Alas Freedom, we hardly knew ye...

Spud watched a speech taped in Vancity last month. The speaker was a female journalist from Baghdad. She sed that a lot of prisoners in American jails in Iraq are journalists. Apparently, under Paul Bremer there was a law written which sed that if you wanted to be a "real" journalist in Iraq you needed accredation from the U.S. Part of accepting the deal was the fact that you are not allowed to write anything negative about the American military presence because it might "incite violence".

Imagine that.

Yer a journalist in a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied and yer not allowed to say anything negative about them.

So, of course, real journalists in Iraq fer the most part deliberately do not seek out this so-called "real" status putting them on the wrong side of the law when they get outta bed inna morning.

The woman in question stated that she herself had 18 hours of footage of the day Baghdad fell seized by American troops along with 5 cameras.

She sez this not an uncommon occurance.

She sez it makes it kinda hard to attend news briefing by military officials about how the Americans are there to give them freedoms they didn't have under Saddam.

The consensus is they had more freedom under Saddam then they do now.

They are, of course, not allowed to publish that information there.

So Spud publishes it here.

That Spud!

Anyhoo, bottom line is that there are a bunch of Iraqi journalists rotting away in American custody who have absolutely nobody going to bat fer 'em.

Is sad.

Be Well.

OK. So, if 90% are actually guilty, we're torturing 1400 innocent people. Not acceptable.

14,000?

or 140,000?

"It's a number," as Tony Snow says of the tally of American war dead.

Aw, good ol' George, winning friends and influencing world opinion while spreading tortu.... I mean, democracy.

What could be finer?

Excuse me. Yes 14,000

Allamerican--that is 70-90% MISTAKES (in 2003)---So if the same range of mistakes apply, this makes 9,800-12,600 innocent people being held (and possibly tortured).


Fantastic. Ugh...

"its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law."

While this is true. It is also true that international terrorism is beyond the reach of established law.

The problem stems from the fact that there are no international agreements for dealing with terrorists. US courts have no jurisdiction over a member of Al Queda living in Afghanistan. Being a member of Al Queda was not illegal in Afghanistan at the time these people were active. So what is the answer that we just have to wait for Al Queda members to kill someone before we can capture them?

I don't trust people who complain about the illegal detentions who don't also complain that we need better laws in place so that the problem can be addressed legally.

Because if I have to choose between ignoring terrorism and fighting it illegally, I'm going with the illegal detentions.

YEAH!

14,000 held as suspected terrorist when only 10,000 estimated world wide.

Oops!

Warning! Bush Math(TM) in use!

Now what to do with the 100,000 or so people on the no-fly list (where "suspect" terroiost outnumber any real terrorist by ten to one).

Warning! Bush Math(TM) in use!

""Because if I have to choose between ignoring terrorism and fighting it illegally, I'm going with the illegal detentions.""

But, that isn't the choice. Don't over simplify. The choice is between fighting terrorism legally or illegally. No one is saying we should not fight it at all so your little premise is totally dishonest. That tactic of oversimplified choices has been used a lot lately by the right in their attacks, it only works on simple minded folks though.

Sully,

The problem is that the GOP, when faced with the choice of ignoring terrorism, fixing the laws (as they're the majority) or acting illegally, chose to act illegally.

They didn't change the laws because they didn't want to. They don't wany anyone knowing what they're doing.

Which to me doesn't make a damn bit of sense militarily.
Did we keep it secret that we had POWs in WWII? That we had won battles and were victorious?

I would find it very demoralizing as an Al-Queda terrorist to know that 14,000 went up against the Great Satan, had failed, been captured and would no longer be able to do any harm to us.

Why keep these victories secret?

Auschwitz, the meaning of pain
The way that I want you to die
Slow death, immense decay
Showers that cleanse you of your life
Forced in
Like cattle
You run
Stripped of
Your lifes worth
Human mice, for the angel of death
Four hundred thousand more to die
Angel of death
Monarch to the kingdom of the dead
Sadistic, surgeon of demise
Sadist of the noblest blood

Destroying, without mercy
To benefit the aryan race

Surgery, with no anesthesia
Fell the knife pierce you intensely
Inferior, no use to mankind
Strapped down screaming out to die
Angel of death
Monarch to the kingdom of the dead
Infamous butcher,
Angel of death

Pumped with fluid, inside your brain
Pressure in your skull begins pushing through your eyes
Burning flesh, drips away
Test of heat burns your skin, your mind starts to boil
Frigid cold, cracks your limbs
How long can you last
In this frozen water burial?
Sewn together, joining heads
Just a matter of time
til you rip yourselves apart
Millions laid out in their
Crowded tombs
Sickening ways to achieve
The holocaust
Seas of blood, bury life
Smell your death as it burns
Deep inside of you
Abacinate, eyes that bleed
Praying for the end of
Your wide awake nightmare
Wings of pain, reach out for you
His face of death staring down,
Your blood running cold
Injecting cells, dying eyes
Feeding on the screams of
The mutants hes creating
Pathetic harmless victims
Left to die
Rancid angel of death
Flying free

(leads: hanneman, king, hanneman, king, hanneman)

[ angel of death
Monarch to the kingdom of the dead
Infamous butcher,
Angel of death

14,0000000? Holy shit!

Is this all wingnuts and repugs know how to do: build prisons and execute people?

What a bunch of evil f**ks.

Well.. at least it's not 6 million, we haven't reach that level of sleaze.... yet.

If it were Russia with 14,000 in secret prisons, what would we say? Or China? North Korea? Iran?

"""Because if I have to choose between ignoring terrorism and fighting it illegally, I'm going with the illegal detentions."""

Sully, although the right would like to paint the options as you did, fight illegally or ignore, it's slightly retarded to view things that way. Those are not your only choices. I agree that this type of warfare has now supplanted the "old school" wars that the u.s. is conditioned, trained and equiped to deal with, to actually promote. There needs to be serious thought (and action) put to redefining how to deal with the scope of this phenomenon, which is hardly new, so that when your country illegally invades another country, it can deal with this paradigm shift.

But to negate the basic freedom of innocent people and subject them to questionnable treatment puts you in league with the cast of usual suspects in terms of human rights records (insert despot-fascist-dictator name here)...not a list you and yours really want to be part of any more than you already are.

Plus, it plays right into the hands of the movement you are trying to quell: transforms moderates and proves that the u.s. talks the talk but serves bullshit and vomit on the plate of morality, essentially debasing and eroding the virtues of the american belief system.

"It was hard to believe I'd get out," Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release -- without charge -- last month. "I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell."

This must be the way Republitards believe they are going to win the "hearts and minds" of the world.

As I've always maintained: Conservatives are the biggest enemy of peace and freedom in the world today. And especially right here in America.

If it were Russia with 14,000 in secret prisons, what would we say? Or China? North Korea? Iran?

Posted by dylanfan at 2006-09-18 01:37 PM | Reply


You sissies would say "It's America's fault!".



Plus, it plays right into the hands of the movement you are trying to quell: transforms moderates and proves that the u.s. talks the talk but serves bullshit and vomit on the plate of morality, essentially debasing and eroding the virtues of the american belief system.



Posted by panchovilla at 2006-09-18 01:38 PM | Reply

Let's see how America Jr responds to the jihadi's in Afghanistan killing your soldiers at a good clip lately.

As I've always maintained: Conservatives are the biggest enemy of peace and freedom in the world today. And especially right here in America.

Posted by justsomeguy at 2006-09-18 01:41 PM | Reply


You are such a pant pisser. I'll bet you won't even get on your school bus because there might be a conservative on it.

You are such a pant pisser. I'll bet you won't even get on your school bus because there might be a conservative on it.
JustSomeGuy doesn't go to school. He is only allowed to leave his cell when the warden wants his "wire tapped"!

"Sully, although the right would like to paint the options as you did, fight illegally or ignore, it's slightly retarded to view things that way. Those are not your only choices."

I'm not a member of "the right" and never voted for Bush. And I didn't paint the options this way. I haven't heard one politician who criticizes the illegal detentions talk about the need for the international community to reach some kind of legal agreement on the treatment of people who join known terror groups.

