NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll coming.

Havent you already tried (badly) to argue this point before?

Torture is wrong, always.

End of discussion.

Poll coming.
Oh, joy.

Havent you already tried (badly) to argue this point before?

I'm not attempting to argue anything, yet. It's simply a poll.

I'm not attempting to argue anything, yet. It's simply a poll.No, if you're not attempting to argue anything its either trolling or spam. ;)

I'm not attempting to argue anything, yet. It's simply a poll.

A poll to jumpstart another argument so you can use irrational arguments while trying to call others irrational

No one should be tortured. It's simply inhumane. There are plenty of other, less physically and psychologically damaging ways to gain information. Torture is just wrong, no matter who it may be.

I am against legalizing any kind of torture against anyone ever.

I'm not attempting to argue anything

of course you aren't, troll

No one should be tortured. It's simply inhumane. There are plenty of other, less physically and psychologically damaging ways to gain information. Torture is just wrong, no matter who it may be.

We shouldn't torture them just to gain information. We should torture all terrorists, period. They should be tortured just because of their ruthless and hostile ways. They certainly deserve it.

That poll is so CUTE! Look at it! "torturetorturetorture" etc. Did you have fun typing that?



Sigh. :rolleyes:


Torture = NO! BAD DOGGIE!

No, if you're not attempting to argue anything its either trolling or spam. ;)

I'd rather see where everyone stands on the issue prior to arguing, sport. ;)

But Sometimes You Have To If I Was In The Cia I Would Tortur Because Terroists Wont Talk Like If At School Someones Wont Tell Yoiu A Secret You Wish You Could Tortur Them.

We shouldn't torture them just to gain information. We should torture all terrorists, period. They should be tortured just because of their ruthless and hostile ways. They certainly deserve it.So what do we do to other people that have ruthless and hostile ways, such as people that engage in torture?

We shouldn't torture them just to gain information. We should torture all terrorists, period. They should be tortured just because of their ruthless and hostile ways. They certainly deserve it.

You weren't kidding when you said you weren't trying to present an argument. Get back under your bridge, troll.

It's a really good way to get false leads to tie up your resources.

And in this modern era of gruellia warfare it's excellent at giving your opponents TRUE propaganda to win the hearts and minds that you desperately need.

So what do we do to other people that have ruthless and hostile ways, such as people that engage in torture?

As long as they are only torturing terrorists, it's fine. If they start intentionally torturing innocent civilians, it's not. Those who are actively trying to kill innocent civilians or are actively supporting those who do deserve to be tortured, slowly and painfully.

We should torture all terrorists, period. They should be tortured just because of their ruthless and hostile ways. They certainly deserve it.

The only person I could conceive of ever "deserving" torture is a torturer.

MeansToAnEnd: if you torture yourself, will we stand to gain sufficient info that you'll come off sounding less like an inmate of an insane asylum?

























Didn't think so.

We shouldn't torture them just to gain information. We should torture all terrorists, period. They should be tortured just because of their ruthless and hostile ways. They certainly deserve it.

Tell me, good man. Do you know WHY they do what they do? And do you know that they would rather die than give up any information about plans? Torture would just be prolonged death to them. Nothing less, nothing more.

MeansToAnEnd, have you ever said "God bless America"?

But Sometimes You Have To If I Was In The Cia I Would Tortur Because Terroists Wont Talk Like If At School Someones Wont Tell Yoiu A Secret You Wish You Could Tortur Them.

Hey. HEY! HEY!!!!!

That's my typing style, Junior.

As long as they are only torturing terrorists, it's fine. If they start intentionally torturing innocent civilians, it's not. Those who are actively trying to kill innocent civilians or are actively supporting those who do deserve to be tortured, slowly and painfully.

Oh, like they won't soon enough.

Torture has no value. Nothing obtained under it can be trusted, and the constitution forbids "cruel and unusual" methods of punishment. Therefore, there is no reason to ever use it.

It's a really good way to get false leads to tie up your resources.

And in this modern era of gruellia warfare it's excellent at giving your opponents TRUE propaganda to win the hearts and minds that you desperately need.

Oh yes, let's also not forget that people under such stress will say ANYTHING just for it to stop. That includes false information.

And do you know that they would rather die than give up any information about plans? Torture would just be prolonged death to them. Nothing less, nothing more.

Are you saying that they wouldn't care that they are being tortured? They'll feel an extraordinary amount of pain -- it's what they deserve for their despicable acts. But we won't kill them -- we'll torture them for as long as possible, making every day a living Hell for them.

The only person I could conceive of ever "deserving" torture is a torturer.

no they have it hard enough as it is imagine trying to sleep!

I can not even find one good point to using torture or even a scenario where it could be used effectively

Are you saying that they wouldn't care that they are being tortured? They'll feel an extraordinary amount of pain -- it's what they deserve for their despicable acts. But we won't kill them -- we'll torture them for as long as possible, making every day a living Hell for them.

Of course not. They believe they are on a mission from God, and that when they die God will take all their pain away, and that God will punish his torturers. They don't care, as they are men driven by religion.

We shouldn't torture them just to gain information. We should torture all terrorists, period. They should be tortured just because of their ruthless and hostile ways. They certainly deserve it.

That's funny, because in your other thread where you're wanking off to torturing people, you said torturing should be done with a clear objective, to save innocent lives.

Now you say it should be done just for fun.

You contradict yourself just to continue with your trolling. Just like you compromise your own supposedly cherished values whenever you feel like it. Please ignore this bald-faced fact so you can rant about evil liberals.

As long as they are only torturing terrorists, it's fine. If they start intentionally torturing innocent civilians, it's not. Those who are actively trying to kill innocent civilians or are actively supporting those who do deserve to be tortured, slowly and painfully.
And how are you sure that you know the difference? And what if you make a mistake and torture an innocent--what's the penalty? And...

What the fuck am I doing? Like you're going to answer any of this seriously. :rolleyes:

no they have it hard enough as it is imagine trying to sleep!

I don't mean someone given an order to torture, who is under immense pressure to do it and will suffer significant consequences if she does not.

I am thinking more along the lines of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

Are you saying that they wouldn't care that they are being tortured? They'll feel an extraordinary amount of pain -- it's what they deserve for their despicable acts. But we won't kill them -- we'll torture them for as long as possible, making every day a living Hell for them.

go move to China (wait scratch that they usually have executions)

go move to China (wait scratch that they usually have executions)

While the use of torture to obtain information may be debated, I don't believe that torture as a means of punishment has any real merit.

1. It doesn't bring back the victims.
2. It doesn't deter the terrorists.
3. It violates my personal rule (never kill out of hate - only for purely logical, unemotional reasons).

Yes: we should use torture because information gathered from torture is renowned for its reliability.

For example, in the Middle Ages whenever a witch was caught they were tortured until they confessed and gave their torturers the names of at least three other witches. These three witches were then brought in and subjected to the same treatment.

After a few years a truly astonishing number of witches, far more than had been expected, were captured and confessed under torture. The mass witch-burnings clearly worked because since then no one has ever been turned into a frog. Disprove that you America-hating liberal abortion-monkeys!!!1!! :mad:

3. It violates my personal rule (never kill out of hate - only for purely logical, unemotional reasons).

Oh, but DK, torturing can be used to gain information which has a very large chance of being false, but who cares because that information still has a very small chance of being true! If it's false, hundreds or maybe thousands will die! But if it's true, they'll be saved! So we have to torture people! :rolleyes:

Oh, but DK, torturing can be used to gain information which has a very large chance of being false, but who cares because that information still has a very small chance of being true! If it's false, hundreds or maybe thousands will die! But if it's true, they'll be saved! So we have to torture people! :rolleyes:

It's Cheney's 1% doctrine in full torturous effect!

Make them listen to old boy band music for days or tickle their feet with feathers until they pee.

Now you say it should be done just for fun.

No, not just for fun. Do you understand the concept of crime and punishment? They commit heinous crimes and their punishment is extreme -- it's quite easy to comprehend it.

And how are you sure that you know the difference? And what if you make a mistake and torture an innocent--what's the penalty?

The chance of torturing innocent people in miniscule. Nobody's going to think that guy around the corner is Osama bin Laden -- when we catch a terrorists, we know it. We don't apprehend innocent civilians and subject them to torture.

Torture is not only inhumane, but is likely to provide inaccurate information as a person being tortured will say anything to get the torture to stop. They'll tell you that the sky is pink and it rains gumdrops if that's what they thought you wanted to hear.

The chance of torturing innocent people in miniscule. Nobody's going to think that guy around the corner is Osama bin Laden -- when we catch a terrorists, we know it. We don't apprehend innocent civilians and subject them to torture.

Two words: Maher Arar.

What happens when it's your mother who's called a terrorist and sent away for the "treatment?"

While the use of torture to obtain information may be debated, I don't believe that torture as a means of punishment has any real merit.

1. It doesn't bring back the victims.
2. It doesn't deter the terrorists.
3. It violates my personal rule (never kill out of hate - only for purely logical, unemotional reasons).

Your personal rule is as moronic as your attempts at forum-baiting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501704).

No, not just for fun.

Yes - the pleasure it gives you to imagine, talk about, advocate.

Do you understand the concept of crime and punishment?

Yes. Do you? Apparently not, since you disagree with the law regarding that pedophile senator that you seem inclined to want to forget.

They commit heinous crimes and their punishment is extreme -- it's quite easy to comprehend it.

Torture is barbaric. It's not a punishment, it's just sadism. Go on, deny it. Pretend to be rational. I don't think you're convincing anyone.

No, not just for fun. Do you understand the concept of crime and punishment? They commit heinous crimes and their punishment is extreme -- it's quite easy to comprehend it.

You are a barbaric little thing, aren't you?

The chance of torturing innocent people in miniscule. Nobody's going to think that guy around the corner is Osama bin Laden -- when we catch a terrorists, we know it. We don't apprehend innocent civilians and subject them to torture.

Oh yes. There isn't actually any "homegrown" terrorists who look exactly like us, live in the same places we do, etc. etc.

It's all a myth! :rolleyes:

No, not just for fun. Do you understand the concept of crime and punishment? They commit heinous crimes and their punishment is extreme -- it's quite easy to comprehend it.

Oh, so now it can be done for fun AND punishment?

The chance of torturing innocent people in miniscule. Nobody's going to think that guy around the corner is Osama bin Laden -- when we catch a terrorists, we know it. We don't apprehend innocent civilians and subject them to torture.

Bullshit. In Afghanistan, the western alliance picks up anyone who vaguely looked like a terrorist throws them in a van and sells them to the US military like cattle. The Corrupt Iraqi police can also arrest people they don't like and give them to the US. The US military tends to arrest anyone in the area they were shot at from. Even the interrogators admit that most of the guys in Gitmo are just grunts.

Hey. HEY! HEY!!!!!

