-torture big brother stance more effectively. I'm not in the mood to get dragged into as religious discussion with an asshole that just accused me(out of the blue) of thinking all Christians are evil.(they're obviously not)

Can man stay on topic?

Apparently not.

Alex

I'm thinking about it right now...

What do you think?

Do want to keep sparing with me?

Can Man rule Man?

Man can stay on topic.


Do you beleive?

Can Man rule Man?

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2008-02-15 03:23 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Does the Term Kings and Slaves mean ANYTHING to You??

Larry Mohr

They CAN physically rule, but represent is preferable.

I really don't want to have a God discussion with someone who believes in the most anti-Christian things I can think of: Arrest means guilt, and torture is acceptable.

Jesus wept.

Come on LArry...you can join too


Can man rule Man?

It's a simple question.

If you have a point I'd suggest you get to it quickly, beachbuzz.

So Alex, If I didn't arrest a man you would believe in me?

So Alex, If I didn't arrest a man you would believe in me?

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2008-02-15 03:33 AM | Reply | Flag

What the fuck are you talking about? Make a point. Do it now.

Let me cut to the chase:

I don't trust the bush admin. Not because they arrest people, but because they have been caught lying to and manipulating us countless times.

They told us they needed special rules for the detainees because they were so dangerous. No Lawyers, no charges, no communication. FOR YEARS. No timeline given for justice.

Then they let hundreds of these "dangerous" people go without any explanation or apology. And I'm just supposed to buy wholesale anything they tell me at this point?

Nevermind the fact that they got caught lying about FISA, Katrina, torture, Iraq, and damn near everything else...At this point anyone that takes the shit coming out of their mouths as gospel is a total clown.

Hey Stir Man has been ruling other Men for Thousands of Years. You always have the Bosses and the servants. It's not hard to figure out.

Larry Mohr

What the fuck are you talking about? Make a point. Do it now.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2008-02-15 03:34 AM | Reply | Flag:


We are trying...can't you see the light?

At this point anyone that takes the shit coming out of their mouths as gospel is a total clown.

ie-

"If a SOB is at Gitmo, then he deserves to be there."

Bozo.

We are trying...can't you see the light?

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2008-02-15 03:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

We? Taking turns typing open ended and pointless drunk bullshit with rex over there?

Sure sounds like it. Well, you've garnered my attention exactly X+1 posts longer than you should have, where X = 0. Goodnight.

PS- I'll come back in the morning to see if you ever arrived at a point.

If a SOB is at Gitmo, then he deserves to be there."

Bozo.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2008-02-15 03:40 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Thats Right. Can you not see between the lines?

How the fuck can you NOT see between the lines?

It's pussies like you that make me ill. Would you fight for your country? Would you little fuck? Dreaw bead on a target....meant for you?

You are a worthlesss prick/cunt.

I don't know what you are pulling!

I know what you are pulling. It's very small and flaccid.

Little fucking fag!

When people are seriously arguing that torture is not punishment, they are crazy or stupid, or are just so comfortable with hypocrisy they don't care.

You'll note how long and convoluted their moral defenses of waterboarding are. It's the same in right-wing forums. They seem to think if they can write 500 words on the subject of toture, they've ritually cleaned themsleves.

"_B_:

"doesn't torture violate the 5A in respect of the right against self incrimination?"

Not necessarily. If that were true, any form of interrogation would violate the 5th.
"



I disagree. You aren't FORCED to speak in interrogation, unless you're being tortured or facing some other coercive tactics. If my memory serves me right, this is the fundamental basis for the Miranda decision.

For those who use WW II as an example to state their case against waterboarding are not comparing apples to apples.

In WW II our enemies as well as the USA were supposed to be fighting under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

Some of those rules do include interrogation tactics and humane treatment of prisoners. A few other very key rules are that the soilders need to wear recognizable consistant uniforms. They also cannot target civilians.

Does Al Qaeda wear a recognizable consistant uniform? Do they make a practice of targeting civilians? How does Al Qaeda treat their prisoners?

If our enemy does not follow and fight by the rules of the Geneva Convention, then should they also be granted protection by it? Either they recognize the Geneva Convention or they do not.

__B__ nails it with the 5th.

"How positively Christian of you."

I refuse to debate with people who feel the need to assume things about me personally that simply aren't true. I'm sorry you're so scared of the imaginary Christian bogeyman that you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Christian. Seek help.

