NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1840765,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606.stm

As I recall, when he was first called on this, Bush was like "Nah, no prisons here."

Then he says "Yeah, it's cool though, we're done with them so we're sending them somewhere where there are laws. Cuz, you know, we're done torturing them."

Why hasn't a bigger stink been made about this?

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1840765,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606.stm

As I recall, when he was first called on this, Bush was like "Nah, no prisons here."

Then he says "Yeah, it's cool though, we're done with them so we're sending them somewhere where there are laws. Cuz, you know, we're done torturing them."

Why hasn't a bigger stink been made about this?

Please link to proof of this exact quote you provided:

"Cuz, you know, we're done torturing them."

The whole point is we weren't torturing them. We were just shipping them to countries where torture is commonly used. But they told us (scout's honor!) that they would not infact torture them.


What do ya mean there's no boyscouts in Egypt?

Please link to proof of this exact quote you provided:

"Cuz, you know, we're done torturing them."
www.thegrandolddukeofyork.com/hehadtenthousandmen

Please link to proof of this exact quote you provided:

"Cuz, you know, we're done torturing them."

I'm sorry, I got carried away and exaggerated.

My assumption of course was they were holding them in secret bases so they could be tortured.

The quote properly looks like

"We're done with them, so they're going to Guantanomo." or somesuch.

I'm sorry, I got carried away and exaggerated.

My assumption of course was they were holding them in secret bases so they could be tortured.

The quote properly looks like

"We're done with them, so they're going to Guantanomo." or somesuch.

He's said "interrogation" before. But hasn't said torture.

He's said "interrogation" before. But hasn't said torture.
Of course he hasn't, because torture is against the law. Doesn't mean he hasn't authorized it all the same.

Of course he hasn't, because torture is against the law. Doesn't mean he hasn't authorized it all the same.

A hypothetic question: Bush is found at a later date to have authorised torture. Could he go to prison as a result?


It always seems to be you I ask about technicalities in American law. :p

Of course he hasn't, because torture is against the law. Doesn't mean he hasn't authorized it all the same.

I'm afraid you'll need more than an assertion that he's authorized it, even if someone far down the chain of command has done it.

I'm afraid you'll need more than an assertion that he's authorized it, even if someone far down the chain of command has done it.

The Yoo memo.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1840765,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606.stm

As I recall, when he was first called on this, Bush was like "Nah, no prisons here."

Then he says "Yeah, it's cool though, we're done with them so we're sending them somewhere where there are laws. Cuz, you know, we're done torturing them."

Why hasn't a bigger stink been made about this?

:rolleyes:

Thank God the kind of fuzzy thinking exemplified by the foregoing question wasn't in place during WWII, or those who now make a big display of condemning "Nazism" and the like would know what Nazism is really about, because they'd be living under it (or its Japanese equivalent).

The CIA prison program was a GOOD thing and should be continued. Spies, sabateurs and terrorists deserve only one thing, and it's not Geneva Convention treatment.

A hypothetic question: Bush is found at a later date to have authorised torture. Could he go to prison as a result?


It always seems to be you I ask about technicalities in American law. :p

I really don't know. Theoretically, it might be possible, but as a practical matter it's nearly impossible.

I really don't know. Theoretically, it might be possible, but as a practical matter it's nearly impossible.
He will probably sign a presidential pardon for himself before he leaves office.

I really don't know. Theoretically, it might be possible, but as a practical matter it's nearly impossible.

There is a growing chance that former/current leaders could go to jail in both Italy and France, so these things, while they always seem unlikely, are not impossible.

:rolleyes:

Thank God the kind of fuzzy thinking exemplified by the foregoing question wasn't in place during WWII, or those who now make a big display of condemning "Nazism" and the like would know what Nazism is really about, because they'd be living under it (or its Japanese equivalent).

The CIA prison program was a GOOD thing and should be continued. Spies, sabateurs and terrorists deserve only one thing, and it's not Geneva Convention treatment.

Then why don't you find yourself a nice authoritarian government to pledge your allegiance to? Some of us actually believe in the old saw about those willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

:rolleyes:

Thank God the kind of fuzzy thinking exemplified by the foregoing question wasn't in place during WWII, or those who now make a big display of condemning "Nazism" and the like would know what Nazism is really about, because they'd be living under it (or its Japanese equivalent).

The CIA prison program was a GOOD thing and should be continued. Spies, sabateurs and terrorists deserve only one thing, and it's not Geneva Convention treatment.

I thought we cared more about law and order than we do vengeance and chaos. My mistake, sorry. At least we know -you're- no better than those being 'interrogated'.

I recently made a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498775) which related to an article written by the CBC, wherein Fearless Leader admitted the existence of secret CIA prisons abroad, and called them 'necessary'.

Iirc, he didn't plainly state that tortures are carried out at these facilities. I would assume that details such as torture are so performed as to allow a certain... plausible deniability at executive levels.

(It would go something like this <reads like President Butthead> : 'well, uhh - sure, we sent those guys to like, a secret CIA prison and stuff - but like, I never said to hang them from their wrists and like, use acetylene torches on their armpits 'til they fell or or nothin'. That was uhh - that was like, uhhh - that was somebody else, or somethin'. Uh huh huh huh huh huh huh')

:rolleyes:

Thank God the kind of fuzzy thinking exemplified by the foregoing question wasn't in place during WWII, or those who now make a big display of condemning "Nazism" and the like would know what Nazism is really about, because they'd be living under it (or its Japanese equivalent).