That's my typing style, Junior.

Yah, it was annoying when you did it too.

Two words: Maher Arar.

We didn't torture him because we lacked sufficient information. We only torture if we have conclusive information proving that our detainees are terorrists. Otherwise, they are treated more humanely.

And how are you sure that you know the difference? And what if you make a mistake and torture an innocent--what's the penalty? And...

What the fuck am I doing? Like you're going to answer any of this seriously. :rolleyes:

Yeah, what the fuck are you doing? Do to him what you do to me - tell him to stop posting talking points... :fluffle:

Oh, but DK, torturing can be used to gain information which has a very large chance of being false, but who cares because that information still has a very small chance of being true! If it's false, hundreds or maybe thousands will die! But if it's true, they'll be saved! So we have to torture people! :rolleyes:

I'm saying that I'm willing to debate whether torture is actually effective (or even, what constitutes torture, apart from asking someone politely once).

I'm not willing to debate torture as actual punishment. That's stupid.

We didn't torture him because we lacked sufficient information. We only torture if we have conclusive information proving that our detainees are terorrists. Otherwise, they are treated more humanely.

Wait, we had conclusive proof that he was a terrorist? I've searched, and I've found none. He was tortured because he was SUSPECTED of being a terrorist.

I'm not willing to debate torture as actual punishment. That's stupid.It's nice to agree with you on that :)

Oh, so now it can be done for fun AND punishment?

No, it may not be done expressly for fun, but if someone derives fun from a particular punishment, then by all means, let him execute that punishment. It's a simple proposition: if you are a terrorists, you'll get tortured for your crimes. No fun is necessary -- hell, the punishment could be automated, even.

He was tortured because he was SUSPECTED of being a terrorist.

As far as I know, there is no proof that he was tortured and the US government denies that he was tortured.

We didn't torture him because we lacked sufficient information. We only torture if we have conclusive information proving that our detainees are terorrists. Otherwise, they are treated more humanely.

You fail. You lacked sufficient information. And don't try copping non-culpability because Arar was sent to the middle-east to be tortured, either.

We didn't torture him because we lacked sufficient information. We only torture if we have conclusive information proving that our detainees are terorrists. Otherwise, they are treated more humanely.

Maher Arar was decidedly tortured, and he was tortured because the US wanted him tortured. That US personnel didn't do it themselves is hardly the point. We arrested him and sent him to Syria for the rough stuff because someone in Canada was under pressure to come up with a name, and it just wasn't Arar's day. So don't sit there and type stupid shit like "we don't torture innocents" when we most certainly do.

And you never answered my question either. How do you feel about torture if it's your mom who is mistaken for someone supposedly involved in terrorism and who is sent to Syria for the rough stuff? Still in favor of it then? Remember--if she's considered an enemy combatant, she can't even contest her detention anymore. She can't even get a court hearing to see the evidence against her so she can claim and perhaps prove her innocence. Still like it now?

It's nice to agree with you on that :)

Well, I pointed out that if you do violence (torture and killing), you should NEVER do it out of hate or malice. You have to be purely logical in the application of violence.

Torture as punishment doesn't make any sense at all.

Capital punishment may be argued, from the standpoint of "we're making sure he doesn't do it again, and we will save money (a 65 cent bullet) vs. years of incarceration". Death penalty opponents in the US have raised the execution price by making lengthy appeal processes necessary - I'm not sure how lengthy these processes should be (another point of debate).

But I don't believe in killing people because you "hate" them.

The United States should be a world leader against ANY form of Physical torture...but lets get real people ...you must be able to question suspects and use sleep derprivation and other forms and methods of persuasion to achieve results ...or you are commiting national suicide ...and being a bunch of dopes waiting for death .


If it takes making clear WHAT is TORTURE and what is NOT ....what is fucking wrongg with that ?


And why does everyone automaticly assume someones having his balls stapled to a chair ?


"Tell me where you hid the bomb and you can sleep and I'll turn off the Beasty boys"

Thats torture ???? well the beasty boys might be pushing it but..


Common ??? who do you think we are dealing with here??


I will take your plane and fly it into the White House ...Kerry sit down and shut up ..


These are guys who would cut your head off and u tube it to a prayer !

We get yelled at for putting panties on there heads and pointing at their dicks ???

The United States should be a world leader against ANY form of Physical torture...but lets get real people ...you must be able to question suspects and use sleep derprivation and other forms and methods of persuasion to achieve results ...or you are commiting national suicide ...and being a bunch of dopes waiting for death .


If it takes making clear WHAT is TORTURE and what is NOT ....what is fucking wrongg with that ?


And why does everyone automaticly assume someones having his balls stapled to a chair ?


"Tell me where you hid the bomb and you can sleep and I'll turn off the Beasty boys"

Thats torture ???? well the beasty boys might be pushing it but..


Common ??? who do you think we are dealing with here??


I will take your plane and fly it into the White House ...Kerry sit down and shut up ..


These are guys who would cut your head off and u tube it to a prayer !

We get yelled at for putting panties on there heads and pointing at their dicks ???


You don't even know who Maher Arar is, do you? Most likely you think he's a condiment you put on a kebab. Go hang your head in shame, assuming you know what that means.

As far as I know, there is no proof that he was tortured and the US government denies that he was tortured.

Oh yes, we should absolutely postively trust our governments word over that of a man who claims he was tortured and has the scars to prove it.

You don't even know who Maher Arar is, do you? Most likely you think he's a condiment you put on a kebab. Go hang your head in shame, assuming you know what that means.

I know who he is.

However, others like him have asserted torture in foreign prisons, and not all of them have proven it. In fact, one Saudi student's story was proven to be false - he claimed to have had the skin whipped off his back - and three different independent medical examiners, including his own, concluded that he was lying.

Until we see Arar's proof, I'm skeptical.

These are guys who would cut your head off and u tube it to a prayer !

We get yelled at for putting panties on there heads and pointing at their dicks ???Why not? If Bush says we're there to stop crap like that from happening in a State of the Union Address and then we proceed to do exactly the same thing, why should we not get yelled at?

You don't even know who Maher Arar is, do you? Most likely you think he's a condiment you put on a kebab. Go hang your head in shame, assuming you know what that means.


you seem to be missing points by a mile...have your brains been washed ???


I wrote...well you Can go read it AGAIN...but the whole point is

MAKING CLEAR THE RULES OF INTERROGATION IS NOT A BAD THING .

THE US SHOULD NEVER PHYSICALLY TORTURE ANYONE OR ANYTHING .


SOME FORM OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE THAT GETS RESULTS IS NEEDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN .


Now go eat your condiment and the shiskcabobby thing .

Why not? If Bush says we're there to stop crap like that from happening in a State of the Union Address and then we proceed to do exactly the same thing, why should we not get yelled at?

I think it's in the rulebook that you're not allowed to yell at the referee.

The United States should be a world leader against ANY form of Physical torture...but lets get real people ...you must be able to question suspects and use sleep derprivation and other forms and methods of persuasion to achieve results ...or you are commiting national suicide ...and being a bunch of dopes waiting for death .


If it takes making clear WHAT is TORTURE and what is NOT ....what is fucking wrongg with that ?


And why does everyone automaticly assume someones having his balls stapled to a chair ?


"Tell me where you hid the bomb and you can sleep and I'll turn off the Beasty boys"

Thats torture ???? well the beasty boys might be pushing it but..


Common ??? who do you think we are dealing with here??


I will take your plane and fly it into the White House ...Kerry sit down and shut up ..


These are guys who would cut your head off and u tube it to a prayer !

We get yelled at for putting panties on there heads and pointing at their dicks ???

Yes, you get yelled at for being a sadistic pervert. No amount of your hysterical ranting is going to change that.

I know who he is.

However, others like him have asserted torture in foreign prisons, and not all of them have proven it. In fact, one Saudi student's story was proven to be false - he claimed to have had the skin whipped off his back - and three different independent medical examiners, including his own, concluded that he was lying.

Until we see Arar's proof, I'm skeptical.

You aren't nearly as skeptical as you are conniving - you'd like everybody here to think you're unutterably naive, when you aren't posing as somebody 'in the know' with insider information and all that other horsehit you promulgate on-line.

Well, I'm done with you having it both ways. You're a fucking fraud - and an overbearing one at that.

I think it's in the rulebook that you're not allowed to yell at the referee.Only if you're the coach or one of the players. The audience is an entirely different matter; refs are fair game for anyone on the bleachers.

you seem to be missing points by a mile...have your brains been washed ???


I wrote...well you Can go read it AGAIN...but the whole point is

MAKING CLEAR THE RULES OF INTERROGATION IS NOT A BAD THING .

THE US SHOULD NEVER PHYSICALLY TORTURE ANYONE OR ANYTHING .


SOME FORM OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE THAT GETS RESULTS IS NEEDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN .


Now go eat your condiment and the shiskcabobby thing .

Well, you know what? I'm a little skeptical that a program of kinky frat house party games and painful hazing is an interrogation technique that gets results.

EDIT: Unless, of course, the desired result is you getting your rocks off, rather than actually protecting the nation against terrorism.

you seem to be missing points by a mile...have your brains been washed ???


I wrote...well you Can go read it AGAIN...but the whole point is

MAKING CLEAR THE RULES OF INTERROGATION IS NOT A BAD THING .

THE US SHOULD NEVER PHYSICALLY TORTURE ANYONE OR ANYTHING .


SOME FORM OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE THAT GETS RESULTS IS NEEDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN .


Now go eat your condiment and the shiskcabobby thing .
Hmm. The rules that have existed for the last 60 years or so seem to have been pretty clearly understood. Why do we need further clarification now? Is it because some of the shit we've been doing is in violation of Common Article 3 and we know it, and so we're trying to retrocatively cover the asses of torturers? That certainly sounds like the situation to me.

SOME FORM OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE THAT GETS RESULTS IS NEEDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN .You mean the society based on such fun things as "Protection from cruel and unusual punishment"?

you seem to be missing points by a mile...have your brains been washed ???


I wrote...well you Can go read it AGAIN...but the whole point is

MAKING CLEAR THE RULES OF INTERROGATION IS NOT A BAD THING .

THE US SHOULD NEVER PHYSICALLY TORTURE ANYONE OR ANYTHING .


SOME FORM OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE THAT GETS RESULTS IS NEEDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN .


Now go eat your condiment and the shiskcabobby thing .


Eat mine; I insist.

You aren't nearly as skeptical as you are conniving - you'd like everybody here to think you're unutterably naive, when you aren't posing as somebody 'in the know' with insider information and all that other horsehit you promulgate on-line.

Well, I'm done with you having it both ways. You're a fucking fraud - and an overbearing one at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ali

Fraud, eh? Looks like you've been pwned.