So the positions I've heard from American politicians on this are: 1) We do whatever we want to anyone we label a terrorist or 2) We have to act within the boundaries of outdated laws that allow terrorists to operate freely.

I'm not framing things this way. I'm pointing out what is out there. And its pretty clear from my post that I would love to be presented with the more sensible option of fixing the laws. In the absence of that, I agree with detaining members of Al Queda whether it is "legal" or not.

You are such a pant pisser. I'll bet you won't even get on your school bus because there might be a conservative on it.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2006-09-18 01:46 PM

BWAHAHAHA!! This coming from a guy who is too afraid to go to Iraq and support "the frontline in the war on terrrrrrerrrrrrr". So much safer to just lie and say you were in the military, isn't it 101wannabe?

Still seeing terrrrrrrrerrrrrrrists under your bed? Or just liberals?

BWAHAHA! A conservative claiming anyone is afraid... that's a good joke! There isn't a coughing bird, or a shadow, or a brown person you guys don't urninate your pants over.

justsomepud,
Every post of yours wreaks of fear. You are a terrified little man. Every post screams "I am a weak little pud that is afraid of republicans, conservatives, and religious folks!"

For every post you produce of a conservative fearing anyone I'll produce 3 of yours that show your abnormal obsession and fear of the right.

Boo!

Yeah, 101chickenhawk, since you have no idea what a real man looks like, it's little wonder you can't recognize one.

Heaven knows you certainly don't see one in the mirror.

There's no fear on this side of the keyboard, Fresh Prince of St. Charles. It's all you projecting your weak, pathetic, insecure wannabe fears on the rest of the world.

The only thing coming from my posts is strength, power, and intelligent rationalism, shoving your silly pathetic wannabe-ism right down your scared little throat.

The only thing coming from my posts is strength, power, and intelligent rationalism, shoving your silly pathetic wannabe-ism right down your scared little throat.

Posted by justsomeguy at 2006-09-18 02:15 PM | Reply


Alas, we both know you don't believe any of this. You are too frikkin scared to put money down regarding my DD214, you got the multi-million dollar home listings from St Charles shoved up your ass, and you cling to your daddy's supposed service as if it makes you less of a shitbag for shirking your duty after you supposedly signed up for the Army.

You get dribbled like a basketball by both the left and the right around here. Nobody including you believes you are strong, powerful, or intelligent. You are a wounded little thin skinned boy.

Let's see how America Jr responds to the jihadi's in Afghanistan killing your soldiers at a good clip lately.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2006-09-18 01:44 PM | Reply

If my gov't starts down a path that echoes what the u.s. is doing, I will do anything I can as a citizen and human being to put a stop to it. We have had several "plots" foiled in the last year or so, with extremists being fingered and apprehended. Some are still under detention, some have been deported, others have been released after going through DUE PROCESS (something the u.s. seems to have swept under the rug of convenience)

Re: the mission in Afg? It's had been positioned as a peace keeping - re-building mission here for quite some time, which everyone knows is a load of crap. I think the PM mentioned "war" for the first time this week as being part of the mandate for our troops. As it was a u.n. sanctioned intervention, it's still squeaking through parliament, but there is heavy opposition growing, as the Canadian military has essentially responded to peace-keeping missions in the past few decades, and yes, the mounting body count is catching the public's eye.

Alas, we both know you don't believe any of this. You are too frikkin scared to put money down regarding my DD214

I'm waiting for your confirmation that your funds are in escrow. Everything is waiting on you, 101wannabe.

you got the multi-million dollar home listings from St Charles shoved up your ass,

Since when? St. Charles IS a working-class suburb: you never proved otherwise. The existance of homes worth $1,000,000 does nothing to prove your claim that everyone living there is a multi-billionaire.

you cling to your daddy's supposed service as if it makes you less of a shitbag for shirking your duty after you supposedly signed up for the Army

Posted by 101PulingWannabe at 2006-09-18 02:24 PM

Oh, you mean like your claim that your daddy is rich?

BWAHAHA, you are such a lying phony, 101wannabe. It must burn you up knowing that my family honorably served this country, and you are too terrified to do anything but lie about having done so. It's small wonder you are obsessed with bashing my family: you have a lot to be jealous of!

"Re: the mission in Afg? It's had been positioned as a peace keeping - re-building mission here for quite some time, which everyone knows is a load of crap. I think the PM mentioned "war" for the first time this week as being part of the mandate for our troops. As it was a u.n. sanctioned intervention, it's still squeaking through parliament, but there is heavy opposition growing, as the Canadian military has essentially responded to peace-keeping missions in the past few decades, and yes, the mounting body count is catching the public's eye."

I don't know why this is positioned as peace-keeping or nation building. Bush always talks about how we spread Democracy to Afghanistan when that is not the reason we invaded.

How about a member of NATO was attacked with the direct aid of a foreign government and under the provisions of that treaty, every NATO member is legally obligated to lend military assistance? Granted, Bush as our CIC has sabotaged the effort to win the war in Afghanistan with his Iraq debacle and that could legitimately make some of our allies question why they should take this war more seriously than he does. But the fact still remains that the US was attacked and that NATO was on the hook to help.

I don't know why all this other BS has to come into play at all. We certainly don't need to pretend that we invaded on behalf of Afghanis. We invaded on behalf of ourselves to prevent further murders and anyone who needs a better reason than that should be told to go to hell rather than provided with all these other excuses. All the lies only serve to undermine us by harming our credibility.

poor lil' pud...

You can't seem to keep your lies straight. I never claimed that St Charles was a haven for the rich, I simply told you that there was a gardening job for you. You say I claimed people there were multi-billionaires...Find the post shitheap. You won't, because you can't. You are a liar. Of course that won't stop you from repeatedly claiming that.

Same goes for the multiple times that I have told you my parents do not live in St Charles. Of course you have read that (you read all of my posts), you just choose to ignore it and continue lying.

And finally this same tired crap...

BWAHAHA, you are such a lying phony, 101wannabe. It must burn you up knowing that my family honorably served this country, and you are too terrified to do anything but lie about having done so. It's small wonder you are obsessed with bashing my family: you have a lot to be jealous of!

Posted by justsomeguy at 2006-09-18 02:47 PM | Reply

Your families supposed service is moot. You didn't serve, and their service has nothing to do with you. The fact you think their service is somehow a positive reflection on you is hilarious. You are the shitheap that signed yet didn't serve.
I could care less what your daddies have done, they don't post here, you do.


Please keep harping how I am to put $1,000,000 in escrow in order for you to put up (and lose) $50. That really makes your case for you. Spineless little man.

You know 101, this will never be resolved unless there's a face to face, docs in hand and money on the table.

Now, JSG, I've still got a $1000 that says 101 is not only a vet but a reserve officer in the Army. All we need is a mutually agreed upon place to meet, and ummm a couple of bodyguards for you...

'Cause we're big boys and carry our own money. LOL

Mike,
That was pretty funny. Although in order to keep you from getting called on a technicality, I am no longer a Reservist. My time on IRR is up...Although my ID Card says "INDEF".

Also, he doesn't want this resolved. He can't handle the humiliation that comes with him being shown to be a shit talking loud mouth. That's why he wants to stick to this $1,000,000 in escrow.
There isn't a person alive that would stalk and obsess like justsomelilpud does that wouldn't trip overthemselves to be proven right and win some money in the process. Everyone knows that, including him.

Your families supposed service is moot. You didn't serve, and their service has nothing to do with you. The fact you think their service is somehow a positive reflection on you is hilarious. You are the shitheap that signed yet didn't serve.
I could care less what your daddies have done, they don't post here, you do.


Please keep harping how I am to put $1,000,000 in escrow in order for you to put up (and lose) $50. That really makes your case for you. Spineless little man.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2006-09-18 03:01 PM

I never said their service had anything to do with me. You are the one who keeps bringing them up... your jealous cowardice makes you obsess over them, it seems.

Also, it's kind of funny that you try bashing me for not serving, when you are sitting there every day, lying about having served. You're a wannabe pile of crap, who didn't have what it takes to serve, but you sure chickenhawk on an anonymous internet forum, huh? Fighting a war from behind a keyboard... how Republican of you.