We, the Allies, treated our prisoners with dignity and respect (with the possible exception of the USSR), and that was what made us 'better' than those whom we fought.

Don't insult the thousands of people who died with and for dignity and honour by saying WWII was won by doing the very things they fought against.

The CIA prison program was a GOOD thing and should be continued. Spies, sabateurs and terrorists deserve only one thing, and it's not Geneva Convention treatment.

Funny. China says the same thing about Democracy activists. Iran says that about non-believers. North Korea says that about defectors. Zimbabwe says that about white farmers.

You really aren't choosy with your company, are you?

People have spent hundreds of years fighting and dying for the ability to be innocent until proven guilty, and for basic human rights. But mark my words: as soon as you roll that back from "undesirables", what goes around will come around:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Get my drift?

What do ya mean there's no boyscouts in Egypt?

http://www.egyptianscout.org.eg/Main.htm

Then why don't you find yourself a nice authoritarian government to pledge your allegiance to? Some of us actually believe in the old saw about those willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

Some of us believe in the "old saw" about the Constitution not being a suicide pact. I am perfectly willing to give up my right to conspire against my country, commit terrorist acts and kill my fellow Americans. So I am more than willing to give up the right of Islamo-Nazis to do so.

And I'm not going anywhere, sweetie. I'm staying right here in the US where I will continue to support effective action against the enemy. Maybe you should find a nice impotent regime of wimps to pledge your allegiance to, so you can all sing "Kumbaya" and repeat, "Thank you, UBL, may I have another." :D

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Get my drift?

The favorite poem of the appeaser and the do-nothing.

Get this straight, Sparky: Nobody is coming for Jews, Communists, or trade unionists. The ones they are coming for are the Islamo-Nazis who are at war with us, attempting to contact their sympathizers and enablers within our country (and others), actively seeking to infiltrate our country (and others) and deceive our people as to their true intentions, and dedicated to our destruction. If you fall into that category, then they should be coming for you.

This is not a matter of criminal law. This is a matter of war. Only a fool fights a war with a hand tied behind his back.

Get my drift?

This is not a matter of criminal law. This is a matter of war. Only a fool fights a war with a hand tied behind his back.

Get my drift?

So you suggest that the war on terror should be waged with no regard for national and international law or any conventions?

... This is a matter of war. Only a fool fights a war with a hand tied behind his back.

if that's the case... how come rummy et al decided not to have more troops in iraq during the rebuilding phase?

The favorite poem of the appeaser and the do-nothing.

Get this straight, Sparky: Nobody is coming for Jews, Communists, or trade unionists. The ones they are coming for are the Islamo-Nazis who are at war with us, attempting to contact their sympathizers and enablers within our country (and others), actively seeking to infiltrate our country (and others) and deceive our people as to their true intentions, and dedicated to our destruction. If you fall into that category, then they should be coming for you.

This is not a matter of criminal law. This is a matter of war. Only a fool fights a war with a hand tied behind his back.

Get my drift?
You know what? If my choices are between their view:
Islam for everyone, very limited freedoms and a strict hierarchy of people to be obeyed.

and your view:
Everyone is fair game if they look at me suspiciously. Torture for everyone, might makes right.

I choose their view. It may be stiffling, but at least I'd have some freedoms.

The favorite poem of the appeaser and the do-nothing.

Get this straight, Sparky: Nobody is coming for Jews, Communists, or trade unionists. The ones they are coming for are the Islamo-Nazis who are at war with us, attempting to contact their sympathizers and enablers within our country (and others), actively seeking to infiltrate our country (and others) and deceive our people as to their true intentions, and dedicated to our destruction. If you fall into that category, then they should be coming for you.

This is not a matter of criminal law. This is a matter of war. Only a fool fights a war with a hand tied behind his back.

Get my drift?

You're not into the old "innocent until proven guilty" thing eh?

Look, New Mittana, here's the thing: We're not talking about appeasment. Fuck appeasment. That gets no one anywhere. What we ARE talking about is not giving up essential freedoms for the sake of security. You want wiretap? Sure! Just go to the FISA court first. You want to imprison? Absolutely! Just get a warrent first. You want to torture and abuse and completely fall down to their level? Absolutely NOT!

You want to be just like them? Go ahead. The rest of us will fight them on our own terms, without becoming them. There's no point to fighting if we become them, you see.

So you suggest that the war on terror should be waged with no regard for national and international law or any conventions?

Only those that apply to unlawful combatants who are not wearing uniforms, not fighting in national armies and not part of a chain of command. In other words, not many.

IIRC under the laws of war, spies can be summarily shot. I would squeeze every last bit of info out of them first, then shoot them. :sniper:

if that's the case... how come rummy et al decided not to have more troops in iraq during the rebuilding phase?

Now that is a good question. My guess is political pressure to avoid "civilian casualties" and "damage to infrastructure."

Critics who say we should have sent more troops to Iraq than we did have a good point IMO.

Overwhelmingly disproportionate offense is the best defense. :D

Some of us believe in the "old saw" about the Constitution not being a suicide pact. I am perfectly willing to give up my right to conspire against my country, commit terrorist acts and kill my fellow Americans. So I am more than willing to give up the right of Islamo-Nazis to do so.