I still and will continue to say that a very reasonable reading of the 8TH proscribes torture of prisoners. In fact I would go so far as to say that if one will not accept that interpretation then that are mentally deficient in some way, or they are willfully violating the Constitution.

"I would go so far as to say that if one will not accept that interpretation then that are mentally deficient in some way"

Right.

Because someone disagrees with your amateur interpretation of our founding document, they are fucked in the head. What a fucking pompous moron.

"I refuse to debate with people "

Ha...I make a half-dozen salient points and you have a hissy fit about a bad joke.
How about dealing with the issues? Are you actually backing a system that allows police to torture folks not even charged, in a way the system can't do to them if they're found guilty?

"Are you actually backing a system"

Another lie. I never said torture was right. I said it's not prohibited by the language in the Constitution. If you think it's wrong, pass a law. Just don't pretend that the Constitution says anything about it.

"Are you actually backing a system that allows police to torture folks not even charged...."

Yes, he is. I'm still weirded out these people aren't weirded out.

The worst thing Bush and the neos have attempted to do to us is to change the nature of Americanism.

Vote Democrat in November. And remember that after November Bush isn't protected legally by office, and that Geneva is a fine place for a war crimes trial.

Sorry, after January 2009 Bush is't protected.

Joe, I must admit that you have me at a disadvantage.
You see, I actually believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way. Whereas you, judging by your posts believe in anything that will further your agenda. The truth is not a weapon for you to twist and turn to suit your needs it is the truth. The language is quite clear in my opinion:

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I suppose you live by the motto: "that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted." As such you are an agent of tyranny.

I say that when it comes to government: "That which is not expressly permitted is forbidden." And I style myself as agent of Liberty. (albeit a poor one.)

So sleep deprevation is torture then too?


Not to bother you with trivialities but... sleep deprivation has caused death.

You make the call.

HEY ZED ...

..." "It's (waterboarding) not actually punishment...."

Fredo, stick your tongue into a light socket. The attendant experience is not really pain, but just an incentive not to do it again.

If you were in a zoo you'd throw feces at the children visiting you......"

First of all, CIA interrogators are not EVIL. they do not wish to PUNISH the terrorist, they wish to coerce info out of them, therefore they resort to waterboarding TECHNICALLY to establish the atmosphere by which they can REWARD ( stopping the wtarerboarding) for the giving out of information....perhaps you did not realize I was comenting on the ideology behind interrogation, it is technically based on positive reinforecement, not negative.

Secondly, your illustration that if I stick my tongue in a light socket how could I not call it punishment is incongruent with the conversation at hand. My choosing my own stupid actions would seem like self inflicted punishment to me as well.

and Finally, what do you mean "IF" i was in a zoo. In fact, I am in a zoo. and I do not throw my feces i hoard them.

"Vote Democrat in November. And remember that after November Bush isn't protected legally by office, and that Geneva is a fine place for a war crimes trial."

Go ahead, criminalize one of the few American leaders with the balls to protect your sad ass from terrorism. You don't deserve to live in the United States of America. Why don't you go live in Geneva.

"First of all, CIA interrogators are not EVIL. they do not wish to PUNISH the terrorist, they wish to coerce info out of them, therefore they resort to waterboarding TECHNICALLY to establish the atmosphere by which they can REWARD ( stopping the wtarerboarding) for the giving out of information....perhaps you did not realize I was comenting on the ideology behind interrogation, it is technically based on positive reinforecement, not negative."

LOL. OK. So I'll cut all my employees' salaries by 50%. Then I'll offer to reinstate it, or a fraction of it (seeing as how torture can scar you for life) as a "reward" for agreeing to work twice as hard as before. And in the end, I've done nothing wrong.

I suppose that is considered sound logic if you voted for Bush twice.

"LOL. OK. So I'll cut all my employees' salaries by 50%. Then I'll offer to reinstate it, or a fraction of it (seeing as how torture can scar you for life) as a "reward" for agreeing to work twice as hard as before. And in the end, I've done nothing wrong."

BEAUTIFUL!!!! GREAT EXAMPLE YOU HAVE COME UP WITH MY COMRADE !!!!SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE COMMUNIST !!!

"Go ahead, criminalize one of the few American leaders with the balls to protect your sad ass from terrorism. You don't deserve to live in the United States of America. Why don't you go live in Geneva."