Also, if your broke ass can't come up with the money you agreed to bet, maybe your supposedly rich daddy can cut you a check. You keep talking about your rich daddy like it means something to anyone, so maybe he can help you with this "put up or shut up" life-lesson.

You know 101, this will never be resolved unless there's a face to face, docs in hand and money on the table.

Now, JSG, I've still got a $1000 that says 101 is not only a vet but a reserve officer in the Army. All we need is a mutually agreed upon place to meet, and ummm a couple of bodyguards for you...

'Cause we're big boys and carry our own money. LOL

Posted by MikeSiesel at 2006-09-18 03:13 PM

Sorry, we aren't changing the rules. There doesn't need to be any 'docs in hand' crap, because I can't verify the authenticity of some phony paperwork I see for one minute.

The groundrules for this were agreed upon long ago, and then 101wannabe started dodging and ducking to get out of it.

1. make photocopy of documents
2. black out name and SSN
3. scan document into a computer image
4. go to imageshack.us and upload document
5. take link to document, and post it here at drudge.com, for everyone to see and confirm

no secrets, no B.S.

These groundrules were already agreed upon. But a week after 101 refusing to put up or shut up, he and Ozark cook up their phony claim that Ozark saw the docs, and everyone should just take their word for it that 101wannabe is legit.

Once that didn't fly, and I kept pointing to the agreed upon groundrules, then 101wannabe started coming up with this $1000 bet B.S. So, since he was altering the deal, I get one of my own alterations to the deal, which was 1000:1 odds.

And, since I am a stickler for everything being 100% open and honest, I said any moneys need to be placed in escrow. To date, 101wannabe has not placed any money in escrow.

So everything is, as it always has been, waiting on him.

Also, I have always said the alterations involving the bet, since they were created after the above steps, were entirely optional.

There does not HAVE to be any money wagered: that is just a point that 101wannabe is using as a dodge. The fact remains that the deal going forward, with or without money, is, was, and always will be held up by him and him alone.

sully,

If that wasn't your stance, your original post was misleading. btw, I didn't brand you as a righty, just the pov you seem to be supporting, and more glaringly, the way you define the available options are straight out of a repub. talking point on the issue.

I have heard a few options in terms of how this matter should be adressed, thought the first step involves collaboration with the int'l community, ie: other allies and friendly countries. This first step seems the be the hurdle for your gov't, which prefers to act on its own, shoot first and ask later. The problem is that this strategy, though fitting well within the american chest thumping routine, is achieving the total opposite of what your aims are: dialog to resolve an issue that doesn't seem to be covered by any clear int'l laws or military precedence.

re: canada's involvement in afg:

It was positioned that way because the major battles in that country were supposed to be over after the original onslaught. The context you are describing with NATO is exactly what happened: after 911, the taliban came out in full support of this terrible event, harboring AQ opereratives, etc., etc,. canada packed up and went over as part of a coalition, to bring down that gov't. It's what went on afterwards (ie Iraq) that our country wanted no part of, for all of the reasons that were obvious to most at the time, but seem to only now become apparent to the american right.

The big problem is, as is the case in your country, to most, iraq, afghanistan, same same...and the total fubar-ed situation in iraq just casts an ever larger shadow on any nuances that might justify one, but not the other.

Fact is, JSG, your obsession with 101 stems from your own inadequacies and the shame you feel not measuring up to the example provided by your father.

I'd have felt the same way if I'd gone to boot camp and couldn't handle being away from mom.

I'll tell you this: Since my g-g-grandfather served in the 82d Illinois Infantry Regiment there's a direct line to me of veterans, though not all served in combat. So I don't take anyone's claims of service lightly.

I know is hard for you to understand, but push come to shove vets do stick together, and that's why I've continued to stand by 101.

Listen: It's not your fault that mommy coddled you. You're not to blame for the shame. Got that? And it's never too late to grow up and be a man. It may take years of psychiatric treatment, maybe a few months of inpatient, but if you are determined I'm sure you'll succeed.

Of course you're still young enough to enlist. Hah, there's a remedy and you'll even get paid for it.

justsomepud says...
The groundrules for this were agreed upon long ago, and then 101wannabe started dodging and ducking to get out of it.

1. make photocopy of documents
2. black out name and SSN
3. scan document into a computer image
4. go to imageshack.us and upload document
5. take link to document, and post it here at drudge.com, for everyone to see and confirm


My response...
Once again you are lying. I never agreed upon your goofy rules. Somehow you managed to keep these groundrules that you and you alone set yet you never kept the post where I agreed to such goofyness?

Due to your incessant lying and twisting of the facts I corrected you and I said my father retired early, but was not nearly as well off as my family living in St Charles. You purposefully lie about this in every stalking post.

I will not get up off of my ass to prove anything to you for anything less than $50. That has never changed. Oz and InWi also wanted to make some cash off of your ignorance so they offered you bets as well.

As has been said numerous times, put up $50 or admit you are too much of a lightweight and don't want this resolved because you are an obsessed little man.

Is $50 too much to ask? Are you that broke and that unsure of yourself?

Mike:

You may want to watch more Dr. Phil, since your pop psychology needs some work.

I've proven 101 as a wannabe several times in the past, just by quoting his own words at him. Just to cite two of many examples, nobody in the military claims to have taken a "Mepps" test, nor to have gone to a HAVSAB center to do so. Both of which 101wannabe has done.

There was also the long-ago issue where he could not get his story straight about whether he had been in 101st Airborne, 82nd, or a Ranger, or whatever compulsive lies he spews out in his pathetic wannabe-ism.

I'll tell you this: Since my g-g-grandfather served in the 82d Illinois Infantry Regiment there's a direct line to me of veterans, though not all served in combat. So I don't take anyone's claims of service lightly.

People have served in my family for generations. So obviously when I see a clearly obvious wannabe like 101 puling around and pretending to have been 'in', it's offensive at quite a fundamental level. It's like he is peeing on the graves of all those who actually served, and I won't stand for it. Especially when I have family serving right now, and hearing his chickenhawking every day for years about how "swimmingly" things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So let's see, "Mike Siegel"... you have been a member here for almost THREE WHOLE DAYS!!!! Yep, your claims carry a LOT of weight. Why, you are so genuine, I'll bet you are 101pulingretard logged in at another computer!

LOL, try again, wannabe.

Is $50 too much to ask? Are you that broke and that unsure of yourself?

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2006-09-18 04:53 PM

You did indeed agree to the deal, then tried to change the rules after the fact.

Is your honor worth so little to you that you are unwilling to defend it? I can't see that a real military vet would lie and pule and spin for years rather than step up to the plate and prove his bona fides against someone impugning his honor.

Is your honor worth so little to you that you are unwilling to defend it? I can't see that a real military vet would lie and pule and spin for years rather than step up to the plate and prove his bona fides against someone impugning his honor.

Posted by justsomeguy at 2006-09-18 05:01 PM | Reply


justsomesillypud,
It's the internet. You are simply a screen name. Perhaps that's where many of your fears and hang ups are coming from.
Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me other than an opportunity to disparage you and collect $50 off of some pud.
You aren't going to find many if any vets willing to go through the trouble of proving their veteran status to some creampuff that signed up but never showed up and not expect to get something out of it.
The day some limpwrist impugns my honor via the internet will be the day you finally crawl out from under your bed and quit pissing your pants in fear of conservatives, republicans, and religious folks.

"the way you define the available options are straight out of a repub. talking point on the issue."

No US politician has said a peep about working with the international community to update international law to properly address terrorism. They've talked about working with foreign countries in general but not in terms that would commit those countries in any concrete way. Updating the law is a concrete measure that requires a commitment by overseas partners.

The most popular alternative presented by the American left is to try them in US courts - which equates to letting them go for a variety of reasons.

So in this case, until the opposition comes up with ideas of its own, the Republican talking points are somewhat accurate. They accurately describe the options that we are presented by the two major parties but not all options that exist. I would love to see a sensible option pushed by a major politician but it hasn't been done here.