And I'm not going anywhere, sweetie. I'm staying right here in the US where I will continue to support effective action against the enemy. Maybe you should find a nice impotent regime of wimps to pledge your allegiance to, so you can all sing "Kumbaya" and repeat, "Thank you, UBL, may I have another." :DYou know what the real difference is between us? I'm not scared of a penny-ante fuck living in a cave in northern Pakistan. You're so scared you're willing to turn this country into the second coming of the USSR. You're a chicken shit. A coward. A bed wetting child who's terrified of a muslim boogeyman half a world away. And you're putting your trust in people who will fuck you and still leave you unprotected.

You know what? If my choices are between their view:
Islam for everyone, very limited freedoms and a strict hierarchy of people to be obeyed.

and your view:
Everyone is fair game if they look at me suspiciously. Torture for everyone, might makes right.

I choose their view. It may be stiffling, but at least I'd have some freedoms.

What an utterly foolish statement. Not to mention an absurd misstatement of the issue. The issue isn't "do they look at me suspiciously," it's "are they in contact with enemy forces overseas or conspiring to commit terrorist acts in this country?" Not to mention, "are we going to do what is necessary to protect the security of this country, or are we going to let more of our people die needlessly but feel good about it because, by golly, we protected the civil rights of terrorists?"

Wake up.

The Yoo memo.
Aye, correct, he asked me and I was like "that's a rubbish idea" so he sacked me and was like "get to fuck, I'm just gonna use my presidential powers, you silly pot-smoking hippie" and I was like "you did drugs also yourself" and he was like "Sssh... the public doesn't need to know", so he paid me $12 to piss off, so I did.

And that's how I was a Senator.

You know what the real difference is between us? I'm not scared of a penny-ante fuck living in a cave in northern Pakistan. You're so scared you're willing to turn this country into the second coming of the USSR. You're a chicken shit. A coward. A bed wetting child who's terrified of a muslim boogeyman half a world away. And you're putting your trust in people who will fuck you and still leave you unprotected.

...

Have I ever told you that I love you?

You know what the real difference is between us? I'm not scared of a penny-ante fuck living in a cave in northern Pakistan. You're so scared you're willing to turn this country into the second coming of the USSR. You're a chicken shit. A coward. A bed wetting child who's terrified of a muslim boogeyman half a world away. And you're putting your trust in people who will fuck you and still leave you unprotected.

It's just wonderful to know that our country is blessed with people with your intrepid bravery. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the grownups are taking things seriously and doing what needs to be done about it.

BTW: Ad hominem abuse is the surest indicator that you have nothing intelligent to say, sweetie.

Could it be that it's that time of the month? ;)

It's just wonderful to know that our country is blessed with people with your intrepid bravery. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the grownups are taking things seriously and doing what needs to be done about it.

BTW: Ad hominem abuse is the surest indicator that you have nothing intelligent to say, sweetie.

Could it be that it's that time of the month? ;)

...so...if you're using ad hominems too, doesn't that render your OWN argument invalid by default?

Yay logic!

It's just wonderful to know that our country is blessed with people with your intrepid bravery. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the grownups are taking things seriously and doing what needs to be done about it.

BTW: Ad hominem abuse is the surest indicator that you have nothing intelligent to say, sweetie.

Could it be that it's that time of the month? ;)

If you're what passes or grownups right now, then the Republican party is well and truly fucked.

And by the way, I've got more than enough dick to slap you in the face with.

And by the way, I've got more than enough dick to slap you in the face with.

*Stands back*

What an utterly foolish statement. Not to mention an absurd misstatement of the issue. The issue isn't "do they look at me suspiciously," it's "are they in contact with enemy forces overseas or conspiring to commit terrorist acts in this country?" Not to mention, "are we going to do what is necessary to protect the security of this country, or are we going to let more of our people die needlessly but feel good about it because, by golly, we protected the civil rights of terrorists?"

Wake up.

Security of the country? You want us to ignore, circumvent, or even change the laws of the country, the foundations that our institutions and history are built upon, so that someone doesn't try to kill you?

Think for a minute. The country as we know it is under greater danger of being destroyed by the fearful reactions of the democratically elected leaders than by the actions of terrorists. Terrorists can't invade our country, stage a coup, or effect any kind of meaningful change here short of blowing up buildings and hijacking airplanes. The only thing they can do is kill people, and by doing so make everyone so scared of being killed that they change the country for the terrorists. What we need to do is to keep our heads and keep our country strong by not bending to terrorists and changing our long-standing values of fair treatment under the law.

...so...if you're using ad hominems too, doesn't that render your OWN argument invalid by default?

Yay logic!

Please enlighten me as to which "ad hominems" I actually used.

Perhaps you can't tell the difference between ad hominem arguments, e.g., name-calling, and sarcasm.

Please enlighten me as to which "ad hominems" I actually used.

Perhaps you can't tell the difference between ad hominem arguments, e.g., name-calling, and sarcasm.

I'd call the time-of-the-month bit an insult, as well as the sweetie comment. Sarcasm or not, it was an ad hominem.

Furthermore, you're attempting distractionary measures to avoid the fact that your argument is flawed, faulty, and just plain wrong. I'm afraid you won't divert us that easily. Tell me: Why should we drop to their level? Why should we become them to stop them?

If you're what passes or grownups right now, then the Republican party is well and truly fucked.

And by the way, I've got more than enough dick to slap you in the face with.

"Spamgirl" with a penis? Are you implying you're a trannie? Or are you a female playing a male role? Inquiring minds want to know ;)

Perhaps I was misled by your NS persona that's (allegedly) female.