Having balls and protecting people are very different concepts. I realize some people think blindly charging out of a foxhole screaming at the enemy is the noblest act one can engage in. Others would say the act jeopardizes everyone else in the platoon and at the very least makes any plan of action harder to carry out.

pssst!, Zed, we Bolsheviks, we will stick together, da?.....DA !!!

Now I'm a communist. LOL.

Fredo, throw out some more labels..keep the crazy train rollin'!

I'm thoroughly entertained.

"protect ... from terrorism"

Where's Osama?

idiot

Kevin are they not chopping off American heads anyways? even before Gitmo existed? Are you saying that NOW THAT Bush has allowed waterboarding, all of a sudden the kindly terrorists will turn nasty on us?

Kevin are they not chopping off American heads anyways? even before Gitmo existed? Are you saying that NOW THAT Bush has allowed waterboarding, all of a sudden the kindly terrorists will turn nasty on us?

Fredo, Mehbe you dint get tha message The Great Ronaldus Maximus defeated them commies. You seem to be out of synch by a couple of decades. We don't have to be afraid of them anymore. It is the terists you are afraid of. say it three times: "Please, save me from the terists. They's gonna make me worship that shari laws! Please pertect us from the terists."

Then you will be back in alignment with your bretheren.

Hey you know what Salary, the Constitution's protections don't apply to terrorists. cut and paste it all you want, try to determine if there's a protection against cruel and unusual punishment or torture all you want.....The Constitution doesn't apply to terrorists, it applies to criminals held in the US legal system. These are enemy combatants. Who gets to decide if they are enemy combatants? the folks who already decided it. plain and simple. If U don;t like that, try to elect a Lib who can go and change all thato we can kiss allah's ass. Funny how libs will try to suddenly apply a strict constructionalist view of the Constitution as soon as it serves making an anti-American point.
BTW the commies are alive and well and making speeches to Mexicans in Texas and sitting on the DNC.

print this post and frame it until Novemeber 5th:

John McCain will without a doubt beat Hussein Obama (or Shrillary ) for one simple reason: At the end of the day, at the last moments, all of the undecideds who really don't have strong political feelings in any direction ( these are the swing votes that really decide the election).....as they enter the voting booths they will pull the lever for the person that they think will kill the most terrorists, deep down in their psyches that is what will motivate them, and the man who will kill the most terrorists, and that man is : .. Mo Green- uh, WAIT....sorry, and that man is.... John McCain.
as a Republican, I am not crazy about McCain. But this is why he will win the election and it is why Bush beat Kerry.

Fredo-
Maybe I'm out on a limb here, but I doubt that someone who refers to the Democratic contenders as "Hussein Obama" and "Shrillary" speaks for the nation.

First of all Fred, The only kind of lib I am is Libertarian if anything at all. Second... oh why bother there is no point I could make that would break your conditioning. You have bought hook line and sinker the new boogieman. The oft mentioned "terrorist" about as much of a threat to this nation as a horsefly is to a horse. You are so consumed by fear of the "other" that you roll over and expose your belly like whipped dog. You make me sick, Fido.

I was speaking of a large number of voters for whom this will be a deciding factor.......where did you get the idea that I am consumed by fear of terrorists.
I think it's nice to kill 'em though!
Hey -are you aware that they knocked down the WTC and also caused passenger airliners to crash in DC and in PA and killed 3000 people? Yeah, they did! people refer to the incident as '9/11" ...Hey! and did you know that since then, it is a fact that many terror cells have either inflicted death in Spain , London, or have been caught in the act of planning to inflict death here in the United States? huh? didja???
Or maybe it is Bush LYING !!!!! pass the koolaid Salary!

It sounds to me like Scalia has used the American Constitution for toilet paper while protesting the burning of a flag that represents a nation that no longer exists. Perhaps he needs a refresher course in American history.

After only one trip to Philly I got the impression that the USA was supposed to be a nation founded on due process, fairness and equality. If due process has been replaced by some bamboo shoots under the fingernail then what country have you become? If equality is only for the faithful then are you any longer the nation you aspired to be?

Scalia and his like would want the US to become something more ike the old Soviet Union - a nation held together by force and fear rather than hope and dreams.

Become better.

criminalize one of the few American leaders with the balls to protect your sad ass from terrorism

He is running out of time. When is he going to start protecting us?