"The context you are describing with NATO is exactly what happened:"

I would argue that NATO had the obligation of the complete defeat of Al Queda/the Taliban. But I blame Bush for de-prioritizing that, not the rest of NATO.

""Mike Siegel""

LOL!!

You're 0 for 200 here, JSG!

Can't you get anything right???

Perhaps a different subject of discussion would give you a fighting chance.

" Blustering bragging by a nobody who thinks he's a somebody."

0 for 201.

LOL!!

Real mature.

Certainly shows your inability to debate, and your lowered level of intelligence.

I could care less about this silly argument. What I do care about is the use of the word "pud". That word wasn't even cool in the 70's which is the last time I heard it. :->

Yeah, 101wannabe is still wearing a Members Only jacket, and walking around with one glove.

That gives you no right to stalk his info, and put a picture you think is him, on a website that he himself hasn't done.

We all post on different sites, that doesn't mean you should stalk them.

You're as sick as Niceville and Jackass.

Great company you keep.

" I'm serious about that toilet brush"

I'm sure you are. Cleaning toilets must be your profession and you're sick of paying high prices for your supplies.

"What I do care about is the use of the word "pud". That word wasn't even cool in the 70's"

Pud is one of those timeless words and quite fitting when speaking of JSG.

BTW: one would not refer to anything "cool" when speaking of JSG.

OH GOD Calgon Take Me away PLEASEEEEEEEE

Larry

Have we posted his picture here?? NO

Have we given out our home address, or county that we live in? NO

How about a phone number?? NO

Mike is a photographer, writer and webmaster. We made no secret about that.

But to intentionally post a face, one that isn't even his, out of spite and malice, is going well beyond the nature of Mike's reasons for putting up his real name.

You're a twisted bastard, JSG.

This is no different than what Jackass did to Larry.

Sadly, I was all for giving the ass another chance.

I won't make that mistake again, where you are concerned if RCADE exiles you...which I hope he does.

Lisa

Just now saw your post saying Mike is a photographer. As I said, those photos were beautifully done.

Chris:

Notice no personal pictures of himself??

Thanks for the compliment, which I'll pass on to Mike.

I think he's an excellent photographer.

I had a Camera once. I sat on the damned thing and broke it. Oh well I miss My disk Camera.

Larry

LOL, Larry.

I have a digital...nothing like Mike's of course.

I get laughs from using mine. I have tried taking pictures with my digital of my kids in sporting events.

One picture I was trying to take was of one of my boys at a track meet, passing the baton to his team mate during a relay. The only thing I got was the elbow of the kid running next to him.

A picture of my oldest running in from left field...was only...left field.

LOL

I can't use a digital.

everybody having fun with the new guy ~ Mike tonite?:>)LOL



I have been in jail 3 times so far this life for just a few days all total, though.

Twice for Willie Nelson type of offense & once in Prescott, Az for not wearing goggles while driving a Motorcycle thru beautiful Sedona...that was for 4 days...

But 14,000 being held in secret prisons by our government suggests something entirely else...& it's sinister in every which way!

I won't make that mistake again, where you are concerned if RCADE exiles you...which I hope he does.

Posted by Lisa

I think he will Lisa.

I remember when America used to scoff at other countries with their secret police, detentions, and trials. Used to call them barbarians, communists, dictators...

Now it's "patriotic" because a good third of our population wets themselves when they see a brown person in a turbin.

The spirit of the United States is being tortured too.

Never used a digital Camera so I don't know. That is funny about Your mis"takes" Lisa

Larry

Thanks for that info Bani.

Neither Mike nor I are on there. Phew!!

Bani- my name is so common that even with the right city and state it overloads the search engine. hahahaha! Too funny.

Larry,

Mike just shot over a hundred pictures of my little guys soccer game on Saturday.

If I had taken them, you'd see someone elses feet or nothing but grass.

LOL

I suck!!

Sept. 11, 2001:
2,973 died and another 24 remain listed as missing.

Iraq:
Iraqi security fatalities- 4098
Iraqi civilian fatalities- 13090
US Soldier fatalities-
Hostile fire 2321
Non-combat related 598

Hurricane Katrina:
Fatalities 1,836 total

Sum of all the above: 24,940


Estimated number of prisoners being secretly held by the Bush administration: 14,000


Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

Conservatives: the greatest threat to America, ever.

Justsomeguy- you are as creepy as Jackass. He's a stalker that intimidates people by exposing them too.

Not much difference between your actions, and those of the NSA. Oh wait...some of them are trying to save lives, and you're just a weirdo.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2006-09-18 09:06 PM

Al, try reading the thread. I didn't post a single thing about anyone, nor did I 'expose' anyone.

Did Speigel seem my advice before posting his name here? No... Did Speigel make a big deal about using his real name? Yes....

Lisa is just making a big deal about it because she is a liar, just like her buddy 101wannabe. So she just acts all indignant about me revealing the name of someone... who is logging in here with his full name... and makes a big deal about the fact that he is doing so....

Hmmm... yeah. Lisa isn't looking like a fool.

0 for 203 there, Lisa.

Lisa- my name isn't bob smith...

But it's almost as common. I like it that way.

There are too many sick people out there, like JSG, Jackass, Niceville, who may end up at your door!

Posted by Lisa at 2006-09-18 09:18 PM

If I want to go cow-tipping, there are farms way closer than your house, Lisa.

Don't flatter yourself- I wouldn't give you the time of day if you begged me.

0 for 204 there, Lisa.

" my name isn't bob smith."

Alex...you email me. I know your real name...lol

JSG:

KMA

I can't imagine any woman wanting you to pay them any attention.

Trust me. You'd be the last person I would beg for anything.

Don't flatter yourself!

Your 9:22 post is more delusiional attempts of justification.

0 for 205 there, Lisa.

Ask Mikey if he misses his hair. Did he sell it all to make brooms?

BTW, after seeing what Mikey looks like... yeach... I can only imagine what a real winner you are.

"0 for 205"

No original thoughts for yourself??? Must rely on the wit of others, don't you?

FYI: Mike has a full head of hair.

Not that there's anything wrong with men who don't.

Hair doesn't make the man, JSG. Character does.

And I can safely, in all sincerity state...you are no man!

LOL, yeah, sure.

Hearing the opinion of a stud from Wisconsin, that means so much. I'm sure you 300lb cheese heads have great taste in men.

Trust me, I'm quite positive I've turned down women ten times more attractive than yourself. Not that you get much when multiplying by zero, but whatever.

14,000 doesn't seem like very much to me. Considering our forces are deployed against terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and the Philippines. That's fewer than the number of people who will be arrested on dope charges in Atlanta, Georgia this year. How many German POW's did we have in our custody after five years of fighting? Over a half million, I'd bet.

Still, to the average liberal poster on DR, even one terrorist in jail is one too many.

Gee, Justsomeguy, don't forget to count up all the cancer deaths, automobile accident victims, and lightning strikes on golf courses. Godalmighty, you're blaming Bush for all the Katrina-related deaths? Does that include the ones in Mississippi and Alabama, too? Or just the ones who drowned when Nagin's levees tipped over?

Roberts - War
Criminal At Bay
By Paul Craig Roberts
9-18-6


President George Bush, betrayed by the neoconservatives whom he elevated to power and by his Attorney General, Torture Gonzales who gave him wrong legal advice, is locked in a desperate struggle with the Republican Congress to save himself from war crimes charges at the expense of America's reputation and our soldiers' fate.

Beguiled by neoconservatives, who told him that the virtuous goals of the American empire justified any means, and misled by an incompetent Attorney General, who told him that the President of the US is above the law, Bush was deceived into committing war crimes under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and the US War Crimes Act of 1996. Bush is now desperately trying to save himself by having the US Congress retroactively repeal both Article 3 and US law.

Under the US Constitution retroactive law is without force, but desperate men will try anything.