You know what the real difference is between us? I'm not scared of a penny-ante fuck living in a cave in northern Pakistan. You're so scared you're willing to turn this country into the second coming of the USSR. You're a chicken shit. A coward. A bed wetting child who's terrified of a muslim boogeyman half a world away. And you're putting your trust in people who will fuck you and still leave you unprotected.

but big brother would never hurt me. he's just here to protect me from the terrible boogey man that lives under my bed. and big brother tells me that wetting the bed is ok, because it's like peeing on the boogey man. so there.

"Spamgirl" with a penis? Are you implying you're a trannie? Or are you a female playing a male role? Inquiring minds want to know ;)

Perhaps I was misled by your NS persona that's (allegedly) female.

The names on the left are decided by the forums, not the poster, and change with postcount.

"Spamgirl" with a penis? Are you implying you're a trannie? Or are you a female playing a male role? Inquiring minds want to know ;)

Perhaps I was misled by your NS persona that's (allegedly) female.

The user has no choice on the gender of their title, when you get as many posts as him you will be a spamgirl too, I couldn't choose between "pimp" and "Pimpette"

Some of us believe in the "old saw" about the Constitution not being a suicide pact. I am perfectly willing to give up my right to conspire against my country, commit terrorist acts and kill my fellow Americans. So I am more than willing to give up the right of Islamo-Nazis to do so.

And I'm not going anywhere, sweetie. I'm staying right here in the US where I will continue to support effective action against the enemy. Maybe you should find a nice impotent regime of wimps to pledge your allegiance to, so you can all sing "Kumbaya" and repeat, "Thank you, UBL, may I have another." :D

It's not the "Islamo-Nazis" you have to worry about, hon. It's them thar Christo-Republicans who are your real enemies.

Get my drift?

Only those that apply to unlawful combatants who are not wearing uniforms, not fighting in national armies and not part of a chain of command. In other words, not many.

Then by your own logic you would be a fool.

Only a fool fights a war with a hand tied behind his back.

Then by your own logic you would be a fool.

haha, burn

I'd call the time-of-the-month bit an insult, as well as the sweetie comment. Sarcasm or not, it was an ad hominem.

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about A.
Therefore claim X is false.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem )

Thus, The Nazzi . . . oops :p The Nazz, argues:

NM says we need to implement increased security measures to defeat Islamo-Nazi terrorists (paraphrasing, not a direct quote).

NM is afraid of UBL.

Therefore, NM's argument is wrong.

Clearly an ad hominem (and fallacious) argument.

In contrast, I have never stated that TN's arguments are wrong because, e.g., TN is a flaming libtard or a shrill, self-righteous grad student or some such (and I don't have direct knowledge that any such description is even accurate). I find her arguments sadly unconvincing, at least as much as you find mine (but don't despair, there's still hope for you ;) )

Note: in the interest of fairness, the cited article does give an alternative definition of a.h. as including any personal attack. If you consider sarcasm and insults to be "personal attacks," then you may have a point, but I construe a.h. more strictly according to its usage in logic.

Furthermore, you're attempting distractionary measures to avoid the fact that your argument is flawed, faulty, and just plain wrong. I'm afraid you won't divert us that easily. Tell me: Why should we drop to their level? Why should we become them to stop them?

"Just plain wrong"? So you say. Others differ, and unfortunately for you, many of them are actual decision-makers whose opinion matters. As for "becoming them to stop them," if you consider, e.g., extracting information from illegal combatants, or gathering intelligence on communications from enemy agents to recipients in this country, during wartime, to be somehow equivalent to terrorist activity directed against us, then your definition of equivalence is irremediably detached from reality. Think about it.

Better to get our hands dirty and survive, than keep them clean and die. We can always wash them later. Dead men can't do anything but stay dead.

The names on the left are decided by the forums, not the poster, and change with postcount.

Thank you for correcting my mistake.

Then by your own logic you would be a fool.

Touche, I must admit. :headbang:

Maybe a better statement would be: "Only a fool construes the law of war unnecessarily broadly and thus handicaps himself against an enemy who completely disregards said law." How's that now?

What I am referring to is torture, physical abuse, complete disregard for BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. THAT is becoming like them. And no, it's not so easy to "wash our hands clean" as it were. Such steps in that utterly wrong direction are far too often prices extremely high to take back. Just see the collapse of the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich. Took all of World War II to reset those mistakes.

Touche, I must admit. :headbang:

Maybe a better statement would be: "Only a fool construes the law of war unnecessarily broadly and thus handicaps himself against an enemy who completely disregards said law." How's that now?

It doesn't seem to match your earlier clarion call for action at all:

Spies, sabateurs and terrorists deserve only one thing, and it's not Geneva Convention treatment.

Your initial manifesto was to give them other than treatment in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, and now you are suggesting that interpretation of the Conventions to allow such treatment would be a wise move.

So, is your imagined treatment of these people within or without the ambit of the Conventions?

Just see the collapse of the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich. Took all of World War II to reset those mistakes.

...and the Cold War, and the blowback caused by support of temporarily expedient dictatorships and warlords during the fight against the red menace...

Them thar mistakes still ain't been reset.

...and the Cold War, and the blowback caused by support of temporarily expedient dictatorships and warlords during the fight against the red menace...

Them thar mistakes still ain't been reset.

Exactly. And all the Iraq War has been is one more mistake on the list. Furthermore, we'll keep adding mistakes if we don't stop with the way we're going about this.