You aren't nearly as skeptical as you are conniving - you'd like everybody here to think you're unutterably naive, when you aren't posing as somebody 'in the know' with insider information and all that other horsehit you promulgate on-line.

Well, I'm done with you having it both ways. You're a fucking fraud - and an overbearing one at that.

Aw, you beat me to it.

This is just another one of DK's attempts to appear sophisticated and grown-up. Let it go.

Why not? If Bush says we're there to stop crap like that from happening in a State of the Union Address and then we proceed to do exactly the same thing, why should we not get yelled at?


That was one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen the US military be involved with...but I hold the miltary and the US to a very high standard...but it still doesn't stop me from being able to point out the difference between a society that is digusted by prisoners having panties stuck on their heads and women ridiculing their dicks VS societies that think jumper cables on your nipples is no worse than a bad hair cut .


I make my point yet ?


The US should be a leader for the free world and lead by GOOD example not by disgrace . Because thats what OUR culture demands .


If not what exactly are we fighting against ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ali

Fraud, eh? Looks like you've been pwned.

I might have been pwned if we were discussing Ahmed Omar Abu Ali. We weren't; we were discussing Maher Arar.

No bait-and-switch.

You fail.

I might have been pwned if we were discussing Ahmed Omar Abu Ali. We weren't; we were discussing Maher Arar.

No bait-and-switch.

You fail.

Nope. My post you had trouble with said that since Arar has no proof, I have no reason to believe his allegations.

After all, someone else under extremely similiar circumstances was proven to be lying about torture.

Prove to me, solidly, that Arar was tortured, and I'll listen to the rest of your story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ali

Fraud, eh? Looks like you've been pwned.

Oh, come on, DK. You know perfectly well that he was complaining about YOU, not that other guy. You always spout the most extremist nazi-fied bullshit in one thread and, at the same time, claim to be rational and unbiased in another thread. And when you get called on it, you just try to deflect by pretending the argument is about something else. That's how you are a fraud. Embrace it, own it, get over it.

Nope. My post you had trouble with said that since Arar has no proof, I have no reason to believe his allegations.

After all, someone else under extremely similiar circumstances was proven to be lying about torture.

Prove to me, solidly, that Arar was tortured, and I'll listen to the rest of your story.

No. This wasn't about you.


I'm not interested in trying to persuade you, in any event. Your mind, or what passes for one, is already thoroughly made up.

This is just another one of DK's attempts to appear sophisticated and grown-up. Let it go.

I'll try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ali

Fraud, eh? Looks like you've been pwned.

I'm sure I'll regret this, but what is this Wiki entry supposed to prove? There's certainly nothing in there about Maher Arar or anything disproving that he was indeed tortured. In fact, the fact that his confession to the FBI was disallowed as evidence makes me suspect that there may have been cause to believe he was.

Oh, come on, DK. You know perfectly well that he was complaining about YOU, not that other guy. You always spout the most extremist nazi-fied bullshit in one thread and, at the same time, claim to be rational and unbiased in another thread. And when you get called on it, you just try to deflect by pretending the argument is about something else. That's how you are a fraud. Embrace it, own it, get over it.

I guess that's where we differ. Unlike you and Dobbs, if I were to make the thread topic about the poster themself, that would be called flaming. You and Dobbs can call names, throw labels, and change the thread topic to DK anytime you like with impunity.

Embrace it - it's the only argument I ever see you make.

Unlike you and Dobbs, if I were to make the thread topic about the poster themself, that would be called flaming. You and Dobbs can call names, throw labels, and change the thread topic to DK anytime you like with impunity.


It's a Democrat plot to smirch the reputation of a fine man, a fine man.

Maher's Story in Brief
Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. Arar was born in Syria and at the age of 17, came to Canada with his family. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991 and in 1997 moved to Ottawa.

In September 2002, Arar was in Tunisia, vacationing with his wife Monia Mazigh and their two small children. On Sept. 26 while in transit in New York’s JFK airport, he was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Jordan aboard a private plane and from there transferred to a Syrian prison.

In Syria, he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. He was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.

During his imprisonment, Monia campaigned relentlessly on his behalf. After many representations from Canadian Human Rights organizations and a growing number of citizens, the Government of Canada, on Jan. 28, 2004, announced a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar.

Read more about Maher's story.


A Message from Maher and Monia
My family and I are very happy that the Canadian government has undertaken a public inquiry which will examine events surrounding my arrest and deportation to Syria and the torture and deprivation that ensued. The Inquiry will begin on June 21 in Ottawa. We are very hopeful that the terms of reference will indeed, help answer all of our questions so that we can begin to rebuild our lives.

We hope that you will join with us to urge the government to make as full and public a disclosure as possible. In the meantime, we thank all of you for your continuing support. It has helped us enormously.

Thank you,
Maher Arar and Monia Mazigh


Seems the Syrians are really bad boys and should be mildly spanked...
The US sent a Syrian suspect to Syria..based on what ??? Don't know..but hey ..why didnt they send him to Guantanemo for questioning ?? Why Syria ??


And since the US had no involvement in torturing the guy...aside from sending him to Syria...whats your point exactly about this fella ????


The US shouldnt act on bad info or make mistakes that result in a trip to Syria ?

OK I buy that...we should use better info. And not send non Syrians ..or canadians to Syria unless we are a hundred percent sure they should go there.


But lets see if we can get the reasons why this guy got shipped to Syria cleared up...its amazing he's alive .

I guess that's where we differ. Unlike you and Dobbs, if I were to make the thread topic about the poster themself, that would be called flaming. You and Dobbs can call names, throw labels, and change the thread topic to DK anytime you like with impunity.
Deny your own tactics as much as you like. Apparently, it is a bit harder to "flame" someone than just by pointing out the tactics they use in debate or by pointing out the invalidity of their arguments.

Embrace it - it's the only argument I ever see you make.

That's because you don't bother to read my posts.


EDIT: Fine, if honest responses to your BS hurt your feelings, I'll take a break now and then. (Hell, it's not as if I hound you in all your threads, is it? Anyway...) But don't think you can just spout crap all over the place and never get called on it.

But lets see if we can get the reasons why this guy got shipped to Syria cleared up...its amazing he's alive .

The biggest word - not by letter-count - in your post is the word "if". Go America.

The biggest word, not by letter-count, in your post is the word "if". Go America.

You still haven't shown me proof that he was tortured. Show me.

I'd rather see where everyone stands on the issue prior to arguingReady to start arguing soon?

Seems the Syrians are really bad boys and should be mildly spanked...
The US sent a Syrian suspect to Syria..based on what ??? Don't know..but hey ..why didnt they send him to Guantanemo for questioning ?? Why Syria ??


And since the US had no involvement in torturing the guy...aside from sending him to Syria...whats your point exactly about this fella ????


The US shouldnt act on bad info or make mistakes that result in a trip to Syria ?

OK I buy that...we should use better info. And not send non Syrians ..or canadians to Syria unless we are a hundred percent sure they should go there.


But lets see if we can get the reasons why this guy got shipped to Syria cleared up...its amazing he's alive .They sent him to Syria because Syrians don't have strict laws against torture. It was ass-covering, and the US was responsible for making it happen--or do you think they sent him to Syria just for the hell of it?

They sent him to Syria because Syrians don't have strict laws against torture. It was ass-covering, and the US was responsible for making it happen--or do you think they sent him to Syria just for the hell of it?

Makes you wonder why the Canadians ratted him.

You still haven't shown me proof that he was tortured. Show me.

Oh, for someone "in the know", you sure seem to like trying to get other people to do your legwork for you - and for what great reward? The opportunity to have you bait-and-switch midstream?

Get this through your swollen cranium - this isn't about you. Go play on your blogs if you want to be the center of attention. We're done, DK - I should have done this yonks ago.

IGNORED.

The biggest word - not by letter-count - in your post is the word "if". Go America.



here go educate yourself..http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/Vol_II_English.pdf


Seems he was held for 12 days while the US and the Canadian consolate decided where to send him...I need to read further into it but it wasnt just a kneejerk US sends dude to Syria type thing...there is TONS more to it..and canada was involved in the decision as to where to send a canadian ..or it sure seems so from the CANADIAN commision" s report..

Read at your leasure.


So Dobbs what now ?



http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/AR_English.pdf



It gets better the info that sent him to syria was given to the US by canada !


Dobbs dont you read up on stuff before you advocate ????


BTW...the Canadians are satisfied medically that the dude WAS tortured in Syria .

Makes you wonder why the Canadians ratted him.

Did they? Which Canadians, precisely? Seems there is still some question about that. Here is an article from the CBC that details the timeline of the entire matter:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Among the highlights are (emphasis mine):

Sept. 18, 2006
In his main report, O'Connor says there is no evidence Arar was ever linked to extremist groups or was a threat to Canada's national security. O'Connor finds Canadian consular officials treated Arar as well as they could under the circumstances. He has, however, nothing but sharp criticism for the RCMP.

The judge finds the RCMP had rules in place to restrict and qualify the kinds of intelligence information they routinely exchange with their counterparts in the U.S. But he finds that in this case, the rules were broken. As a result, he concludes, the FBI and U.S. security officials were given an inaccurate and unfair picture of the Arars and that this portrait dogged his entire time in a Syrian jail.

O'Connor also finds that the RCMP blocked Foreign Affairs from trying to get Arar returned to Canada earlier and omitted certain important facts about the Arar case when briefing senior government officials. The judge says he will strongly recommend Canada compensate the Arars for what happened to them.

Oct. 27, 2005
A fact-finder appointed by the Arar inquiry releases a report concluding that Arar was tortured when in Syrian custody three years ago. "I am convinced that his description of his treatment in Syria is accurate," Stephen Toope wrote.
CBC STORY: Arar was tortured, inquiry fact-finder concludes

June 3, 2005
Former solicitor general Wayne Easter, who was in charge of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service at the time of Arar's detention in New York, says Canada played no role in the U.S. decision to deport him.
CBC STORY: Canadian officials 'not involved' in deporting Arar: Easter

May 21, 2005
After reviewing Canada's compliance with the Convention Against Torture, a UN committee concludes that Ottawa should have intervened to protect Arar from being sent to Syria.
CBC STORY: Canada should have intervened in Arar case: UN report

May 18, 2005
Dan Livermore, the director general of the Foreign Affairs Department's security and intelligence bureau, says U.S. officials used a process called extraordinary rendition to deport Arar to Syria. "I find troubling the entire course of activity the American government has embarked upon since about 2001 with respect to what they call extraordinary rendition, a practice which we knew absolutely nothing about," says Livermore.
CBC STORY: U.S. actions in Arar case called 'extremely troubling'

And so on. The case is not over yet.

