[QUOTE=El Alamo]If Mrs Obama wants a date night, she should go back and see her husbands hometown in Kenya, where he was born.[/QUOTE]Perhaps they can have a candlelight dinner in her brother in law's shanty?
Printable View
[QUOTE=El Alamo]If Mrs Obama wants a date night, she should go back and see her husbands hometown in Kenya, where he was born.[/QUOTE]Perhaps they can have a candlelight dinner in her brother in law's shanty?
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]We (USA USA USA) signed this agreement.
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."[/QUOTE]Hi,
I offered my definition of torture.
This is another definition.
Undoubtedly there are hundreds of other definitions, but that's my point. It's all in the specific individual's definition of torture.
A couple of other observations:
1. I don't believe that Al Queda or the Taliban are signatories to the Geneva convention, so I would question their legitimacy to claim any rights thereunder.
2. It seems to me that every police interrogation of a criminal suspect would qualify as torture under the Geneva Convention, given that these interrogations many time include threats of imprisonment which one could interpret as fitting this definition:
[quote]...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or [i]mental[/i], is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person [i]information or a confession[/i], punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed..."[/quote]What say you?
Thanks,
Jackson
Let's get a couple things straight:
1. If you want to live in freedom, you must keep the anti-freedom forces (whatever they may be) away from the people.
2. To accomplish (1) above, there must be a few dedicated folks at the pointy end of the spear who do that which is necessary to perpetuate the free way of life.
3. Those select few who are described in (2) above, and their specific actions will be second-guessed and vilified by some of the very people on whose behalf they act.
4. Those who chose to vilify and attack those who act legitimately to keep us safe, live in a cocoon protecting an altered state of being, having convinced themselves of "truisms" that cannot exist in the real world such as 1) Elvis was clean and sober at the time of his death, 2) the moon is made of cheese, and 3) we can live happily ever after without the need for an occasional question and answer session (facilitated with a cattle prod)
With all due respect, your ramblings need some investigation. This is not meant as a personal attack, think of it as an intervention whereby you might actually be saved. There is absolutely nothing in my comments that is "right wing" or "conservative." Just simple facts.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]I am always amused when neocons like you are amused at liberals when we remind you that we are in violation of agreements that we as a country have signed. To me it's simple, we (USA) signed it, as signaturies (sp) and supposed good guys we should honor it. If we feel as a country these rules we agreed to are no longer useful or valid than before we break them we should announce our departure from them.[/QUOTE]Your amusement aside, please state factual references to specific US violations of the GC. You want to believe how terrible we are. Unfortunately, the truth is, we just aren't that bad (sorry to disappoint you)
[quote]Personally I oppose torture on two key points, most of the reading I have done tells me that except in very limited cases it's not effective[/QUOTE]That is a feel-good, bullshit line created to give people a back-up reason for being against torture. The people who trot out this line have never come remotely close to the actual process nor have they ever looked first hand and the fruits of 'enhanced' interrogations. It works, trust me. I support deriving any and all information from potential non-US-citizen terror suspects. I also support the judicious remediation of terror problems with extreme prejudice.
[quote] I feel (not logical I know) that my country really is a better country and we should be above it.[/quote]
Very logical, we are above lawlessness and we do adhere to our international and internal commitments on behavior. However, you need to understand that we are the boy scouts in this world of interrogations. If you we to get caught and interrogated, trust me, you want to be in US hands.
[quote]Torture works as a tactical tool, IE. You catch some guy and he and his playmates are about to commit some gross act of violence and you need IMMEDIATE information to not only save military life but the lives of non-combatants then giving him some emergency dental work or better yet giving emergency surgury to somebody while he watches most likely will give you info that you need. However as a stratigic tool it's generally worthless[/QUOTE]Again, you are making a statement on the basis of what you hope / wish is the truth. You are mistaken.
[quote]it made the Bushies FEEL better that we were punishing the rag heads without benefit of trial[/quote]
If it were not for the fact that no one (other than whacked-out lefties) would take you seriously on this subject, this non sequitur would be one of the most egregious statements I have ever read on AP. Your statement is careless and erroneous. Please feel free to make specific quotations of "Bushies" on the record statements visa vi their feelings about punishing rag heads under extrajudicial circumstances and processes.
[quote] As always though I respect your right to believe as you do[/QUOTE]I share your sentiment and I believe that your contributions to this board on other subjects, such as Argie pussy, are a much better use of your time.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Personally I oppose torture on two key points, most of the reading I have done tells me that except in very limited cases it's not effective, and two I feel (not logical I know) that my country really is a better country and we should be above it.
. Torture works as a tactical tool, IE. You catch some guy and he and his playmates are about to commit some gross act of violence and you need IMMEDIATE information to not only save military life but the lives of non-combatants then giving him some emergency dental work or better yet giving emergency surgury to somebody while he watches most likely will give you info that you need. However as a stratigic tool it's generally worthless, it made the Bushies FEEL better that we were punishing the rag heads without benefit of trial, but as far as useful info not so much. In any event the point is moot, we signed the agreement and we are in violation for breaking it simple as that.[/QUOTE]Hey man, I'm really not far right and certainly waver at the use of torture just because I don't trust government - any government.
But I have to agree with others here that those who are saying torture is not effective may not have all of the facts, or are ignoring something. I say this as an opinion, because I don't have all the facts either.
The thing is, just using common sense, you can get a pretty good idea of the truth of statements because you have a very large pool of information sources to verify it. I write business applications, so I know something about information sampling. If you had one or two or maybe even ten prisoners and you tortured them, you might get two different possible threats out of them - one or two guys knew something and of the others one or two maybe knew a little something about it, but they weren't tied to that so the information didn't exactly match up. Not enough sampling to make a decision.