What I am referring to is torture, physical abuse, complete disregard for BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. THAT is becoming like them. And no, it's not so easy to "wash our hands clean" as it were. Such steps in that utterly wrong direction are far too often prices extremely high to take back. Just see the collapse of the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich. Took all of World War II to reset those mistakes.

If you consider "torture" to be something like hot branding irons, the rack, iron maidens, physical mutilation and things of that magnitude, I generally agree. There are plenty of effective interrogation measures that don't require such abuse.

However, if the circumstances are sufficiently exigent, we shouldn't rule out any technique that is capable of extracting the necessary information. If we had nabbed one of the damned 9/11 hijackers at the gate but the others had gotten on and proceeded with their plan, no holds should have been barred to find out exactly what they were up to. And if that resulted in "torture," "physical abuse" or "complete disregard of basic human rights," I'm OK with that, and I'm sure the 3000 victims who are now dead (among others) would have agreed.

If you define "torture" as sleep deprivation, cold prison cells or having to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, I don't agree. Unlawful combatants, including UBL and other terrorists, have no right to comfortable interrogations.

As for "basic human rights," again, international law allows spies to be summarily shot. Terrorists fall into that category IMO.

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about A.
Therefore claim X is false.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem )

Thus, The Nazzi . . . oops :p The Nazz, argues:

NM says we need to implement increased security measures to defeat Islamo-Nazi terrorists (paraphrasing, not a direct quote).

NM is afraid of UBL.

Therefore, NM's argument is wrong.

Clearly an ad hominem (and fallacious) argument.

In contrast, I have never stated that TN's arguments are wrong because, e.g., TN is a flaming libtard or a shrill, self-righteous grad student or some such (and I don't have direct knowledge that any such description is even accurate). I find her arguments sadly unconvincing, at least as much as you find mine (but don't despair, there's still hope for you ;) )

Note: in the interest of fairness, the cited article does give an alternative definition of a.h. as including any personal attack. If you consider sarcasm and insults to be "personal attacks," then you may have a point, but I construe a.h. more strictly according to its usage in logic.

It's good to see that you acknowledge the secondary definition, but really, it's beside the point. The fact is that my original post, the one for which you replied with the bullshit which got you called a coward, did say what I thought was wrong with your argument, namely that you wish the US to turn into a totalitarian state. That's attacking your argument, not you. If the US turns into a totalitarian state in order to ostensibly protect itself from outside threats, then the US as we know it will cease to be. The fact that your cowardice leads you to believe that's a good thing is only a side point.

As for "basic human rights," again, international law allows spies to be summarily shot. Terrorists fall into that category IMO.

Incorrect, under international law spies caught in time of war* are entitled to trial, to deny them such is classified as a war crime by the Geneva Conventions of 1949.


* not that the US is at war though, so the relevance of this all is somewhat academic.

It doesn't seem to match your earlier clarion call for action at all:



Your initial manifesto was to give them other than treatment in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, and now you are suggesting that interpretation of the Conventions to allow such treatment would be a wise move.

So, is your imagined treatment of these people within or without the ambit of the Conventions?

Perhaps I'm not sufficiently clear. OK, let's make it even clearer: NO TREATMENT OF TERRORISTS, SPIES, SABATEURS, ETC. AS "PRISONERS OF WAR" AS SUCH ARE DEFINED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

Is that clear enough now?

The favorite poem of the appeaser and the do-nothing.

Get this straight, Sparky: Nobody is coming for Jews, Communists, or trade unionists. The ones they are coming for are the Islamo-Nazis who are at war with us, attempting to contact their sympathizers and enablers within our country (and others), actively seeking to infiltrate our country (and others) and deceive our people as to their true intentions, and dedicated to our destruction. If you fall into that category, then they should be coming for you.

This is not a matter of criminal law. This is a matter of war. Only a fool fights a war with a hand tied behind his back.

Get my drift?


o Look!!!!!!!!!!! Drama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps I'm not sufficiently clear. OK, let's make it even clearer: NO TREATMENT OF TERRORISTS, SPIES, SABATEURS, ETC. AS "PRISONERS OF WAR" AS SUCH ARE DEFINED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

Is that clear enough now?

Aside from the fact that spies aren't granted the status of POW's by the Geneva Conventions anyhow...

...so, you're fighting with one hand tried behind your back?

Perhaps I'm not sufficiently clear. OK, let's make it even clearer: NO TREATMENT OF TERRORISTS, SPIES, SABATEURS, ETC. AS "PRISONERS OF WAR" AS SUCH ARE DEFINED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

Is that clear enough now?

When special forces are in the field, they've nowhere to put prisoners, question people in any "civilised way' or conduct due process etc. Theres obvious consequences to that fact. But thats just the way of it. When you're a small group trying to overthrow/defend/attack something, you've nowhere to put them either, try them etc, and the same consequences follow. But when you're a nation-state with a bunch of SUSPECTS, often consisting of teenage goat-herders, theres usually supposed to be a use of the resources available.

Aside from the fact that spies aren't granted the status of POW's by the Geneva Conventions anyhow...

...so, you're fighting with one hand tried behind your back?

Its not where his hand is that seems to be the problem.....

you wish the US to turn into a totalitarian state.

"totalitarianism:
Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority. The term was coined in the early 1920s by Benito Mussolini, but totalitarianism has existed throughout history throughout the world (e.g., Qin dynasty China). It is distinguished from dictatorship and authoritarianism by its supplanting of all political institutions and all old legal and social traditions with new ones to meet the state's needs, which are usually highly focused. Large-scale, organized violence may be legitimized. The police operate without the constraint of laws and regulations. Where pursuit of the state's goal is the only ideological foundation for such a government, achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged. Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) is the standard work on the subject."