Makes you wonder why the Canadians ratted him.One news report said it was because the Canadians were under pressure to come up with names after the 9/11 attacks. Arar was just the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.

here go educate yourself..http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/Vol_II_English.pdf


Seems he was held for 12 days while the US and the Canadian consolate decided where to send him...I need to read further into it but it wasnt just a kneejerk US sends dude to Syria type thing...there is TONS more to it..and canada was involved in the decision as to where to send a canadian ..or it sure seems so from the CANADIAN commision" s report..

Read at your leasure.


So Dobbs what now ?



http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/AR_English.pdf



It gets better the info that sent him to syria was given to the US by canada !


Dobbs dont you read up on stuff before you advocate ????


BTW...the Canadians are satisfied medically that the dude WAS tortured in Syria .

It's a giant pdf. Care to post any highlights?

Also, please see the article I linked to from the CBC. Apparently, at the same time that this report was issued, the investigators were issuing public statements that Arar has a legitimately case against his own government, that the RCMP was at fault for what they told the FBI, that what they told the FBI was inaccurate about Arar. Also, according to the CBC, there continue to be inquiries into who exactly did and said what at the RCMP and calls for the head of the RCMP to resign for what are described in the article as "blunders."

The contradictory information just keeps piling up. Seems this case is far from settled.

The only thing any of the parties seem to agree on is that Maher Arar was tortured and that that is a violation of Canadian and international law.

MeansToAnEnd, you typify everything that is currently wrong with this country. You're thoroughly terrorized, convinced every rock, every bush, every little tree hides a terrorist ready to blow you up. You are, in other words, a pathetic coward, who would be happy to commit various atrocities in order to make himself feel just that much safer.

I despise people like you, because you don't think for yourselves. You just parrot whatever those in power say and feel good about it.

We do need increased security in many places. The recent tragedy in Bailey, CO, as well as the one in New Jersey only proves it. But that does not mean we go about acting like paranoid idiots. It does not mean we start jailing people without letting them know what they are accused of or without the right to legal counsel. And it does not, by anything whatsoever, mean we torture people. People like Duane Morrison--the gunman at Platte Canyon--torture people. We do not. End of story.

One news report said it was because the Canadians were under pressure to come up with names after the 9/11 attacks. Arar was just the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Tell me once again how the sovreign government of Canada can be "pressured" into giving up names by the US.

I'm sorry, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Did they? Which Canadians, precisely? Seems there is still some question about that. Here is an article from the CBC that details the timeline of the entire matter:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Among the highlights are (emphasis mine):



And so on. The case is not over yet.


Why dont you read the report the canadian government wrote and quote everything in CONTEXT..unlike the news organizations..

The link is above in this thread ,....you can read all the words as they were meant to be read....... instead of how someone wants them to be read .

try it you might like it .


The report says without a doubt that the CANADIANS gave the US the info and also aggreed to send him to Syria.

Isnt that the bottom line ?

Tell me once again how the sovreign government of Canada can be "pressured" into giving up names by the US.

I'm sorry, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

You've got to be kidding :eek: ...

America is _the_ great big country, economically, militarily, in the intelligence community, diplomatically, etc etc. The leverage it has on other nations is enormous, and can bring considerable pressure for results. Exactly how naive are you pretending to be here?

It's a giant pdf. Care to post any highlights?

Also, please see the article I linked to from the CBC. Apparently, at the same time that this report was issued, the investigators were issuing public statements that Arar has a legitimately case against his own government, that the RCMP was at fault for what they told the FBI, that what they told the FBI was inaccurate about Arar. Also, according to the CBC, there continue to be inquiries into who exactly did and said what at the RCMP and calls for the head of the RCMP to resign for what are described in the article as "blunders."

The contradictory information just keeps piling up. Seems this case is far from settled.

The only thing any of the parties seem to agree on is that Maher Arar was tortured and that that is a violation of Canadian and international law.



If you can show me how to post highlights from a PDF ...sure...I actually had to read the damm thing....see that's so I don't have to rely on others to tell me WHAT IT SAYS.

I can read it all by myself and now I know what it says .


But you can just cheat and go all the way to the end and read the recommendations ...

Mistakes were made it seems..canada may " compensate ' the victim...the US
says they wont have anything to do with that ...they acted in good faith blah blah NATIONAL SECURITY !!! etc.

You've got to be kidding :eek: ...

America is _the_ great big country, economically, militarily, in the intelligence community, diplomatically, etc etc. The leverage it has on other nations is enormous, and can bring considerable pressure for results. Exactly how naive are you pretending to be here?

Look, if we told the PM of Canada to suck his own cock on national television, or we would "bring our considerable pressure to bear", do you honestly think he would do it?

People need to wake up and grow some balls.

One news report said it was because the Canadians were under pressure to come up with names after the 9/11 attacks. Arar was just the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.


How is " speculation " in any way a news report ? ONE news report speculates it may rain and one speculates it may not ...

So where is the news ?


The Canadians could give a shit about pressure...how about they work very close with the US and all its law enforcement because its not only the right thing but the best for both countries ...and they JUST fucked up ?


They made a boo boo ..no fucking conspiracy a simple fuck up.


Like shooting a guy running for a train after a bomb scare..who's crime was he 's Brazilian and he runs .

Look, if we told the PM of Canada to suck his own cock on national television, or we would "bring our considerable pressure to bear", do you honestly think he would do it?

People need to wake up and grow some balls.

??!

No one but you is talking about the PM of Canada self-fellating. That's one weird side-tracking counter argument you've half-baked there.

??!

No one but you is talking about the PM of Canada self-fellating. That's one weird side-tracking counter argument you've half-baked there.

Gee, someone argues that Canada coughed up a name because somehow, the US has the ability to force Canada to do its bidding.

I'm using an obscene example to point out how ridiculous their argument is.

Sheesh.

Here's MeansToAnEnd

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/animated169.gif

How do you feel about torturing terrorists?



So how do you feel ?


I dont think making the Canadian dude suck cock is torture ...but hey ???


What was this about again ??

Torture is bad, what kind of human could think that it is right. To bad that bush can order that it be done to US citizens now, at his transgression.

Exactly how naive are you pretending to be here?

There is no end to DK's pretensions. Provided it keeps him covered while he lays it on rather thick with his contrived "Washington insider" POV in other threads.

And you believe that bullshit ...why ????

Oh yes, we should absolutely postively trust our governments word over that of a man who claims he was tortured and has the scars to prove it.

Ah, so anybody who has scars and is a devout Muslim can claim that he/she has been mercilessly tortured by the US government without a shred of evidence to back up those assertions? Please. He just wants to spread anti-American propaganda because he was unjustly locked up in a prison for 2.5 years and/or because he hates America.

Ah, so anybody who has scars and is a devout Muslim can claim that he/she has been mercilessly tortured by the US government without a shred of evidence to back up those assertions? Please. He just wants to spread anti-American propaganda because he was unjustly locked up in a prison for 2.5 years and/or because he hates America.

Are you saying that devout Muslims are liars? Besides, doctors can tell what the age of the scars are. It will not be difficult to compare when the person was imprisoned and how old the scars are. Now, if there is any anti-American propaganda it is America's own fault for the torture. Further, government can call "hating" America by any standards it wants now?

You know you tried to argue this stuff in other threads, starting your own is not going to help your case.

Why dont you read the report the canadian government wrote and quote everything in CONTEXT..unlike the news organizations..

The link is above in this thread ,....you can read all the words as they were meant to be read....... instead of how someone wants them to be read .

try it you might like it .
Because time is precious and I don't have nothing else to do.

I will read it -- when I have the time, which will be after I have the time to download it via my crappy little dial up modem.

In the meantime, since you are the one claiming it supports your assertions, why don't you pull some quotes that show it doing that?

Or haven't you had the time to read it, either?

The report says without a doubt that the CANADIANS gave the US the info and also aggreed to send him to Syria.

Isnt that the bottom line ?
No, it is not the bottom line because of the conflicting reports that I highlighted from the CBC article about this very case and this very report.

The Canadian government clearly denies agreeing to send him to Syria. The Canadian government now claims that it is not even sure what information was given to the US. The Canadian government also says that it is now clear that Arar has and had no connections to terrorism whatsoever. There are inquiries of a nature that suggest someone in the Canadian government thinks someone else in the Canadian government is lying about what they said and did with regard to Mr. Arar.

So, where was that bottom line again?

Torture is great cause I like hurting brown people /scrsm, or is it? <.<

If you can show me how to post highlights from a PDF ...sure...I actually had to read the damm thing....see that's so I don't have to rely on others to tell me WHAT IT SAYS.

I can read it all by myself and now I know what it says .


But you can just cheat and go all the way to the end and read the recommendations ...

Mistakes were made it seems..canada may " compensate ' the victim...the US
says they wont have anything to do with that ...they acted in good faith blah blah NATIONAL SECURITY !!! etc.

That's so cute, the way you make fun of my name. It's almost as witty as a grown-up joke.

As for that pdf, try using a little trick called "copying and pasting." It goes like this:

1) Download and open the pdf file.

2) Read it.

3) Using your computer, highlight any portion you think supports your argument.

4) Copy the highlighted portion.

5) Paste what you copied into a post on this thread. Tip: You can use Jolt's quote function to show that you are quoting the report.

Are you saying that devout Muslims are liars?

Are you insinuating that devout Muslims lack the capacity to lie when it suits their goals?

Besides, doctors can tell what the age of the scars are. It will not be difficult to compare when the person was imprisoned and how old the scars are.

So if they are able to scar themselves while in prison (ie, bite off their own flesh, cut themselves), they could pass those scars off as American-inflicted. Also, if I was torturing somebody, I would use such techniques as to make it impossible to determine whether that person was tortured or not (ie, electrocution, drowning). I doubt obvious methods involving scarring are commonly used, which heightens my suspicion of his baseless claims.

Torture is wrong, always.

End of discussion.

Pretty much.

Because time is precious and I don't have nothing else to do.

I will read it -- when I have the time, which will be after I have the time to download it via my crappy little dial up modem.

In the meantime, since you are the one claiming it supports your assertions, why don't you pull some quotes that show it doing that?

Or haven't you had the time to read it, either?


No, it is not the bottom line because of the conflicting reports that I highlighted from the CBC article about this very case and this very report.

The Canadian government clearly denies agreeing to send him to Syria. The Canadian government now claims that it is not even sure what information was given to the US. The Canadian government also says that it is now clear that Arar has and had no connections to terrorism whatsoever. There are inquiries of a nature that suggest someone in the Canadian government thinks someone else in the Canadian government is lying about what they said and did with regard to Mr. Arar.

So, where was that bottom line again?


ITS IN PDF...you cant cut and paste . You need to read it .

That's so cute, the way you make fun of my name. It's almost as witty as a grown-up joke.

As for that pdf, try using a little trick called "copying and pasting." It goes like this:

1) Download and open the pdf file.

2) Read it.

3) Using your computer, highlight any portion you think supports your argument.

4) Copy the highlighted portion.