President Bush has given no thought to the impact on America's reputation of his strident campaign to write torture into US law. He has given no thought to what saving himself means for captured US troops if the US government guts Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

How could he care? This is the same president who prevented the world from intervening to stop Israel's slaughter of Lebanese civilians. This is the same president who describes tens of thousands of slaughtered Iraqi and Afghan civilians as "collateral damage." What sort of war is it when civilian casualties far out number casualties among combatants?

part 2

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was used by Bush to lie to the UN in order to create a pretext for Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, denounced Bush's attempt to repeal Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Powell said Bush's proposal causes the world to "doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism" and will "put our own troops at risk." Republican senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham agree with Powell, although their arms may yet be twisted out of their sockets.

Bush's claim that America cannot fight the "war on terror" without employing torture is just another Bush lie. It is a known fact that torture produces unreliable information. Torture can make people talk but it cannot make them give reliable information.

Very few of the tens of thousands of "suspects" that the US has detained are guilty of anything. We know this because the US Iraqi Command says that 18,700 Iraqis have been released since June 2004. US officers told the International Red Cross that 70 to 90 percent of the Iraqi detentions were "mistakes." (See Associated Press reporter Patrick Quinn, September 17, 2006.)

Most of these mistakes were people who were simply pulled out of their beds or grabbed off streets as "suspected insurgents," victims of military sweeps akin to the KGB street sweeps of the Stalin era, which resulted in so many Soviet citizens disappearing into the Gulag. Others were sold to nave Americans by warlords who collected a bounty for turning in "terrorists."

From the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain. All quotes confirming sending prisoners to other countries for torture and interrogation were made by U.S. authorities.

NOTE THE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE -- right after 9-11 when no one thought anything wrong about this being done. As it continued long after 9-11 and more attention was drawn, it was covered up more. If our own country admits doing it, why are the Bushlovers denying it?

Tuesday March 12, 2002
"The Guardian"

The US has been secretly sending prisoners suspected of al-Qaida connections to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, according to US diplomatic and intelligence sources. Prisoners moved to such countries as Egypt and Jordan can be subjected to torture and threats to their families to extract information sought by the US in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The normal extradition procedures have been bypassed in the transportation of dozens of prisoners suspected of terrorist connections, according to a report in the Washington Post. The suspects have been taken to countries where the CIA has close ties with the local intelligence services and where torture is permitted.

According to the report, US intelligence agents have been involved in a number of interrogations. A CIA spokesman yesterday said the agency had no comment on the allegations. A state department spokesman said the US had been "working very closely with other countries - It's a global fight against terrorism".

"After September 11, these sorts of movements have been occurring all the time," a US diplomat told the Washington Post. "It allows us to get information from terrorists in a way we can't do on US soil."

The seizing of suspects and taking them to a third country without due process of law is known as "rendition". The reason for sending a suspect to a third country rather than to the US, according to the diplomats, is an attempt to avoid highly publicised cases that could lead to a further backlash from Islamist extremists.

>

An Indonesian government official said disclosing the Americans' role would have exposed President Megawati Sukarnoputri to criticism from Muslim political parties. "We can't be seen to be cooperating too closely with the United States," the official said.

Unsuccessful attempts have been made by civil rights lawyers based in Los Angeles to have the Camp X-Ray prisoners either charged in US courts or treated as prisoners of war. The U.S. administration has resisted such moves, arguing that those detained, both Taliban fighters and members of al-Qaida, were not entitled to be regarded as prisoners of war because they were terrorists rather than soldiers and were not part of a recognised, uniformed army.

Bani-

All of Paul Craig Roberts' articles are terrific.

part 3 of Paul Craig Robert's article


When innocent people are tortured they invent information in order to stop the pain. Sometimes they settle a score with a personal enemy or someone they dislike by giving their name. People who experienced Soviet torture and survived say they tried to remember names of deceased persons to identify as "enemies of the state."

An actual terrorist or insurgent who believes in his cause is not going to give accurate information. If his torturers demand information on a pending attack, he will give the wrong location. If they demand the identities of his group, he will give the wrong names. He is worth very little as an information source, because his colleagues, aware that he is captured or missing, will change plans and arrangements.

The US military has not learned anything from torturing detainees and continues to loose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite its widespread use of torture.

Lying is now a full time occupation for US military spokespersons as well as for President Bush. Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, a spokesman for US military detainee operations in Iraq says that every detainee "is detained because he poses a security threat to the government of Iraq, the people of Iraq or coalition forces." President Bush says, "These are enemy combatants who are waging war on our nation." Someone needs to tell Bush and Lt. Col. Curry that what they allege cannot be true if 7090 percent of detainees are mistaken detentions and if 18,700 detainees have been released in the last 14 months.

Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi is a good example. He languished in detention limbo for 20 months without charges and without apology when released.

Trust me, I'm quite positive I've turned down women ten times more attractive than yourself.

You can come out of the closet, justsomeguy. This is a left leaning blog.

A US official revealed Plames status to Novak -- and Armitage is a confirmed "Liberal"!

Joe Wilson, an ex-US Ambassador, used information gained on his own CIA operation to discredit a president during a time of war, and all of his claims proven to be lies!

Of course, there are "US officials" who lie through their teeth for partisan political gain!

DUH!

However, and as the example I presented PROVES, the MSM is attempting to literally lie when they claim that these 14,000 are sent to be tortured!!!

However, as someone who hates the US so much, you WANT to believe the opposite -- that the US routinely tortures and maims prisoners to gain intelligence FOR REPUBLICANS, alone, and not the entire United States -- just for the evil neocons . . . right, Chris?

You don't care if you malign and revile ALL of the US -- just so you can "get" Bush . . .

Disgusting subversions of reality!

"For example, the recent incident of the Canadian citizen who was deported to Syria and supposedly tortured. The "Media" attempts to infer that this is part of the US "Plan" to torture prisoners for intelligence, but come on!?! Who actually believes that Syria is cooperating with the US in gathering terrorist intelligence???"

POSTED by TADWOE

ONE innocent prisoner tortured is too much. America has NEVER stood for torture. YOU are a despicable human being TADWOE if you think this is acceptable. Over 18.000 'prisoners' have been released from Iraqi prisons because they were innocent. This Canadian citizen who was kidnapped, held in a coffin sized box for 10 months, and subjected to torture was ENTIRELY innocent !! If YOU were tortured you'd yelp like a little girl. You make me sick.

For example, the recent incident of the Canadian citizen who was deported to Syria and supposedly tortured. The "Media" attempts to infer that this is part of the US "Plan" to torture prisoners for intelligence, but come on!?! Who actually believes that Syria is cooperating with the US in gathering terrorist intelligence???

POSTED by TADWOE

ONE innocent prisoner tortured is too much. America has NEVER stood for torture. YOU are a despicable human being TADWOE if you think this is acceptable. Over 18.000 'prisoners' have been released from Iraqi prisons because they were innocent. This Canadian citizen who was kidnapped, held in a coffin sized box for 10 months, and subjected to torture was ENTIRELY innocent !! If YOU were tortured you'd yelp like a little girl. You make me sick.

Tadowe

you WANT to believe the opposite -- that the US routinely tortures and maims prisoners to gain intelligence FOR REPUBLICANS, alone, and not the entire United States -- just for the evil neocons .

You don't care if you malign and revile ALL of the US -- just so you can "get" Bush .


I don't know about "maiming" but right now the REPUBLICAN Senate is in the middle of a big debate over what techniques constitute "torture" with senior Republican Senators/U.S. generals on one side of the issue and Bush on the other side opposing them.

Bush wants more leniency (what else is new) in what is allowed for "interrogation methods" (such as allowing "waterboarding") while REPUBLICAN Senators such as Warner, McCain and MANY senior U.S. Military generals do NOT agree with Bush and want the strict standards of the Geneva Convention kept as is.

I think my values (and that of most Americans) are with the Republican Senators and U.S. military generals regarding what constitutes torture -- not with Bush. Those Senators and military generals said the U.S. should take the high road and set examples when it comes to not torturing pow's, enemy combatants, etc.

BUT YOUR BOYS BUSH AND CHENEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO TORTURE MORE THAN IS ALLOWED by the Geneva Convention. Have you EVER in the history of this country heard of any U.S President (besides Bush) who was willing to fight against his own party's senate members and his own military generals in order to allow more torture than is necessary for interrogation purposes???? Bush is one sick puppy.