( http://www.answers.com/topic/totalitarianism )

My posts advocate sufficient action against terrorists and unlawful combatants to secure the safety of my country.

My posts do not advocate (a) a form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority, (b) supplanting of all political institutions and all old legal and social traditions with new ones to meet the state's needs, (c) large-scale, organized violence, or (d) police operation without the constraint of laws and regulations.

Thus, I do not "wish to turn the US into a totalitarian state," and you are exposed as one who doesn't know the meaning of the words he (it is he, isn't it?) uses, at best, and as a stranger to the truth at worst.

I would say "liar," but that might be construed as an ad hominem attack.

Thus, I do not "wish to turn the US into a totalitarian state," and you are exposed as one who doesn't know the meaning of the words he (it is he, isn't it?) uses, at best, and as a stranger to the truth at worst.

I would say "liar," but that might be construed as an ad hominem attack.

Regardless of whether you want to classify them as ad hominem, it certainly would be flaming, which, as I previously understood it, is against the rules. Note, also, that the continuous snide remarks about The Nazz's gender (see bold) could easily be construed as flamebaiting, especially when coming from one with a track record such as yours.

"totalitarianism:
Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority. The term was coined in the early 1920s by Benito Mussolini, but totalitarianism has existed throughout history throughout the world (e.g., Qin dynasty China). It is distinguished from dictatorship and authoritarianism by its supplanting of all political institutions and all old legal and social traditions with new ones to meet the state's needs, which are usually highly focused. Large-scale, organized violence may be legitimized. The police operate without the constraint of laws and regulations. Where pursuit of the state's goal is the only ideological foundation for such a government, achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged. Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) is the standard work on the subject."

( http://www.answers.com/topic/totalitarianism )

My posts advocate sufficient action against terrorists and unlawful combatants to secure the safety of my country.

My posts do not advocate (a) a form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority, (b) supplanting of all political institutions and all old legal and social traditions with new ones to meet the state's needs, (c) large-scale, organized violence, or (d) police operation without the constraint of laws and regulations.

Thus, I do not "wish to turn the US into a totalitarian state," and you are exposed as one who doesn't know the meaning of the words he (it is he, isn't it?) uses, at best, and as a stranger to the truth at worst.

I would say "liar," but that might be construed as an ad hominem attack.


The CIA prison program was a GOOD thing and should be continued.That smacks of totalitarianism to me--holding unidentified people secretly in places where they're supposedly outside the reach of US law? Yeah--that's a sign of an open democracy. :rolleyes:

I am perfectly willing to give up my right to conspire against my country, commit terrorist acts and kill my fellow Americans. So I am more than willing to give up the right of Islamo-Nazis to do so.It's the actions you support in "defense" of the country that make you totalitarian. You've already said you support secret prison camps. I gather from other threads that you support the domestic wiretapping programs as well, and I'd say it's not a stretch to say you support the indefinite detention of people we have no plans to charge in places like Guantanamo.

I stand by my charges. You desire to turn the US into a totalitarian state, and you wish this because you feel it will provide some sense of security from the scary brown-skinned muslim that threatens you from afar. Revel in your cowardly false security, but don't for one second think that we'll let you turn this country into something it was never meant to be without giving you a fight.

Well, I'm riveted by the heat of this exchange. I'm wondering if this is in any indicative of an actual increase in tension amongst the general public, or is this sort of friction really limited to online fora such as NS. Either combatant care to weigh in on the matter?

Well, I'm riveted by the heat of this exchange. I'm wondering if this is in any indicative of an actual increase in tension amongst the general public, or is this sort of friction really limited to online fora such as NS. Either combatant care to weigh in on the matter?
It's undoubtedly hotter here than it is IRL, because there are fewer repercussions. We tee off on each other and say stuff we'd think twice about in public, though I don't tone it down that much when I get pissed.

Fortunately, in my area, the real psychos are outnumbered, so they tend to keep it down a bit. Not nearly as many W04 stickers as there were a year ago.

That smacks of totalitarianism to me--holding unidentified people secretly in places where they're supposedly outside the reach of US law? Yeah--that's a sign of an open democracy. :rolleyes:

It's the actions you support in "defense" of the country that make you totalitarian. You've already said you support secret prison camps. I gather from other threads that you support the domestic wiretapping programs as well, and I'd say it's not a stretch to say you support the indefinite detention of people we have no plans to charge in places like Guantanamo.

I stand by my charges. You desire to turn the US into a totalitarian state, and you wish this because you feel it will provide some sense of security from the scary brown-skinned muslim that threatens you from afar. Revel in your cowardly false security, but don't for one second think that we'll let you turn this country into something it was never meant to be without giving you a fight.

If you can't refute them, at least you can stand by them :rolleyes:

And I stand by my charges: you don't know the meaning of the term, and your latest post evidences considerable intellectual dishonesty. But that's really no surprise.

Oh, and by all means, "give us a fight." That's what elections are for. And when you lose in 2008, you can keep on "giving us a fight" after that too.

And if, God forbid, your side actually manages to convince a majority of electoral voters to put you in charge of protecting our country, here's a pre-packaged statement for you:

"My fellow Americans. Today, a nuclear device was set off in our country. Over a million American citizens were killed. This happened despite our best efforts to peacefully persuade Abu Foumi and several other terrorists in our custody to reveal their plan to us. But I want to assure you of one thing: although we suffered a nuclear attack on our soil, we did not violate the basic human rights of the captured terrorists."