However, take hundreds of prisoners who are researched and matched throughout world criminal databases to see the relationships and probabilities between them, you can pinpoint your smapling much sharper and produce verifiable results that will be reasonably accurate. You'll have some errors too. But the results are going to be successful. The numbers say so.
What would really matter, if you got past the means of extracting the information, is what you do with it.
Now, I'm still not condoning real physical, damaging torture. But I also don't think that's necessary. Tell me that locking someone away in a US prison doesn't cause a person some mental anguish and by that definition too strictly we torture our own inmates.
But waterboarding, seeing each other naked or in front of women, wearing underwear on their head or whatever, if not taken overboard, could be a reasonable means for retrieving information that could save a lot of lives. The slippery slope is where I have the most trouble.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]We (USA USA USA) signed this agreement.
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Taking nothing from Bud Day of course, but this is the legal definition we (USA USA USA) accepted when we signed this agreement. However as a tolerant liberal I of course advocate you having the right to believe as you do.[/QUOTE]Omar Sheriff asking Dustin Hoffmann Ļif it's safe Ļin a great movie called The Marathon Man!
Looks painful to me.
A little water torture never hurt anybody!
Those [strike]little sand rats[/strike] distinguished citizens of Middle Eastern countries are just allergic to water!
Strap me in and I won't sing!
Bull-shit!
Show me the gurney and I'm all about names and adresses baby!
I have already done it in the states. They did not give a shit about my info! Damnit!
If my info will not cause the death and demise of the U. S. A. I mean a (of a great country then who cares?)
My balls are going to stay firmly attached. Daddy First and Fuck the rest!
TL.
P. S - I do have a Purple Heart for some reason!
Are you refering to Arabs?
If so, I find your comments offensive. I am sure there are many Arab and Arab Americans on this website.
Try to keep your racism off this public forum.
Regards,
BM.[QUOTE=TejanoLibre]Those little sand rats are just allergic to water![/QUOTE]Jackson, maybe it would be wise to edit this.
[QUOTE=BadMan]Jackson, maybe it would be wise to edit this.[/QUOTE]Jax, if you would be so kind as to place quotation marks around "rag heads" in my last post. I was not making a slur, I was repeating the slur in my post to make a point (which is not well made without the quotation marks)
I have many friends from places such as Lebanon, Egypt and the UAE and work with a number of groups in MENA (Middle East North Africa) and do not view them any differently that my friends from non-MENA countries.
Slurs, like torture, can be effective in shaping and directing public perception of certain groups (has been done throughout history) however, in an intellectual discussion, the use of slurs usually diminishes the speaker and his / her message.
TL- do you have purple heart? Let me buy you a drink next time I am in town.
[blue]Greetings everyone,
I'm sure that everyone can appreciate that the very nature of the Forum requires that the readers keep their "sensitivity radars" turned down.
Nevertheless, I have edited the original text, as follows:
[quote]Those [strike]little sand rats[/strike] distinguished citizens of Middle Eastern countries are just allergic to water![/QUOTE]Thanks,
Jackson[/blue]
It has been a long time since we have had a deranged liberal in the White House. Clinton was anything but a deranged liberal. Carter was an idiot but not a deranged liberal. LBJ. Maybe. Kennedy would be considered a Republican today. Truman. No way.
At least we don't have to listen to the dribble about Reagon's tax cuts putting us in the poor house. Obama is putting us in the poor house with tax increases.
The other day Obama said that the Republicans have only one answer to our economic problems I. E. Cutting taxes. Fortuneately for us Obama has another solution for our economic problems I. E. Increasing taxes.
[QUOTE=Sidney]He and his lackeys do all possible to destroy the USA auto and supplier industry, destoying, eliminating, an uncountable thousands of jobs. Meanwhile, China has surpassed the USA in auto production and sales (for 2009, China sales were 6.1 million vs 4.8 million in the USA) China launched a stimulus package with sales tax cuts, trade-in subsidies, and other incentives. While the Obomination destroyed, downsized, and made a giveaway to Fiat. What an idiot! CHANGE![/QUOTE]This guy is not stupid. He is seeking to destroy what makes this country great. He has contempt for every last one of us, those that despise him and those that idolize him.
He just threw out the first pitch in the MLB All Star game and the State-Run Media just described him as a Sox (White Sox, not the real Sox) fan through-and-through. I guess because he had a white sox jacket on and lived in Chicago at one point. Every schmuck in the media has their nose up his ass.
The guy could take a shit on a service tray on an AA flight (like the guy from Chase) and they would applaud him for being green and trying to recycle the chateaubriand served on mesclun greens.
That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.
Mongers-
I think it is quite clear that Sidney has caught syphilis from one of his skanky Dominican concubines and that the disease has advanced to the point where it is causing him to become confused and lose his mind. This is the only logical explantation how Sidney, himself a former GM man, could possibly blame Obama for destroying the US auto industry (meaning GM and Chrysler) GM and Chrysler are bankrupt today because of gross mismanagement and poor business strategy. Period. Obama's (and Bush's) mistake was to give them any money at all to stay afloat when it was painfully obvious the entire time that neither of these companies could possibly avoid bankruptcy. Bailing out the auto industry is both futile and unnecessary. Ford was able to stay afloat without assistance and there are plenty of Japanese and European automobiles available in the United States at reasonable prices. Bailing out financial institutions (TARP) was absolutely necessary as without the availability of credit and loans a modern market economy cannot function. However, as I have previously stated, the economic stimulus package is complete bullshit that will destroy the currency and savings of the US populace.
People who claim that Obama is out to destroy the United States and enslave its citizens are foolish and not to be taken seriously.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
That grampa letter is one pathetic piece of garbage.