AllAmerican says, "ONE innocent prisoner tortured is too much."

What are you talking about? This EXAMPLE is the work of SYRIA!

Next . . . you leftists will be saying that Syria and the Neocons are in a conspiracey together!!!

All goes on, "America has NEVER stood for torture."

There you have it! Of course not, but you pretend that Bush is in favor of torture; Rumsfelt, Cheney, and every Republican you can identify! You claim that torture is taking place, but you don't know that -- but you want to believe it!!!

The Leftist/Democrats represent a vast, arrid desert of intellectualism.

AllAmerican proves their bigotry, "You are a despicable human being TADWOE if you think this is acceptable."

Mock me, revile me, do all the dehumanizing things that the Leftist/Democrats do to anyone who disagrees with them!

"This Canadian citizen who was kidnapped, held in a coffin sized box for 10 months, and subjected to torture was ENTIRELY innocent !!"

This Canadian was DEPORTED to Syria. Do you think the CIA and Syria are in cahoots? The Baathist Syrian government is cooperating with Neocons?

Are you actually this stupid?

"If YOU were tortured you'd yelp like a little girl. You make me sick."

I can see that you are projecting, like a little girl, and pansy assed idiots who think that wearing a dog collar while naked is "torture" are what make me physically sick to my stomach . . .

Time Magazine:

As the [BUSH] Administration expanded the definition of terrorist, it contemplated ways to skirt long-observed prohibitions against torture. A March 2003 draft of a Defense Department report, leaked to the Wall Street Journal last week, argued that the President had the authority to approve almost any physical or psychological tactic, including torture, in the name of national security.

Though Administration officials say they never authorized the use of torture, some members of Congress are furious that the U.S. even looked for ways to justify it. "It's just incredible," Republican Senator John McCain told Time. "Why doesn't every nation in the world now have a green light to do everything it thinks is necessary to combat a 'terrorist threat.'

Chris says, ". . . the REPUBLICAN Senate is in the middle of a big debate over what techniques constitute "torture" . . . Bush wants more leniency (what else is new) in what is allowed for "interrogation methods""

It is really no use trying to discuss anything with zealots like you, because everything you say is prejudicial rhetoric and, or outright lies.

You want to make Bush into a "torturer" and so you invent a motive for him: that he wants to have more torture. Even though Bush speaks openly about desiring the Congress to set definitive standards -- you dream-up the idea that he wants the opposite!

The CIA has been conducting these interrogations since they were created, after WWII. Why weren't you complaining about this when Serbs were captured in Bosnia and sent to Turkey? How about trying to assassinate a Somalian political leader? Was that okay for Clinton to do? How many Somalian, Haitian or Serbian prisoners were sent to other countries by that administration? Why weren't you out here whining then?

how many excutions did GW do when Gov of Texas?...the most ever?

The World's No. Terrorist Strikes (Out?)Again?

Chris quotes, "Though Administration officials say they never authorized the use of torture, some members of Congress are furious that the U.S. even looked for ways to justify it."

This is an example of the outright spin on reality (lies) practiced by the Leftist/Democrats.

On the one hand, the Leftist/Democrats (Left/rats) demand detailed planning, and while on the other hand, they use detailed planning as an excuse to revile this administration for planning.

There is no doubt, in reality, that were the circumstances important enough, enough lives were threatened, that torture would be permitted. Any normally intelligent person could think of some such example; even where they might themselves torture another in order to save the lives of hundreds, thousands, or even just a family member.

So in light of such considerations, how can the Left/rats revile such planning? How can they deny reality and pretend that there will never be any torture under any circumstances? Simple! They do so because they don't mind lying in order to gain political advantage during a time of active warfare!!!

That's it in a nutshell: the Left/rats are acting out in a treasonous manner!!!

The scum . . .

Bush wishes, and "wishes" is appropriate at this juncture, for the Congress to legalize torture, or "alternative interrogation". The military is against this, and so is anyone with an ounce of humanity or understanding of what our (The US) standard-bearing place in the world is.

Even though Bush speaks openly about desiring the Congress to set definitive standards --

That's a lie. The standards have already been set. What Bush wants is more latitude(or he'll cancel the CIA interrogations altogether) and he wants retroactive legalization of the illegal crap he's already ordered. Motive? probably CYA.

Tadowe-
I can see that you are projecting, like a little girl, and pansy assed idiots who think that wearing a dog collar while naked is "torture" are what make me physically sick to my stomach . . .

?????

Do you deny that people have died under interrogation in Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush's new rules for the military that he now wishes to codify into law?

Do you understand why military leaders, such as the former Sec. of the Navy (Warner) are opposed?

Is Sen. Warner "scum" and "treasonous"?

Do you miss the damp comfort of whatever rock you just crawled out from beneath?

"What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?" reporter Ken Herman asked.

This is a classic misdirection (lie.)

The "War on Terror" does not have anything to do with 9/11, except that it was the point in time where the US became serious about answering the Islamic terrorists attacks on the US.

The terror had been going on for a long time, unanswered, and certainly escalated during the Clinton administration.

So, asking that question is one of the Left/rats "Big Lies" and because Iraq does not have to be DIRECTLY tied/linked to 9/11, in order for it to be a terrorist supporting nation!

But, all you sniveling Left/rats eat that sort of lie up like it was your last meal on Earth!!!

Proving that the Leftist/Democrats are inveterate liars and squawking parrots who can't help but repeat them . . .

A sad commentary on the Left/rats diminished intellectual capacity. . .

Wait...armitage is a confirmed liberal?

Didn't he sign onto PNAC?

Alexandrite-
It's also an election year ploy that has backfired against the king. He wished not only to cover his ass before the D's took the House, but to place the D's in the untenable situation of voting against being "tough on terrorists".

Fortunately even members of his party in the House are balking at being the legislators in future history who legalized not only torture, but the charades of "trials" that this President wishes to conduct.

Tad- some 40% of people think Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Almost double that number in armed forces.

How convenient for bush that this BIG LIE has continued to fester. Mere coincidence, I'm sure.

And I laugh at the ascertation that you got in trouble in vietnam for speaking out against torture, Tad. If that's actually true, the person that did that is long dead.

Whatever proves my point! "Bush wishes, and "wishes" is appropriate at this juncture, for the Congress to legalize torture, or 'alternative interrogation'."

What a lie! Here -- prove that Bush wants to "legalize" torture! Post some statement or revelation proving your stupid lie!

"The military is against this. . ."

Another fatuous lie! Prove this! Provide some indication that the military doesn't want a definitive standard from the Congress on interrogation (the actual "wish" stated by Bush) . . .

I won't hold my breath waiting on proof for such petty prevarications . . .

Wait...armitage is a confirmed liberal?

Didn't he sign onto PNAC?

Posted by Alexandrite at 2006-09-19 04:18 AM | Reply

Yeppers sure did.

Larry

Tadowe-
And Warner? Powell? McCain? Graham?

Leftist rat traitors and scum?

Whatever- please, don't get tad started on what a "traitor" virtual or otherwise that McCain is.

I don't need to see a vet being slimed tonight by a paleocon worm.

Tadowe-
Everyone knows what it is, Tadowe, your aping of the "clarification of article III" bullshit from your masters notwithstanding.

Tadowe

There is no doubt, in reality, that were the circumstances important enough, enough lives were threatened, that torture would be permitted. Any normally intelligent person could think of some such example; even where they might themselves torture another in order to save the lives of hundreds, thousands, or even just a family member.

On Hardball today this was discussed and everyone on there agreed that there would be perhaps very special instances where no one would object to torture -- a nuke is set to go off and the guy you have as your prisoner knows the "when and where" and in order to save thousands of lives you make sure you find out the info you need no matter how it is done. But that is a rare case.

This issue is about torture to just find out merely what the prisoner knows about al-Qaeda cells, etc. -- not some ticking timebomb nuke ready to go.

Question for you -- why is THIS President so intent on "formally" loosening the interrogation methods to include certain methods that would be considered "torture" under the Geneva Convention? The GC has served this country just fine since 1950 but now Bush wants to dump it against the advice of ALL his military generals and top Republican Senators -- all of whom have had military backgrounds.