I mean other than creating a bureacracy that rewards itself with "education training" in Maui and killing infants in airport detention centers.

I wouldn't go so far as to call bush a criminal. Incredibly incompetent, negligent and fraudulent... well I guess that is criminal.

But I would call him.....

Worst. President. Ever.

BTW, wasn't this shitbag Scalia the one caught on camera giving the press the "finger" coming out of church?

Seems like he is giving all America the finger these days.

Scalia, the guy who calls anyone who is not an "originalist" an "idiot", would do us all a favor by sticking his head out the next time he goes hunting with Cheney. He believes if the original framers of the constitution didn't conceive of it, and do so in the correct context, then it cannot be considered. Take that to its logical conclusion on ANY issue and see where it leads.

Truth be told, he is the first one to jump ship from his strict ideology when it is convenient. Anyone who reads more than a few of his decisions can see he is just as activist as anyone else when it suits him.

"Truth be told, he is the first one to jump ship from his strict ideology when it is convenient. Anyone who reads more than a few of his decisions can see he is just as activist as anyone else when it suits him.

Posted by kevin23 at 2008-02-15 02:45 PM"

Swish!!!
Nothing but net for the Boy from Winston Slaveholder Strawn.

"I wouldn't go so far as to call bush a criminal. Incredibly incompetent, negligent and fraudulent... well I guess that is criminal.

But I would call him.....

Worst. President. Ever."


Hey, that Jimmy Carter really ROCKED, huh ?

"the Boy from Winston Slaveholder Strawn."

We can't all be self-proclaimed "successful attorneys" now can we, Monte? Some of us actually have to go to work for long established firms and deal in important issues. I'm sure we're all outclassed by your apparent authority.

Actually Fido, it was Flavoraide, and I am pretty sure you drank the last drop already.

Hey, that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a real pistol, ain't she? sharp as a stay-puft marshmellow !
Let's see ...what was her last landmark opinion.....................uh
...........

JANET RENO.....yeah baby, with Liberty and Justice for ALL, I tell ya' !!!!

....and let's have a big hand for Teddy Kennedy the drunken murderer!

Hate is just so attractive.

Hate them if that option pleases you, K23, but they are some of the finest leaders brought to us by the democratic party!

Hey, that Jimmy Carter really ROCKED, huh ?

Compare him to bush, and jimmy becomes a fiscal conservative.

2 commies picking on eachother (guffaw!):

".....The former KGB lieutenant colonel appeared to lash out at U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton -- a leading Democratic candidate for president -- when one reporter quoted her as saying that former KGB officers have no soul:

"At a minimum, a head of state should have a head," Putin said....."

"Hey, that Jimmy Carter really ROCKED, huh ?"

"Compare him to bush, and jimmy becomes a fiscal conservative."

So true.

But be careful democrats, because some right wing nut job might call your candidate a "commie" and you'll have to roll up into the fetal position. lol.

"Just don't pretend that the Constitution says anything about it."

I understand your distinction, but I believe it does, when it prohibits the Judiciary Branch from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. I contend the police---or whatever arms of force of the government---are a part of the Judiciary Branch.

"Are you actually backing a system...?"

Another lie.

Hey Mr. Lawyer, how can a question be a lie?

Found this humorous............

It's not torture if:

The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;

Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;

You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;

Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;

It's no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.

"Torturers are evil, Fredo. That they work for the CIA is mere detail.

"Technically to establish (by torturing) an atmosphere where they can reward...."

They can reward any time they please, Fredo. Or hurt. They guy on the rack remains there helpless at their pleasure. There's not a damned thing technical about it.

"Go ahead, criminalize one of the few American leaders (Bush) willing to protect you...."

I'd give the guy a trial in open court with an attorney and access any information against him. Exactly what the SOB has denied to others.

"It (torture) is not based on negative reinforcement, but on positive....."

You have absolutely no clue. You're babbling.

Not to bother you with trivialities but... sleep deprivation has caused death.

You make the call.

Posted by 726 at 2008-02-15 12:12 PM |

Where is your cite for that BS 726? Where has sleep deprivation for the enemy caused death?

And don't say meth addicts died from lack of sleep.
------------------------


We don't torture and waterboarding is not torture.

We have done this to 3 people and it was successful.

What Scalia did not point to was that the Oath says to protect the country from enemies foreign and domestic.