5) Paste what you copied into a post on this thread. Tip: You can use Jolt's quote function to show that you are quoting the report.


Aside from you being dead wrong on cut and paste from pdf format...


Please show me how and when I made fun of your name .

then we can discuss the wits or lack of them .

Torture is wrong, always.

End of discussion.

^ What he said. ^

ITS IN PDF...you cant cut and paste . You need to read it .
Actually, you can. There's usually a tool in the bar at the top of the reader that allows you access to the text itself.

Are you insinuating that devout Muslims lack the capacity to lie when it suits their goals?

Anyone can lie. But you are suggesting that any religious Muslim can not be trusted.

So if they are able to scar themselves while in prison (ie, bite off their own flesh, cut themselves), they could pass those scars off as American-inflicted. Also, if I was torturing somebody, I would use such techniques as to make it impossible to determine whether that person was tortured or not (ie, electrocution, drowning). I doubt obvious methods involving scarring are commonly used, which heightens my suspicion of his baseless claims.

Paranoia is something we should stay away from. Given how Bush is saying he WANTS to torture people I can easily believe someone who says the U.S. torture someone. Then I believe the courts have said that you can't sue if you are tortured so hey, what should stop the government from doing so? After all the government can just deny it and say they are making it up. As if many people actually believe anything the government says.

ITS IN PDF...you cant cut and paste . You need to read it .

OK, I double checked, and you are both right and wrong. You cannot, after all, copy and paste pieces of a PDF into a text document, but you CAN use the Adobe Reader "Snapshot" tool to copy sections of the document which you could then post as smaller files which would be easier for us to navigate through and would allow you to post quotes that support your argument.

Or you could always just retype the sections you want to quote, within Jolt quotes.

Either way, without some quotes to back up your argument, and in light of the conflicting information published about the case and the report by CBC, I am not inclined to accept your assertion that the report says what you say it says.

Either come up with some quotes, or wait until I have time to read it myself, which should be in about (*checks calendar*) three months.

Aside from you being dead wrong on cut and paste from pdf format...


Please show me how and when I made fun of your name .

then we can discuss the wits or lack of them .

Your post #100 in which you quoted my post #95, only in your quote, it looked like this:

Originally Posted by Graveyards
It's a giant pdf. Care to post any highlights?

<snip>

Now, I happen to like graveyards. They are pretty and quiet, which half describes me, too. But I would very much like to know how "Muravyets" got translated into "Graveyards" when you hit the quote button.

By the way, there is a reference behind "Muravyets," but it is obscure and not very interesting, and it has nothing at all to do with graveyards.

Combining lenient labeling (suspicion is enough) with brutal questioning techniques (= torture) would undoubtedly lead to more terrorists being captured.

For some reason, I still voted no to any form of torturing... :)

Actually, you can. There's usually a tool in the bar at the top of the reader that allows you access to the text itself.

Thanks nazz..but I had to update my adobe reader so I could use clipboard..I had to copy the text to note pad..its a pain in the ass but once you get the right tools....meh...at any rate see how this works...

here's where I get blamed for excessive cut and paste blah blah blah...because someone would like to argue a point but couldnt care to read the document he's agruing about because he's too busy...:rolleyes: :D

This place amazes me .

Indeed, although RCMP officers conducting a terrorism-related
investigation were interested in interviewing Mr. Arar, they did not consider
him a suspect or a target of that investigation. They wished to interview him as
a witness because of his associations with certain other individuals. I have heard
evidence concerning all of the information collected about Mr. Arar in Canadian
investigations, and there is nothing to indicate that Mr. Arar committed an
offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.


BUT

The Factual Inquiry Report is presented in two parts. The first part, which you
are now reading, contains my analysis of the different aspects of the evidence
and all of my conclusions (chapters I through VII), a description of the Inquiry
process (Chapter VIII) and my recommendations arising from the evidence I
heard during the Inquiry (Chapter IX).
I have written the analysis in such a way as to avoid disclosing information
that is subject to national security confidentiality. For that reason, I sometimes
leave out detail. For example, I occasionally refer to times generally, rather than
specifically, and I do not always identify individuals or agencies. I am nonetheless
satisfied that the lack of detail does not mislead the reader about what
occurred. Moreover, I have been careful to ensure that my conclusions are based
on an assessment of all of the evidence, regardless of whether or not it may be
publicly disclosed.
The second part of my Report presents the detailed factual background,
based on the evidence I received during the hearings.

we get to the meat after the mea culpa's


4.1
INFORMATION SHARING PRIOR TO MR. ARAR’S DETENTION
• The RCMP provided American authorities with information, including the
entire database from the aforementioned terrorism investigation, in ways
that did not comply with RCMP policies requiring screening for relevance,
reliability and personal information. Some of the information related to
Mr. Arar.
• The RCMP provided American authorities with information about Mr. Arar
that was inaccurate, portrayed him in an unfairly negative fashion and overstated
his importance in the RCMP investigation.
• The RCMP provided American authorities with information about Mr. Arar
without attaching written caveats,2 as required by RCMP policy, thereby
increasing the risk that the information would be used for purposes of
which the RCMP would not approve, such as sending Mr. Arar to Syria.
• The RCMP requested that American authorities place lookouts for Mr. Arar
and his wife, Monia Mazigh, in U.S. Customs’ Treasury Enforcement
Communications System (TECS). In the request, to which no caveats were
attached, the RCMP described Mr. Arar and Dr, Mazigh as “Islamic Extremist
individuals suspected of being linked to the Al Qaeda terrorist movement.”3
The RCMP had no basis for this description, which had the potential to create
serious consequences for Mr. Arar in light of American attitudes and
practices at the time.******
• Project A-O Canada was the front-line investigative unit in the RCMP that
conducted the investigation in which Mr. Arar was a person of interest, and
it was that unit that provided information about Mr. Arar to American agencies.
The RCMP, as an institution, gave Project A-O Canada unclear and, in
some instances, misleading direction concerning the manner in which
AN OVERVIEW OF MY FINDINGS 13
information should be shared, and failed to properly oversee the Project’s
investigation, including its information-sharing practices.
• CSIS did not share any information about Mr. Arar with the American
authorities prior to his detention in New York and removal to Syria.


Now thats the Canadians saying they FUCKED up is it NOT ????


or do I need to use a crayon ?


***** WTF ???? What did you expect the Americans to do ...??? Let him go ..

WTF ?????

How come none of that is in your NEWSPAPER QUOTES ??????


http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/AR_English.pdf


Not official enough or thourough for you ???

Actually, you can. There's usually a tool in the bar at the top of the reader that allows you access to the text itself.

Ah, yes, I've found it. It's the Select tool, with the I-beam symbol. You can select the type, copy it, and paste it into a regular document.

You are right, and so was I. More to the point, Ultraextreme was wrong. :p

Thanks!

Now thats the Canadians saying they FUCKED up is it NOT ????


or do I need to use a crayon ?


***** WTF ???? What did you expect the Americans to do ...??? Let him go ..

WTF ?????

How come none of that is in your NEWSPAPER QUOTES ??????


http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/AR_English.pdf


Not official enough or thourough for you ???

Ultra, in Muravyet's eyes, it's always America's fault.

Here is some more fun...


4.2
DETENTION IN NEW YORK AND REMOVAL TO SYRIA
• There is no evidence that Canadian officials participated or acquiesced in
the American authorities’ decisions to detain Mr. Arar and remove him to
Syria.
• It is very likely that, in making the decisions to detain and remove Mr. Arar,
American authorities relied on information about Mr. Arar provided by the
RCMP.
• While Mr. Arar was being detained in New York on September 26, 2002,
the RCMP provided the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with
information about him, some of which portrayed him in an inaccurate and
unfair way.
• Without the evidence of the American authorities, I am unable to conclude
what role, if any, the TECS lookout requested by the RCMP played in the
American decisions to detain Mr. Arar and remove him to Syria.
• During Mr. Arar’s detention in New York, consular officials with the
Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)4
took reasonable steps to provide Mr. Arar with consular services, including
addressing the possibility that he might be sent to Syria. !!!!!! WTF !!!
4.3
IMPRISONMENT AND MISTREATMENT IN SYRIA
• Mr. Arar arrived in Syria on October 9, 2002 and was held incommunicado
until October 22, 2002. In the intervening period, he was interrogated and
tortured.
• I am unable to conclude whether or not Canadian officials could have
obtained Mr. Arar’s release from Syrian imprisonment at an earlier point in
time. However, there is cause for serious concern in regard to a number of
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATONS 14
actions taken by Canadian officials during Mr. Arar’s imprisonment, including
some that could have had an effect on the time taken to release
Mr. Arar:
– On receiving a summary of a statement made by Mr. Arar while in
Syrian custody in early November 2002, DFAIT distributed it to the
RCMP and CSIS without informing them that the statement was likely
a product of torture. That statement became the basis for heightened
suspicion in some minds about Mr. Arar’s involvement in terrorism.
That was unfair to him.( understatement of the year award ).
– In November 2002, CSIS received information about Mr. Arar from the
Syrian Military Intelligence (SMI) and did not do an adequate reliability
assessment as to whether the information was likely the product of
torture. Indeed, its assessment was that it probably was not. ( ????? )
– In January 2003, the RCMP, acting through the Canadian Ambassador,
sent the SMI questions for Abdullah Almalki, the subject of the relevant
investigation and also in Syrian custody. This action very likely sent a
signal to Syrian authorities that the RCMP approved of the imprisonment
and interrogation of Mr. Almalki and created a risk that the SMI
would conclude that Mr. Arar, a person who had some association
with Mr. Almalki, was considered a serious terrorist threat by the
RCMP. ( again they admit they fucked up ) .
– In March and April 2003, DFAIT failed to take steps to address the
statement by Syrian officials that CSIS did not want Mr. Arar returned
to Canada.
– In May and June 2003, the RCMP and CSIS were not supportive of a
DFAIT initiative to send the Syrians a letter conveying that Canada
spoke with one voice in seeking Mr. Arar’s release.
– From time to time, DFAIT distributed reports of consular visits with
Mr. Arar to the RCMP and CSIS. Ostensibly, this was done to seek
assistance for Mr. Arar. However, DFAIT failed to make that purpose
clear or to ensure that the reports were used only for that purpose.
– On several occasions, there was a lack of communication among the
Canadian agencies involved in Mr. Arar’s case. There was also a lack
of a single, coherent approach to efforts to obtain his release.
– DFAIT consular officials took reasonable steps to obtain consular
access to Mr. Arar throughout his imprisonment in Syria.
AN OVERVIEW OF MY FINDINGS 15



WHY THE FUCK did someone use this guy as an example of the US and torture ?????


If this isnt a WTF moment in time ...I dont know of one ...:rolleyes:


I ain't reading no more its stupid .