THAT is the future you are defending.

Oh, and by all means, "give us a fight." That's what elections are for. And when you lose in 2008, you can keep on "giving us a fight" after that too.

If "they" lose in 2008, we all lose.

Please link to proof of this exact quote you provided:

"Cuz, you know, we're done torturing them."
Probably based on stories such as the following, it is probably not too much of a stretch?:

Maher Arar: Timeline (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/)

On a stopover in New York as he was returning to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia in September 2002, U.S. officials detained Arar, claiming he has links to al-Qaeda, and deported him to Syria, even though he was carrying a Canadian passport.

When Arar returned to Canada more than a year later, he said he had been tortured during his incarceration and accused American officials of sending him to Syria knowing that they practise torture.

If you can't refute them, at least you can stand by them :rolleyes:

And I stand by my charges: you don't know the meaning of the term, and your latest post evidences considerable intellectual dishonesty. But that's really no surprise.

Oh, and by all means, "give us a fight." That's what elections are for. And when you lose in 2008, you can keep on "giving us a fight" after that too.

And if, God forbid, your side actually manages to convince a majority of electoral voters to put you in charge of protecting our country, here's a pre-packaged statement for you:

"My fellow Americans. Today, a nuclear device was set off in our country. Over a million American citizens were killed. This happened despite our best efforts to peacefully persuade Abu Foumi and several other terrorists in our custody to reveal their plan to us. But I want to assure you of one thing: although we suffered a nuclear attack on our soil, we did not violate the basic human rights of the captured terrorists."

THAT is the future you are defending.
And when WE'RE proven right, that we can defend our country, stop terrorism, all without violating anyone's human rights, what will you say then, hmm? What will you and all the other damned idiot psychopaths say then?

And when WE'RE proven right, that we can defend our country, stop terrorism, all without violating anyone's human rights, what will you say then, hmm? What will you and all the other damned idiot psychopaths say then?

What will I say then? I'll say, "God must really be on our side, because it'd take divine intervention to make that happen."

Oh, and "damned idiot psychopath"? Wow, what a persuasive argument :p

Surely you can do better than that. Or are you tired of the same old "NaziRacistBigotTotalitarian"?

The difference between you and your fellow human-rights purists and those of us who actually care about defending our country is that YOU are willing to bet OUR lives that you "can defend our country, stop terrorism, all without violating anyone's human rights," while we are not willing to make that bet. We think that our lives (and even YOUR lives) are more important that the so-called "human rights" of terrorists, especially their "right" to conspire to kill us without worrying about our finding out about it.

If you can't refute them, at least you can stand by them :rolleyes:

And I stand by my charges: you don't know the meaning of the term, and your latest post evidences considerable intellectual dishonesty. But that's really no surprise.

Oh, and by all means, "give us a fight." That's what elections are for. And when you lose in 2008, you can keep on "giving us a fight" after that too.

And if, God forbid, your side actually manages to convince a majority of electoral voters to put you in charge of protecting our country, here's a pre-packaged statement for you:

"My fellow Americans. Today, a nuclear device was set off in our country. Over a million American citizens were killed. This happened despite our best efforts to peacefully persuade Abu Foumi and several other terrorists in our custody to reveal their plan to us. But I want to assure you of one thing: although we suffered a nuclear attack on our soil, we did not violate the basic human rights of the captured terrorists."

THAT is the future you are defending.Oh, I think I more than did my part in showing the future you want. The fact that you refuse to deny it speaks volumes.

As to the pre-packaged statement you wrote, well, you'd better hope it doesn't happen in the next three years, because it's you fuckers who have refused to do any real work on border security. You've been too busy playing GI Joe in the middle east to take care of business here, and the "terror plots" you've foiled here in the US have been pathetic jokes of human beings who couldn't jihad their way out of a closet.

Spare me the tough talk. We've seen what you can do, and it's a joke. All your leaders have left is "fear! fear! fear!" and chumps like you fall for it like a six year old girl getting off the swingset, skinning her knee and crying for momma.

Oh, I think I more than did my part in showing the future you want. The fact that you refuse to deny it speaks volumes.

It's been denied previously. Your continued assertions to the contrary are lies.

End of issue.

If you can't refute them, at least you can stand by them :rolleyes:

And I stand by my charges: you don't know the meaning of the term, and your latest post evidences considerable intellectual dishonesty. But that's really no surprise.

Oh, and by all means, "give us a fight." That's what elections are for. And when you lose in 2008, you can keep on "giving us a fight" after that too.

And if, God forbid, your side actually manages to convince a majority of electoral voters to put you in charge of protecting our country, here's a pre-packaged statement for you:

"My fellow Americans. Today, a nuclear device was set off in our country. Over a million American citizens were killed. This happened despite our best efforts to peacefully persuade Abu Foumi and several other terrorists in our custody to reveal their plan to us. But I want to assure you of one thing: although we suffered a nuclear attack on our soil, we did not violate the basic human rights of the captured terrorists."

THAT is the future you are defending.

"My fellow Americans, today we share a great sorrow. A nuclear device was detonated by one of three terrorist cells operating within the US. We were able to apprehend two of the cells, but the third escaped us as we were pressing hot irons to the feet of the other members of the first two cells. Then, all of our attention was put in DC, instead of New York.