We all know that in the rare instance where we would need to use any means to find out info to save thousands of innocent lives that tough "interrogation" methods would be used and have been used in the past.

So what is the REAL motive behind Bush wanting to no longer have the Geneva Convention apply in his forever ongoing "war on terror"?

Could it be that Bush/Cheney have already violated the GC and if testimony comes out when some sort of military tribunal is now to be given to these "enemy combatants" Bush is terrified he will be found out to have already violated international law and the Geneva Convention? Is Bush trying to cover his butt for violations he has already committed.

Alex can't resist, "Tad- some 40% of people think Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Almost double that number in armed forces."

I don't think so. Most people understand that Iraq/Saddam was supporting terrorism. How could they not, and since the news carried stories of him offering $25,000 to kill any American (soldier or not) in Afghanistan, and other bounties for joing the fight or destroying equipment. They have had years of reports of his supplying arms and ammunition to the PLA/PLO/Hamas.

"How convenient for bush that this BIG LIE has continued to fester. Mere coincidence, I'm sure."

There are indications that al Qaeda and Saddam were cooperating, and that is what the present administration is trying to emphasize -- not that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and because that is a SPIN by the left/rats: that Bush is saying so. You also, it appears, are repeating the lie.

"And I laugh at the ascertation that you got in trouble in vietnam for speaking out against torture, Tad. If that's actually true, the person that did that is long dead."

What is this? Why get personal -- you do this EVERY SINGLE TIME! You are so very definitely obsessed!

As you are arguing in defense of torture now, Tadowe, I fail to see how this is a "personal" attack.

Unless that's just your schtick.

Unless that's just your schtick.

It is. Two trick pony. One is victimhood, the other is that anyone left of him is a traitor. *yawn*

"The military is against this. . ."

Another fatuous lie! Prove this! Provide some indication that the military doesn't want a definitive standard from the Congress on interrogation (the actual "wish" stated by Bush) . . .


The fact that the military just made waterboarding, using cold rooms, and dnagling people for extended periods of time, as well as severe sleep deprivation AGAINST THE NEW CODE IN CLEAR CONCISE LANGUAGE.

That's TWO lies from you in this thread. Wanna go for 3?

Chris says, "This issue is about torture to just find out merely what the prisoner knows about al-Qaeda cells, etc. -- not some ticking timebomb nuke ready to go."

What is "torture," Chris? Is keeping someone awake for 24 hours or more considered "torture?" How about if you keep them awake and naked for 24 hours? How about if you keep them awake, naked and douse them with water every hour? How about putting a dog collar on them? Is that torture, Chris?

That's what the president is asking Congress to define, while you partisan murmerers attempt to gain political advantage by lying through your collective teeth about it!!!

Simply disgusting!

"Question for you -- why is THIS President so intent on "formally" loosening the interrogation methods to include certain methods that would be considered "torture" under the Geneva Convention?"

What "methods" are those, Chris? Define them for me and describe them and how they are somehow "new" and being loosened.

"The GC has served this country just fine since 1950 but now Bush wants to dump it against the advice of ALL his military generals and top Republican Senators -- all of whom have had military backgrounds."

BS! This isn't about the military, and since it is the CIA. However, you all can't help but misdirect EVERYTHING YOU SAY!

"So what is the REAL motive behind Bush wanting to no longer have the Geneva Convention apply in his forever ongoing 'war on terror'?"

See? You can't help but lie about this, and although it isn't a "lie" per se, but actually just stupidity and abysmal ignorance. No one is trying to destroy or revoke the Geneva Conventions! But, the Left/rats can't help but spin and misdirect their rhetoric to turn it into a lie!

Disgusting partisans

Bush's gambit to frame the election, at least on this, has failed, though it's nice to see that we have such thugs in the WH that they would play this game with nat'l security in order to save their own sorry asses.

It's been fun. Goodnight.

Whatever says, "As you are arguing in defense of torture now, Tadowe, I fail to see how this is a "personal" attack."

What are you talking about? Alex was the one who got "personal," so why are you attempting to infer that it was you?

"Unless that's just your schtick."

Yours seems to be misdirection and attempting to make me the subject. Besides, in no way am I defending torture. Rather, I'm attempting to highlight that this QUESTION is now before the Congress, and it will be their responsibility to so define what is and what is not "torture."

. . .and of course, that is all Bush has asked for them to do -- not "lower" any limits or to abandon the Geneva Convention; as all the hysterical left/rats try to say (so that they can make political capital from their lies!!!)

Whatever says, "As you are arguing in defense of torture now, Tadowe, I fail to see how this is a "personal" attack."

What are you talking about? Alex was the one who got "personal," so why are you attempting to infer that it was you?

"Unless that's just your schtick."

Yours seems to be misdirection and attempting to make me the subject. Besides, in no way am I defending torture. Rather, I'm attempting to highlight that this QUESTION is now before the Congress, and it will be their responsibility to so define what is and what is not "torture."

. . .and of course, that is all Bush has asked for them to do -- not "lower" any limits or to abandon the Geneva Convention; as all the hysterical left/rats try to say (so that they can make political capital from their lies!!!)

Here is what the Senate thinks is "definitive" protection for those who might be required to interrogate prisoners of war:

No, "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

What does that mean? If the interrogator calls me a "liar" would that be an "outrage on personal dignity?"

How about being kept naked in my cell? Would that be considered torture because it is "humiliating and degrading?"

So, this "planning" by the Senate is just the type of planning you Leftist/Democrats like, isn't it? Now, there can be no interrogations of prisoners of war because anyone might find even being questioned to be a "humiliating and degrading" act and sue the US government for TORTURING THEM!

Just what you crybaby liars want for your president and any future war they might need to conduct, eh?

Good work for partisan saboteurs, however despicable and repugnant it makes you!!!

Alex says, "The fact that the military just made waterboarding, using cold rooms, and dnagling people for extended periods of time, as well as severe sleep deprivation AGAINST THE NEW CODE IN CLEAR CONCISE LANGUAGE."

You are inveterately misdirecting, Alex. I have no contentions with the military NOT using whatever interrogation technique they consider unworkable or too extreme; nor do I say that they must use any specific tactic.

What I said was that the military would like to have standards of interrogation well defined by law. However, you will do almost anything to turn this into a personal attack, won't you?

"That's TWO lies from you in this thread. Wanna go for 3?"

So, how many for you, then? 7, 8. . . ?

Now, there can be no interrogations of prisoners of war because anyone might find even being questioned to be a "humiliating and degrading" act and sue the US government for TORTURING THEM!

Actually, bush is the one that threatened to stop the CIA from interrogating people at all, if the little baby doesn't get his way.

So he's willing to miss intel and risk another 9-11 just because he thinks the executive branch is a kingDUMB with him wearing the crown.

Plus, a retroactive law legalizing torture would keep him from being prosecuted for torture already rendered.

Bush has no morals, and no brains. None.

What I said was that the military would like to have standards of interrogation well defined by law.

And Bush wants that to be as broad as possible, so he can continue to torture peopel that have been prisoners for 4-5 years, and no longer have relevant intel.

I wouldn't doubt if this whole detainee/torture debacle had ZERO PLAN like Iraq Stage-4(post war)

GEE, RiR, you're right! What IS 14,000 people, held indefinitely, with no trials or lawyers or charges, against our own Constitution, against the advice of many of our own military experts, and quietly releasing the vast majority with no trial/charges/apology, AND while simultaneously "holier-than thou-ing" every other country...

when we are:
--keeping America safe from Iraq's WMDs? (2002,2003)
--keeping the world safe from Saddam Hussein? (2003, 2004)
--creating a stable democracy in the Middle East? (2004,2005)
--"fighting them here, so we won't have to fight them there"? (2004,2005, 2006)
--fighting the global war on terror? (2005, 2006)
--fighting the "long war"? (2006)
--involved in the struggle that will define our generation? (2006)
--"support(ing) our troops"? (2002-2006)
--[insert your own meaningless jingoist phrase here]

It's not 'against our own Constitution', Sammy. They are prisoners of war. They'll go home when the war is over.