If we have an enemy and he has information--we can use techniques to promote the enemy to talk so we can save the country.

Alex--if your loved one--your wife, child, parent--someone you love has been kidnapped. They have placed your love one in a coffin and buried them alive with 2 hours of air and then they will die.

Would you say to the cops --Use waterboarding to get the information?

Honest question--give an honest answer.

We train our soldiers with waterboarding.

Now I'm sure the terrorists are training their jihadists with waterboarding now too. So it is no longer a useful technique.

Murphy

Zed,

you seem like an enlightened liberal.

can you direct my thinking, please.

is the following an illustration of TORTURE, or PUNISHMENT, please....



Al Qaeda's latest display of terror has made its way onto the Internet, showing horrifying images of what appear to be prisoners in Iraq being doused with an inflammatory liquid and then burned alive.

The video, which appears to have been posted first on Google last December in an alleged anti-Al Qaeda Web film, shows five insurgents standing behind three blindfolded prisoners kneeling at the edge of a burning pit.

"And now that we have captured these scums who committed this dreadful crime, we will burn them with this fire," the Al Qaeda leader says in Arabic. "The same fire which they committed their crime with.

"And I swear by God almighty that, I swear by God almighty that we will have no mercy on them," he continues. "Allahuakbar, Allahuakbar."

Murphy,

what do you call a guy with no arms or legs sitting in a pile of leaves?



Russell

"We don't torture....."

The mental gyrations one has to adopt just in order to salve conscience on this point is astounding. Controlled drowning is torture.

What's more to the point, Fredo, is whether you'd be willing to burn someone alive or at least convince him you were willing to do so in order to make him talk.

well wouldn't you then turn around and call the "convincing" route mental torture?

sure you would, as long as the USA is wrong.

"We train our soldiers in waterboarding...."

Not at all. When they undertake this procedure they know that---

A) It will be a limited experience, and

B) Over the course of time no one will decide to kill them horribly by drowning for real.

The "convincing route" is your argument and position, Fredo, and Murphy's---Your idea is that these sorts of activities are somehow acceptable because people only think they will die.

I just see them as mock executions, which is torture by anyone's definition that's not absolutely in love with the notion of giving someone else pain.

Y'all go back to pulling wings off flies now. It's not cruel, you know, because the flies are not capable of conceiving their wings are gone.

"is the following an illustration of TORTURE, or PUNISHMENT, please...."

Haven't you been paying attention?

If the person's been convicted, it's torture.

But if the person is merely a suspect, or has been picked up randomly, any brutal dehumanizing---even the type which would be illegal if the person would eventually be convicted---is fair game.

OK, the Cons have talked me into it--I now believe that torture is the true mark of a courageous man, the future of America depends on how many we can torture...and, it should be extended to Americans. After all, if it's that effective, why shouldn't we use it here? Let's torture everybody who gets arrested. Why not? If they are innocent, the Cons say, they have nothing to fear, do they? Hell, torture retired librarians who park overtime. Let them taste the glory and greatness of America. Only a Commie traitor would park overtime anyway.

We need to show everybody how manly we are and how great we are. Torture should do the trick. We'll show them, won't we?

Maybe the stats section in the Wall Street Journal (second to none) can, in the future, reflect how many people we tortured each day, and what the net result in American lives saved. Maybe the B-Schools can gin up special courses in "The Economics of Torture", "Managing a Torture Enterprise" and "Enhanced Profitability Through Successful Torture Techniques." I can see "Torture for Quants. a Statistical Approach."

Anything is constitutional in this country as long as a lot of money is the reward!

"It sounds to me like Scalia has used the American Constitution for toilet paper while protesting the burning of a flag that represents a nation that no longer exists.

Sounds to me like you are talking from your ass. Scalia voted against a ban on flag-burning. Come back when you have a clue.

"Joe, I must admit that you have me at a disadvantage.
You see, I actually believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way. Whereas you, judging by your posts believe in anything that will further your agenda. "

I'm sorry you're such a nitwit that you think that just because I don't think the Constitution prohibits torture, that I must be a supporter of the use of torture.

Here's a hint, dumbshit. Just because the Constitution doesn't prohibit something doesn't mean that we can't go out and pass a law prohibiting that thing. What makes you think I don't support a law against the use of torture? Have you asked my position on that?

No, you just assume whatever works for the textbook garbage you feel like spewing today.