You may be wondering how this oversight happened. The terrorists we were interrogating, in a desperate attempt to get our attack dogs' jaws off his balls, told us the bomb was in DC. As it turns out, he had no idea, but since we decided to be as inhumane as his type tends to be, he blurted out the first thing that came to mind.

All cells were operating independently of one another. We are fortunate that the other two bombs were not detonated. Good bye New York."

Some of us believe in the "old saw" about the Constitution not being a suicide pact. I am perfectly willing to give up my right to conspire against my country, commit terrorist acts and kill my fellow Americans. So I am more than willing to give up the right of Islamo-Nazis to do so.

And I'm not going anywhere, sweetie. I'm staying right here in the US where I will continue to support effective action against the enemy. Maybe you should find a nice impotent regime of wimps to pledge your allegiance to, so you can all sing "Kumbaya" and repeat, "Thank you, UBL, may I have another." :D


Of course you will. Until you become the enemy. Then, you're screwed. In your defense:"OMG I didn't do anything!"

Funny thing, how do we know those being "interrogated" did do anything? Because your government said so? Hmm, i sense you have a degree in sucking up to authority

But the hell with that, i'm not even american, so if you wanna be Bush's b***h, have fun. I'm sure he will too.

Will someone please accuse New Mitanni of treason, so he can be whisked out of the country and taken to somewhere with more liberal interrugation laws (DR of Congo may be nice)
Lets see how long it takes him to start bleating about civil/human rights, legal representation etc
I also thought no court would accept any evidence gained by torture, meaning that Uncle Sam has no intention of ever giving these people a fait trial.

Will someone please accuse New Mitanni of treason, so he can be whisked out of the country and taken to somewhere with more liberal interrugation laws (DR of Congo may be nice)
Lets see how long it takes him to start bleating about civil/human rights, legal representation etc
I also thought no court would accept any evidence gained by torture, meaning that Uncle Sam has no intention of ever giving these people a fait trial.
Better not let Bush get his new legislation on military tribunals passed. That provision is struck from the books. It's basically up to a Democratic filibuster in the Senate to stop it now.

What will I say then? I'll say, "God must really be on our side, because it'd take divine intervention to make that happen."

Oh, and "damned idiot psychopath"? Wow, what a persuasive argument :p

Surely you can do better than that. Or are you tired of the same old "NaziRacistBigotTotalitarian"?
Seems to me the only one who referenced to Nazi so far is you. A few times now...

What an utterly foolish statement. Not to mention an absurd misstatement of the issue. The issue isn't "do they look at me suspiciously," it's "are they in contact with enemy forces overseas or conspiring to commit terrorist acts in this country?" Not to mention, "are we going to do what is necessary to protect the security of this country, or are we going to let more of our people die needlessly but feel good about it because, by golly, we protected the civil rights of terrorists?"

Wake up.
I am awake.

I have seen the face of the enemy and it is a caucasian face with fear in it's eyes.

I have seen the face of the enemy and it is a caucasian face with fear in it's eyes.

http://www.msstate.edu/Images/Film/JanetLeigh.jpg

Janet Leigh beware.

Will someone please accuse New Mitanni of treason, so he can be whisked out of the country and taken to somewhere with more liberal interrugation laws (DR of Congo may be nice)

First, the issue isn't "treason" in the case of unlawful combatants anyway. Second, I doubt that anybody is now, or has ever been, "whisked out of the country" merely because of some punk shrieking "Treason!" It takes some evidence, like captured computers or other documents, etc.

So bring it on, Sparky.

First, the issue isn't "treason" in the case of unlawful combatants anyway. Second, I doubt that anybody is now, or has ever been, "whisked out of the country" merely because of some punk shrieking "Treason!" It takes some evidence, like captured computers or other documents, etc.

So bring it on, Sparky.

Show us the line of reasoning that lies behind your doubt, Chuckles. Back up your own suppositions around here, for once.

Some of us believe in the "old saw" about the Constitution not being a suicide pact. I am perfectly willing to give up my right to conspire against my country, commit terrorist acts and kill my fellow Americans. So I am more than willing to give up the right of Islamo-Nazis to do so.

I am certainly glad that you have no say over the rights of other humans. It doesn't matter what act one commits, they are still deserving the right for fair treatment and trial. Sacrificing rights to treat them any other way is simply morally wrong. Besides you could argue that your average murderer or pedophile is such a piece of shit that they don't deserve rights. But we won't go down that road unless you are into totalitarian regimes.

First, the issue isn't "treason" in the case of unlawful combatants anyway. Second, I doubt that anybody is now, or has ever been, "whisked out of the country" merely because of some punk shrieking "Treason!" It takes some evidence, like captured computers or other documents, etc.

So bring it on, Sparky.

I wish you get imprisoned in China. You will get testimony and evidence against you, and you will yell about civil rights and freedom when they start with you.

First, the issue isn't "treason" in the case of unlawful combatants anyway. Second, I doubt that anybody is now, or has ever been, "whisked out of the country" merely because of some punk shrieking "Treason!" It takes some evidence, like captured computers or other documents, etc.

So bring it on, Sparky.

This is the problem with your argument. The additional powers that the US government has given itself to combat terrorism could easily be used to oppress their own citizens. Currently, you could be arrested, detained and punished for treason without ever seeing the inside of a court room or being charged. Evidence is no longer required.

EDIT:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/08/MNG1FJS3AH1.DTL
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-6696