Geez. The apologists for our country's enemies have been working overtime of late.

Of late?

They've been working overtime since 9-12-01.

Seeing as though none of us know for sure what happens to detainee's that have been in custody for 4 to 5 years why is it that the mutts get the benefit of the doubt and our military gets maligned?

What do you suggest we do with jihadists Alex? Should we "faux torture" them? Should we tell them exactly what we are and aren't allowed to do to them as we "in process" them at any given prison? "OK Mohhammed, because we are afraid to fight and win we have set up exact guidelines on what we can ask you and how. Are there any questions? Do you have any food preferences? OK, now that we have that out of the way, is there anything you'd like to tell us?...No?...OK, you're free to go."

Let's just hand the entire middle east, russia, china, etc our playbook. That way we have no advantages what so ever.

RiR,
i take issue with your last post, especially with the terms 'war' etc. PoWs are entitled to protections under the GC, which the govt. has admitted (cryptically) to not providing to [some] of the 'prisoners' (HVTs).
i'll grant it's a circuitous argument and somewhat a legal conumdrum for the authorities.
what is often overlooked is powell's recent comment about the moral leadership that the US has shouldered in the WoT and how the penchant for extra-judicial actions by the admin risks eroding that. powell is obliquely refering to 4GW. once the moral basis of the conflict is delegitimised, then the jihadis have secured an important bridgehead to prolonging the war and mobilising the entirety of the arab world towards that objective(recruitment, theological justifications making the war against the entire panoply of western civilisation (OBL's plan in a nutshell)).
i also point out that there are documented cases of these ghost prisoners being imprisoned, then released uncharged and THEN engaging in jihadi activity.
i'm not sure as to numbers but it is undenible that there have been a unacceptably high number of people detained with little to no evidence of terrorist/jihadi association, often imprisoned b/c of personal vendettas.
my last point is that it all comes down to the hasty defining of the WoT, in particular gw's formulation of it as being 'with us or against us'. it's allowed all kinds of unsavoury regimes to claim that they are fighting terror (syria, russia, nepal, uzbekistan etc). no doubt some of those incarcerated have resulted from the co-operation that fighting 'terror' has engendered.

I heard this on neocon radio this morning, a woman with a nice tinge of panic in her voice for effect:

If we don't torture these terrorists right now, we won't live long enough to care about possible retribution to our soldiers!!

Ah neocons, you're so predictibly sad. Fear is the only card you have left to play.
We're all going to die tommorrow if we don't torture. I'm supposed to believe that the crap someone will spit out to make the torture stop is our best source of info to keep us alive? 6 years into Bush's Presidency, this is our best intel?

Excuse me if I don't buy it.

On my way to work today I hear a leftwing pant pisser say "I was picked last in gym class. I am too afraid to be a world super power so I want to relinquish all power and make everyone equal while apologizing the whole time for having been number one." The best part is this caller actually had to hang up because he needed a diaper change.

Wow, does anyone else have an example of something that never happened to them on the way to work this morning?
Didn't the lefties all laugh at Derla when he gave such BS accounts of what he heard and saw?

It's not 'against our own Constitution', Sammy. They are prisoners of war. They'll go home when the war is over.

Wake up and vote for Lincoln.. Neocons don't have any plans for this "war" to end. You think that when Iraq is over, the "war on terror" is over? Are you really that naive?

It isn't a war like WWII that has an end when the other side surrenders. The "POWs" would remain imprisoned and tortured for as long as neocons ran the show. Fortunately, that will end in 2 years. Unfortunately, a democrat will take their place..

Don't call me a liar 101, I don't make shit up.
A woman was on WIND AM 560 Chicago at 7:50am, and that's what she said.
I'm sorry that a slander is your only retort.

It isn't a war like WWII that has an end when the other side surrenders. The "POWs" would remain imprisoned and tortured for as long as neocons ran the show. Fortunately, that will end in 2 years. Unfortunately, a democrat will take their place..

Posted by jsprague

* * * *

Maybe. But maybe not.

I'm sure the Dems wish they could extend the franchise to the Islamists this November. Unfortunately, non-US citizens are NOT allowed to vote, and they are NOT entitled to Constitutional protections. Though, I guess if the Dems take over, that's something you guys might get working on too.

they are NOT entitled to Constitutional protections.

But they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, which they are not currently getting. Furthermore, many of them are not "soldiers" and have nothing to do with the war on terror. They are being held illegally. It is easy to sit back and say that everything we are doing is fine, but if the table were turned and you were the captive, I am sure that you would have plenty of gripes..

Maybe they're legally entitled to Geneva, maybe not. When our troops are captured by the terrorists, I've noted that their rights aren't exactly dispensed in accordance with the Conventions. Plus, Geneva requires that signatories have recognizable rank and insignia, and be in uniform. Terrorists and insurgents have neither.

Fair enough, though--let's give them all Geneva.

And, again, 14,000 doesn't seem like very much to me. What's the combined populations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and the other countries our troops are prosecuting the WOT? I'll bet there are fewer Muslims in our Prisoner of War camps than there are Americans sitting in jail for past-due child support.

Don't call me a liar 101, I don't make shit up.
A woman was on WIND AM 560 Chicago at 7:50am, and that's what she said.
I'm sorry that a slander is your only retort.

Posted by Norm_ at 2006-09-19 10:45 AM | Reply


Oh yeah?!? Well a man called WBEN AM 930 in Buffalo at 7:42:28am and that's what he said you liar.

The "POWs" would remain imprisoned and tortured for as long as neocons ran the show. Fortunately, that will end in 2 years.
You idiot. So then the prisoners are released? Or given trials using what procedures? Congress has not passed laws on how to deal with this situation. I guess you ignore that fact to push the King George mantra.

This is more foder for the Republicans contention that the wacko's on the left of the demorats will not allow the party to protect this country.

"You idiot. So then the prisoners are released? Or given trials using what procedures? Congress has not passed laws on how to deal with this situation. I guess you ignore that fact to push the King George mantra."

I'm and idiot? You are the one with the reading comprehension problem.. Where did I ever support the Bush administration? I am not a republican.

y'all should read thomas sowells recent column.summed up? cuddly approach to terrorist suspects is suicidal...I for one don't want to go with you libs!

RisR couldn't be anymore wrong...

"Unfortunately, non-US citizens are NOT allowed to vote, and they are NOT entitled to Constitutional protections."

WRONG. The rights protected (NOT GRANTED) by the constitution are considered to be natural human rights. Our government is legally and morally bound to protect those rights. Voting is a conditional right, predicated upon citizenship and attaining the age of 18.

"Maybe they're legally entitled to Geneva, maybe not. When our troops are captured by the terrorists, I've noted that their rights aren't exactly dispensed in accordance with the Conventions. Plus, Geneva requires that signatories have recognizable rank and insignia, and be in uniform. Terrorists and insurgents have neither."

Again, RiR is wrong. Read the Geneva Convention treaty sometime, will you? Note that since it is a treaty that the US signed, it is our law. Yes, it defines what people qualify as POWs, etc. It includes, by the way, people who take up arms against an invading country even when they haven't formed themselves into regular military units or wear uniforms. So-called "unlawful combatants" are to be treated humanely but may be duly tried and punished.

Also, each of the signatories of the conventions is required to apply the protections of the conventions to anyone they capture, even if they are fighting for an entity that has not agreed to or signed the treaty.

Read these documents, do some research - rather than counting on the talking points of the RNC.

Why take my comments out of context? I said that Geneva may or may not apply, and the fact that there is considerable debate on the subject is evidence enough. Then I went on to say, Fine--give them Geneva.

TADWOE

In case you didn't READ the article, which is obvious, the guy was a Canadian Citizen. He could NOT have been DEPORTED. You only cite the less agregious methonds like dog collars. Forgot all about beatings inflicted which have killed many detainees so far.....

Hope you enjoyed vomiting.

TADWOE

Actually VOMITING is quite an appropriate metaphor for what you add to this forum.

TADWOE

Actually VOMITING is quite an appropriate metaphor for what you add to this forum.

Vomit has more color, and if you did it right, more depth.