Thanks nazz..but I had to update my adobe reader so I could use clipboard..I had to copy the text to note pad..its a pain in the ass but once you get the right tools....meh...at any rate see how this works...

here's where I get blamed for excessive cut and paste blah blah blah...because someone would like to argue a point but couldnt care to read the document he's agruing about because he's too busy...:rolleyes: :D

This place amazes me .



BUT



we get to the meat after the mea culpa's
Finally. Thank you.

Too bad, though, the "meat" isn't what you want it to be.

Now thats the Canadians saying they FUCKED up is it NOT ????


or do I need to use a crayon ?
Who said the Canadians did not fuck up? Kindly point to any place where I or anyone else in this thread said anything like that.

The Canadians most certainly fucked up, as I made clear in my posts about the information in the CBC article.

***** WTF ???? What did you expect the Americans to do ...??? Let him go ..

WTF ?????
Like the Canadians, I expected the Americans to send him to CANADA for questioning.

Not to Syria for torture.

How come none of that is in your NEWSPAPER QUOTES ??????[/lquote]
It IS in the newspaper quotes.

Here it is again, post 93, highlighted quotes and link to complete article and timeline:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11756054&postcount=93


[quote]http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/AR_English.pdf


Not official enough or thourough for you ???
Yes it is, and it officially seems to agree with me and not with you, according to the quotes you chose yourself.

Canada DID NOT approve the rendition of Arar to Syria by the US.

Canadian officials violated Canadian regulations in their dealings with the US about Arar.

Canadian officials agree now that Arar is not and never was a threat to anyone and that his rendition was unwarranted and that his torture really happened and was illegal.

Ultra, in Muravyet's eyes, it's always America's fault.

Another lie, and another personal attack. You have just lost any right you had to complain about my criticisms of you. We are back on game.

Ah, yes, I've found it. It's the Select tool, with the I-beam symbol. You can select the type, copy it, and paste it into a regular document.

You are right, and so was I. More to the point, Ultraextreme was wrong. :p

Thanks!


You were wrong about just about every sentence that came out of your mind and landed on paper.


And unlike you I took steps to remedy my error .. My error in trying to cut and paste directly to the forum...


YOU on the other hand added more tinfoil to your cap it seems ....


Then again anyone who claims he is to busy to read a document he is claiming to argue about, on a subject he kknows little or nothing about , is already halfway finished digging his hole to bury his agrument in .

Here is some more fun...






WHY THE FUCK did someone use this guy as an example of the US and torture ?????


If this isnt a WTF moment in time ...I dont know of one ...:rolleyes:


I ain't reading no more its stupid .

Because he's a perfect example. There is nothing whatsoever in any of your quotes that shows Canada approving of Arar's rendition or his torture in Syria. Your claim that the US did it at Canada's request is thus debunked by your own quotes.

Even your quotes in which there is evidence that Canadian officials had information that Arar might be renditioned to Syria do not stand as proof that Canada approved the rendition or Arar's treatment in Syria. According to the CBC article, other parts of this same report make clear that the Canadian consulate, in accordance with Canadian law, should have intervened to stop Arar from being renditioned and instead have him sent back to the Canada. The judge who issued the report has recommended further inquiry into that and that Mr. Arar should use it in a suit against the government.

Also, the fact that the RCMP gave information to the FBI does not prove that the information they gave was correct. In fact, this report that you think vindicates you makes clear that the RCMP gave INACCURATE information to the FBI that made Arar appear more of a threat than he was. Therefore, there was no desire on the part Canada to have Mr. Arar tortured as a terrorist.

Rather, even though the RCMP did give such information to the FBI and ask them to put Arar on a watchlist to be detained, they specifically notified the FBI that Arar was wanted in Canada for questioning. Now, explain to me how that justifies the US in renditioning a Canadian citizen to Syria.

Finally. Thank you.

Too bad, though, the "meat" isn't what you want it to be.


Who said the Canadians did not fuck up? Kindly point to any place where I or anyone else in this thread said anything like that.

The Canadians most certainly fucked up, as I made clear in my posts about the information in the CBC article.


Like the Canadians, I expected the Americans to send him to CANADA for questioning.

Not to Syria for torture.

How come none of that is in your NEWSPAPER QUOTES ??????
It IS in the newspaper quotes.

Here it is again, post 93, highlighted quotes and link to complete article and timeline:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11756054&postcount=93



Yes it is, and it officially seems to agree with me and not with you, according to the quotes you chose yourself.

Canada DID NOT approve the rendition of Arar to Syria by the US.

Canadian officials violated Canadian regulations in their dealings with the US about Arar.

Canadian officials agree now that Arar is not and never was a threat to anyone and that his rendition was unwarranted and that his torture really happened and was illegal.


Again you can read that and come up with this bullshit ?


Try reading it AGAIN but take off the tinfoil.


DETENTION IN NEW YORK AND REMOVAL TO SYRIA
• There is no evidence that Canadian officials participated or acquiesced in
the American authorities’ decisions to detain Mr. Arar and remove him to
Syria. [b] you see this
• It is very likely that, in making the decisions to detain and remove Mr. Arar,
American authorities relied on information about Mr. Arar provided by the
RCMP.[ but you MISS this
• While Mr. Arar was being detained in New York on September 26, 2002,
the RCMP provided the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with
information about him, some of which portrayed him in an inaccurate and
unfair way. AND THIS
• Without the evidence of the American authorities, I am unable to conclude
what role, if any, the TECS lookout requested by the RCMP played in the
American decisions to detain Mr. Arar and remove him to Syria. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THIS .
• During Mr. Arar’s detention in New York, consular officials with the
Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)4
took reasonable steps to provide Mr. Arar with consular services, including
addressing the possibility that he might be sent to Syria[/quote]


Thats it with you...its like using a hilti gun to install titanium plates on odsidian...


I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent .

You were wrong about just about every sentence that came out of your mind and landed on paper.


And unlike you I took steps to remedy my error .. My error in trying to cut and paste directly to the forum...


YOU on the other hand added more tinfoil to your cap it seems ....


Then again anyone who claims he is to busy to read a document he is claiming to argue about, on a subject he kknows little or nothing about , is already halfway finished digging his hole to bury his agrument in .

On the contrary, I have been able to use your own quotes to show that you are as wrong about this as you were about copying text from a PDF. Your entire argument was based on assumptions and selective reading. That is why I did not want to waste my time pulling quotes from sections of the report that you already rejected because they did not support your claims about how Canada wanted us to torture their citizen. Instead, I was able to show the weaknesses of your selective reading right there in the bits you did think supported you (though why you thought that, I can't fathom).

On the contrary, I have been able to use your own quotes to show that you are as wrong about this as you were about copying text from a PDF. Your entire argument was based on assumptions and selective reading. That is why I did not want to waste my time pulling quotes from sections of the report that you already rejected because they did not support your claims about how Canada wanted us to torture their citizen. Instead, I was able to show the weaknesses of your selective reading right there in the bits you did think supported you (though why you thought that, I can't fathom).


Only in your dreams.

Again you can read that and come up with this bullshit ?


Try reading it AGAIN but take off the tinfoil.



• It is very likely that, in making the decisions to detain and remove Mr. Arar,
American authorities relied on information about Mr. Arar provided by the
RCMP.[ but you MISS this
• While Mr. Arar was being detained in New York on September 26, 2002,
the RCMP provided the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with
information about him, some of which portrayed him in an inaccurate and
unfair way. AND THIS
• Without the evidence of the American authorities, I am unable to conclude
what role, if any, the TECS lookout requested by the RCMP played in the
American decisions to detain Mr. Arar and remove him to Syria. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THIS .
• During Mr. Arar’s detention in New York, consular officials with the
Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)4
took reasonable steps to provide Mr. Arar with consular services, including
addressing the possibility that he might be sent to Syria


Thats it with you...its like using a hilti gun to install titanium plates on odsidian...


I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent .

You're so cute. Sad, but cute, the way you just repeat yourself pointlessly without adding anything new or more in-depth, and the way you resort to personal insults. It especially touches my heart when the letters get REAL BIG. It speaks volumes, it truly does.

For the third and, we hope, last time, the CBC article quotes the exact same report as you do. When we take your quotes and theirs together, it becomes clear that, yes, the consulate knew that Arar might be renditioned and did nothing to stop it BUT they were wrong to take no action under Canadian law. They should have stopped him from being sent to Syria. Ergo, the fact that they knew and did nothing is not proof that Canada approved the rendition.

Also, for the last time, please, the only thing this report makes clear is that the Canadian officials who gave inaccurate information to the FBI were wrong to do so, and the Canadian officials who did not take action to stop the rendition were also wrong. So, how do those two Canadian wrongs add up to the US being right?

Especially since the RCMP wanted Arar sent to Canada, not Syria.

Torture is wrong, always.

End of discussion.

Amen.
Torture by definition is causing exxtreme pain to someone on purpose.
It is barabaric, cruel, and just plain evil.

Only in your dreams.

I only dream when I'm asleep. You seem to live in yours.

Torture may sometimes bring about good or be necessary to save lives, but it is never right.

Even if person A saves N lives by torturing person B, he still deserves to be punished severely.

Also, torture is the most dishonorable activity, as bad as treason. It necessarily involves injuring a harmless person deliberately and repeatedly.

There is no such thing as an honorable or decent person who approves of torture.

Torture may sometimes bring about good or be necessary to save lives, but it is never right.

Even if person A saves N lives by torturing person B, he still deserves to be punished severely.

Also, torture is the most dishonorable activity, as bad as treason. It necessarily involves injuring a harmless person deliberately and repeatedly.

There is no such thing as an honorable or decent person who approves of torture.

Agreed.

Torture only ones who support and promote or execute torture themselves.


Yeah.

I say kill them all. All those raghead terrorist bastards. They mess with the best, they die like the rest OOORAH!

Torture all convicted terrorists. If they're going to kill innocent people en masse and in sadistic ways they should have more to worry about than a jail cell.

I'm not attempting to argue anything, yet. It's simply a poll.
Yeah, but as with Neocon Pride, we can already tell what you're going to argue based entirely on your name.
Torture all convicted terrorists. If they're going to kill innocent people en masse and in sadistic ways they should have more to worry about than a jail cell.
Stupid idea. What about the innocent people that will inevitably get convicted?
I say kill them all. All those raghead terrorist bastards. They mess with the best, they die like the rest OOORAH!
As I was saying, your opinions are far far too easy to predict.

Torture is bad. Information gathered by use of torture is unreliable. Torture stands to hurt innocent people. People who do the torturing should be locked in padded rooms and heavily medicated for their own good. People who advocate torture should be carefully analyzed to see if they need the same treatment.

So, that's a big old NO on torture.

I am heartened to see that the vast majority of the NS community seems to be of the same mind on this issue.

Torture all convicted terrorists. If they're going to kill innocent people en masse and in sadistic ways they should have more to worry about than a jail cell.

I don't think suicide bombers are going to be concerned about a jail cell or any other punishment they could get if they got caught and convicted. They obviously go into it on the premise that they'll succeed and die. Deterrant value = 0.

Though of course, no one needs to be convicted anymore, right? So what you're really saying is, torture anyone the government labels as terrorist.

As I posted in a previous thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11742411

I believe torture violates the most fundamental principles of our modern, democratic societies. To think that we would condone and/or use it, disgusts me.

Resorting to such low tactics would make us as bad as them.

Torturing people goes against all the great ideals that this country should stand for.

It's a truly repugnant idea.

People who torture or advocate torture are evil bastards who dont deserve to be included with the human species.

Torture is, was and will ever be wrong.

With the new torture law Bush came up with, the US has officially given up its place among the civilized nations.

Stupid idea. What about the innocent people that will inevitably get convicted?

Of course it's stupid, because you disagree with it, therefor since it is an opinion which disagrees with your own, it has to be stupid. The only stupid idea is the one which speaks from ignorance, and fails to acknowledge the fact that our police, if competant, would not catch innocent people. We have damn good forensic technology that would prevent that sort of thing.

Though of course, no one needs to be convicted anymore, right? So what you're really saying is, torture anyone the government labels as terrorist.

No, you are putting words into my mouth.

Torture is one of the three things that are always objectively wrong.

torture achieves no bennifical resaults and only sets a bad example which influences other criminals to fallow.

if i were to lable everyone who didn't like the color green (or some other
totaly arbitrary nonsense as is being done now with idiology) a terrorist,
would it make you feel safer if i were then to torture them?

no. torture is not only evil (i.e. premeditated causing of suffering and harm),
it is also idiotic.

=^^=
.../\...

No, if you're not attempting to argue anything its either trolling or spam. ;)
I'll take trolling for $50 Alex. :p

Looks like 82% say NO torture!!!

That is close to the results on the last poll.

Torture is one of the three things that are always objectively wrong.

What are the other two?

What are the other two?

Rape and genocide.

I say kill them all. All those raghead terrorist bastards. They mess with the best, they die like the rest OOORAH!

Warned for ethnic slurs.

People who torture or advocate torture are evil bastards who dont deserve to be included with the human species.

Torture is, was and will ever be wrong.

With the new torture law Bush came up with, the US has officially given up its place among the civilized nations.

I agree that anyone who would advocate torture is someone I would never want to be in power. This new law MIGHT help us in our fight against terrorism but it has also taken the moral high ground away from us, if our previous actions havn't done that already. Now we are saying we are willing to get into the muck with the extremists and not stay above it. Every action that Bush seems to take makes us look like we are really not much better then they are.

Of course it's stupid, because you disagree with it, therefor since it is an opinion which disagrees with your own, it has to be stupid. The only stupid idea is the one which speaks from ignorance, and fails to acknowledge the fact that our police, if competant, would not catch innocent people. We have damn good forensic technology that would prevent that sort of thing.
Tha's a painfully naive view of the world. I hope it doesn't take a stint in a foreign country being accused of being an enemy combatant to wake you up to that fact.

I agree that anyone who would advocate torture is someone I would never want to be in power. This new law MIGHT help us in our fight against terrorism but it has also taken the moral high ground away from us, if our previous actions havn't done that already.

It MIGHT help the war in some ways but those advantages will all be outweighed by the results of lowering the reputation of the USA further. What happened to Hearts and Minds?

If there was an option "don't torture anyone" I'd vote that.
Well duh.

Torture is one of the three things that are always objectively wrong.

Define "torture" please.

Then we can talk.

Define "torture" please.

Then we can talk.

No discussion will ever take place without a will to communicate.

This quibbling over the "definition of torture" clearly reveals an intention to do what most people regard as torture, but not to actually torture people by virtue of having redefined the term.

Say something, and we can talk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
Define "torture" please.

Then we can talk.

No discussion will ever take place without a will to communicate.

This quibbling over the "definition of torture" clearly reveals an intention to do what most people regard as torture, but not to actually torture people by virtue of having redefined the term.

Say something, and we can talk.

It is not quibbling to request a clarification of what the term "torture" means so that we can understand what the other means by that word.

To me "torture" is the application of pain to promote behavioral change.

To you, I conjecture, "torture" means the always unjust application of suffering for information extraction or punishment.

Now, if those are our definitions of "torture", then we're clearly not talking about the same thing, and should decide what we REALLY want to talk about.


If you've ever applied ANY pain to ANYONE to change their behavior in ANY WAY, then by my definition you've tortured someone.

Have you NEVER ever done that?

It MIGHT help the war in some ways but those advantages will all be outweighed by the results of lowering the reputation of the USA further. What happened to Hearts and Minds?

Hearts and minds? I think that people would prefer to be protected from terrorists rather than caring for the feelings of those terrorists when they are tortured. I don't think any sane person would say "I hate the US because it tortured a terrorist to save my life."

Hearts and minds? I think that people would prefer to be protected from terrorists rather than caring for the feelings of those terrorists when they are tortured. I don't think any sane person would say "I hate the US because it tortured a terrorist to save my life."

You arent going to be protected from terrorists if you radicalise more and more people with a heavy handed approach. You are only going to make yourselves a bigger target and make more people join those you are combating. I would quite gladly say that of the US if it were to take that course of action, just as I would with my own country. Although i'm sure both have tortured in the past all the same

Hearts and minds? I think that people would prefer to be protected from terrorists rather than caring for the feelings of those terrorists when they are tortured. I don't think any sane person would say "I hate the US because it tortured a terrorist to save my life."

*ahggmm*

I hate the US because they torture terrorists to save my life

It is not quibbling to request a clarification of what the term "torture" means so that we can understand what the other means by that word.

To me "torture" is the application of pain to promote behavioral change.

OK. To me, it's the deliberate application of pain to someone who is at your mercy. The reason, to me, is immaterial. To include the reason for doing this clearly defined thing, in it's definition, seems to me muddy thinking, and a wedge for "the end justifies the means."

To you, I conjecture, "torture" means the always unjust application of suffering for information extraction or punishment.

Interesting conjecture. Read many of my posts?

Now, if those are our definitions of "torture", then we're clearly not talking about the same thing, and should decide what we REALLY want to talk about.


If you've ever applied ANY pain to ANYONE to change their behavior in ANY WAY, then by my definition you've tortured someone.

Have you NEVER ever done that?

Of course I have. Are you saying I cannot renounce torture, condemn it, and argue against institutionalizing it, because I have at some time caused someone pain to stop them doing something, or to make them do something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
It is not quibbling to request a clarification of what the term "torture" means so that we can understand what the other means by that word.

To me "torture" is the application of pain to promote behavioral change.


OK. To me, it's the deliberate application of pain to someone who is at your mercy. The reason, to me, is immaterial. To include the reason for doing this clearly defined thing, in it's definition, seems to me muddy thinking, and a wedge for "the end justifies the means."

Thus you would never apply pain to anyone at your mercy?

Have you ever done this?

Have you ever attempted to correct anyone's behavior by any chiding (making them feel "bad" [emotional pain])?

Such as a child, or unruly friend?

Your definition states that ANY pain inflicted on anyone that is "at your mercy", which I take to mean "has less power than you to flee the situation", is torture.

Under this definition, is torture ALWAYS to be avoided?


Quote:
To you, I conjecture, "torture" means the always unjust application of suffering for information extraction or punishment.


Interesting conjecture. Read many of my posts?

Not that I can recall. What is the gist of your postings?


Quote:
Now, if those are our definitions of "torture", then we're clearly not talking about the same thing, and should decide what we REALLY want to talk about

If you've ever applied ANY pain to ANYONE to change their behavior in ANY WAY, then by my definition you've tortured someone.

Have you NEVER ever done that? .

Of course I have. Are you saying I cannot renounce torture, condemn it, and argue against institutionalizing it, because I have at some time caused someone pain to stop them doing something, or to make them do something?

You can renounce whatever you like, but do you apply one definition of "torture" to that which YOU do, and another to what other's do?

torture is always wrong, no matter how evil the person being tortured. end of story.

Hearts and minds? I think that people would prefer to be protected from terrorists rather than caring for the feelings of those terrorists when they are tortured. I don't think any sane person would say "I hate the US because it tortured a terrorist to save my life."

Unfortunatly I'm not widley considered a sane person, but . . . I hate America because it is engaging in torture in an attempt to save my life and the lives of others.

Hearts and minds? I think that people would prefer to be protected from terrorists rather than caring for the feelings of those terrorists when they are tortured. I don't think any sane person would say "I hate the US because it tortured a terrorist to save my life."

Well, it depends whether that 'sane person' was a selfish bastard or whether he believed there were greater things than himself that were worth dying for.

Even if I believed that your hypothetical secenario (above) was an accurate reflection of events I would rather accept the increased risk to my life than have people tortured on my behalf.

The thought that there are people out there who would torture people because they think it is a good thing to do, sickens me.

Unfortunatly I'm not widley considered a sane person, but . . . I hate America because it is engaging in torture in an attempt to save my life and the lives of others.

Our government has decided to torture because it is easy. Grabbing someone and assaulting them being simpler then going through the legal process or using more tame interrogation techniques to get information. So scrapping those laws protecting people makes sense for those who are lazy and decide to get a black and white, us vs. them view of the world.

Hearts and minds? I think that people would prefer to be protected from terrorists rather than caring for the feelings of those terrorists when they are tortured. I don't think any sane person would say "I hate the US because it tortured a terrorist to save my life."

What you fail to understand is that torturing accused, or even convicted terrorists does nothing to save lives. You could just as well be arguing the merits of raping puppies to save human lives. The two are not connected.

On that note. Click Here (http://www.alternet.org/rights/42344/) for a more elaborate explanation.

Is waterboarding torture? Anybody who considers this practice to be "torture lite" or merely a "tough technique" might want to take a trip to Phnom Penh. The Khymer Rouge were adept at torture, and there was nothing "lite" about their methods. Incidentally, the waterboard in these photo wasn't merely one among many torture devices highlighted at the prison museum. It was one of only two devices singled out for highlighting...

These bars were used for "stress positions"-- another practice employed under current US guidelines. At the Khymer Rouge prison, there is a tank of water next to the bars. It was used to revive prisoners for more torture when they passed out after being placed in stress positions.

So there it is. It is not hyperbole to say that Bush is on the same road as Pol Pot.

What you fail to understand is that torturing accused, or even convicted terrorists does nothing to save lives.

First off, it may act as a deterrent -- if even one would-be terrorist doesn't want to risk being tortured, then it's worth it. Secondly, it doesn't matter if it saves lives or not. You commit a crime, you get punished for it, regardless if your punishment saves lives or not.

Our government has decided to torture because it is easy. Grabbing someone and assaulting them being simpler then going through the legal process or using more tame interrogation techniques to get information. So scrapping those laws protecting people makes sense for those who are lazy and decide to get a black and white, us vs. them view of the world.

Well, it makes sense for those who are too lazy to ask if it will work.

If I drive a deisel powered vehicle and pull in to a station that only sells gasoline laziness still doesn't explain my willingness to fill up with gasoline. It costs more, won't get me the results I want, and ends up being more work and expense because I now have to call a tow truck and a cab.

It is the same with torture. The only thing that Bush is accomplishing by torturing prisoners is getting Congress to agree that there is nothing so egregious, so dictatorial, so brutal, and so stupid that Congress will step in to stop him. And in that, his plan has succeeded beyond all hopes he could possibly have had if he is as intelligent as some of his admirers seem to think. But if he's as dumb as the rest of us think then he's probably confused at what all the fuss is about.

First off, it may act as a deterrent -- if even one would-be terrorist doesn't want to risk being tortured, then it's worth it. Secondly, it doesn't matter if it saves lives or not. You commit a crime, you get punished for it, regardless if your punishment saves lives or not.

A person who decides to become a terrorist is willing to be tortured if it comes to it. As for the punishment, they should receive a sentence but that doesn't mean that torture should be used out of some sense of revenge. Hardly makes us look like we are the wronged party when we commit acts that make us look like vicious bastards.

If you've ever applied ANY pain to ANYONE to change their behavior in ANY WAY, then by my definition you've tortured someone.

Have you NEVER ever done that?

No. If I want people to change their behavior, I talk to them.

I say no to tickling detainees to death... naked... and with a feather...

So who got tortured ?

No. If I want people to change their behavior, I talk to them.

I expect I'll see this rather sensible approach met with clucking disbelief over the next few posts.

Torture is wrong. Always.

If you support torture, I'm sorry to say that you are no different to me than the worst and most brutal terrorist. You are on their level. You are attempting to destroy the freedom and justice that America stands for. You are as much my enemy as Osama is.

Hearts and minds? I think that people would prefer to be protected from terrorists rather than caring for the feelings of those terrorists when they are tortured. I don't think any sane person would say "I hate the US because it tortured a terrorist to save my life."

I hate the US because it tortured a terrorist to save my life.

So, now you've got two. EDIT: Sorry, three.

PS: I'm an American.

Torture is wrong. Always.

If you support torture, I'm sorry to say that you are no different to me than the worst and most brutal terrorist. You are on their level. You are attempting to destroy the freedom and justice that America stands for. You are as much my enemy as Osama is.

My logic goes along the same lines, except for a "don't" inserted before "torture." If you don't support torture, I'm sorry to say that you are no different to me than the worst and most brutal terrorist. You are on their level. You are attempting to destroy the freedom and justice that America stands for. You are as much my enemy as Osama is.

<snip>
If you've ever applied ANY pain to ANYONE to change their behavior in ANY WAY, then by my definition you've tortured someone.

Have you NEVER ever done that?

No, I have never done that. I can't imagine a scenario in which anyone would.

When I want someone to change their behavior, I ask them to do so. If necessary, I explain why I want them to.

First off, it may act as a deterrent -- if even one would-be terrorist doesn't want to risk being tortured, then it's worth it. Secondly, it doesn't matter if it saves lives or not. You commit a crime, you get punished for it, regardless if your punishment saves lives or not.

It might have. But it didn't. It isn't. The US intelligence agencies are agreed on this. We're uniting the terrorists against us and pointing out our willingness to torture is one of their best recruiting techniques. That and Iraq make it awfully easy to convince frustrated Middle Easterners that the US really is an evil empire. We're acting like one.

As for your second disgusting morally degenerate point Mr. MeansToAnEnd. What end is served by torturing people from whom we want no information and whose suffering we expect no benifit? One of the founding principles of this country is an opposition to torture. Punishment is not supposed to be "cruel and unusual." It is supposed to make the rest of us safer. That's it. If you think that suffering is the point of justice then please, go out and dispense some. See where it get you.

My logic goes along the same lines, except for a "don't" inserted before "torture." If you don't support torture, I'm sorry to say that you are no different to me than the worst and most brutal terrorist. You are on their level. You are attempting to destroy the freedom and justice that America stands for. You are as much my enemy as Osama is.

This is the biggest line of bullshit you've posted so far. A person who does not want to torture is the same as a person who does? Shit, bro, you are hard to please.

Btw, I agree with the the guy you were responding to. Now you've got three enemies. Him, Osama, and me. Yep, you sure are winning this "war", ain'tcha?

My logic goes along the same lines, except for a "don't" inserted before "torture." If you don't support torture, I'm sorry to say that you are no different to me than the worst and most brutal terrorist. You are on their level. You are attempting to destroy the freedom and justice that America stands for. You are as much my enemy as Osama is.

Torturing people is going to show that America stands for freedom and justice? And calling those who disagree with you are on the same level as Osama? You really have a strange view on what those two words mean. Or perhaps you are just trolling.

My logic goes along the same lines, except for a "don't" inserted before "torture." If you don't support torture, I'm sorry to say that you are no different to me than the worst and most brutal terrorist. You are on their level. You are attempting to destroy the freedom and justice that America stands for. You are as much my enemy as Osama is.

Well, yes. You are a pretty sorry figure if you're going to say that the anti-torture people are like the terrorists, since the terrorists have taken to torturing people before they kill them.

Since it's been established that the only purpose served by torture is sadism, and that there is nothing done to serve America by torturing others then you're throwing around the most feeble, almost laughable, insults. Those that are self-evidently true of you.

This is the biggest line of bullshit you've posted so far. A person who does not want to torture is the same as a person who does? Shit, bro, you are hard to please.

No, I'm saying that those who do not approve of torture are playing right into the hands of the most brutal terrorists and they are encouraging them in their monstrosity. They are implicitly aiding and abetting our enemies by hindering our assaults against them.

Torturing people is going to show that America stands for freedom and justice? And calling those who disagree with you are on the same level as Osama? You really have a strange view on what those two words mean. Or perhaps you are just trolling.

I vote troll.

No, I'm saying that those who do not approve of torture are playing right into the hands of the most brutal terrorists and they are encouraging them in their monstrosity. They are implicitly aiding and abetting our enemies by hindering our assaults against them.

Well, gosh, maybe you should have said that instead of pulling that hostile rant of hysterical nonsense.

Now that you have said it -- you're still wrong and for the exact same reason. Just as with the earlier statement, you've got it backwards. It is you who are playing into the hands of the terrorists by fulfilling everything bad they say about us, thus proving them right and validating their calls for jihad and ensuring that their movement will be much harder to weaken. Way to go, Capt. America. Good....oh, sorry. I was about to say "thinking."

I vote troll.

Well, when he's exposed to the light, he becomes as dumb as a rock... So yeah.

No, I'm saying that those who do not approve of torture are playing right into the hands of the most brutal terrorists and they are encouraging them in their monstrosity. They are implicitly aiding and abetting our enemies by hindering our assaults against them.

Since when has torture been the means to ending a war? What torture session in history produced the information that stopped a conflict? Really, you've talked about how useful torture is, why not show us some examples?

Further, why should people be enocouraging monstrosity on the part of terrorists by discouraging it on the part of their own government be dangerous? I would think encouraging our government to act like terrorists to be infinitely more dangerous than speaking out against torture.

No, I'm saying that those who do not approve of torture are playing right into the hands of the most brutal terrorists and they are encouraging them in their monstrosity. They are implicitly aiding and abetting our enemies by hindering our assaults against them.

I say that you are aiding and abetting our enemies. I would go as far as to suggest that you are doing their work for them.

What does Al-Qaeda want? They want to destroy our freedoms. Nobody disputes this. Glorious Leader Bush himself has proudly stated this numerous times. Very few Liberals will disagree, either.

Which side of American politics wants to limit American Freedoms?

"There ought to be limits to freedom...". "President" George Bush.

Conservatives support limiting freedom all in the name of "security". Patriot Act. Gitmo. Torture bill.

Enough said.

No, I'm saying that those who do not approve of torture are playing right into the hands of the most brutal terrorists and they are encouraging them in their monstrosity. They are implicitly aiding and abetting our enemies by hindering our assaults against them.

But it's been established that torture does nothing.

You've already said that the only reason you want it to continue is to make them suffer, even if it doesn't discourage terrorism, or garner information. It does nothing to hurt America's security to not be a sadistic sociopath. You're all out of excuses. It's just that you're evil.

Okay, should I open a poll on how many personalities Means has, or should I open one on how many voices are in his head?

I say that you are aiding and abetting our enemies. I would go as far as to suggest that you are doing their work for them.

What does Al-Qaeda want? They want to destroy our freedoms. Nobody disputes this. Glorious Leader Bush himself has proudly stated this numerous times. Very few Liberals will disagree, either.

Which side of American politics wants to limit American Freedoms?

"There ought to be limits to freedom...". "President" George Bush.

Conservatives support limiting freedom all in the name of "security". Patriot Act. Gitmo. Torture bill.

Enough said.

And where was it posted lately that he called the Constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper."?

No, I'm saying that those who do not approve of torture are playing right into the hands of the most brutal terrorists and they are encouraging them in their monstrosity. They are implicitly aiding and abetting our enemies by hindering our assaults against them.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. " - Friedrich Nietzsche

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. " - Friedrich Nietzsche

Okay, who is also betting on Means going "Nietzsche was a liberal Arab Muslim turrorist"?

I say that you are aiding and abetting our enemies. I would go as far as to suggest that you are doing their work for them.

What does Al-Qaeda want? They want to destroy our freedoms. Nobody disputes this. Glorious Leader Bush himself has proudly stated this numerous times. Very few Liberals will disagree, either.

Which side of American politics wants to limit American Freedoms?

"There ought to be limits to freedom...". "President" George Bush.

Conservatives support limiting freedom all in the name of "security". Patriot Act. Gitmo. Torture bill.

Enough said.

Bush just wants to destroy our freedoms non-violently and slowly. Obviously he is hoping we will all be frogs in a pot of slowly heating water. Won't notice our rights being stripped.

Okay, should I open a poll on how many personalities Means has, or should I open one on how many voices are in his head?

Is there a poll to be had, or just a quick calculation.

Bill O'Reilly
George W.
Condi
Rummy
Cheney
Alberto Gonzales
Possibly his own, but I doubt it.

Okay, who is also betting on Means going "Nietzsche was a liberal Arab Muslim turrorist"?

Nah, he'll probably try for that annoying Nazi angle. It'll fulfill the qualities of being completely false and completely hypocritical.

Is there a poll to be had, or just a quick calculation.

Bill O'Reilly
George W.
Condi
Rummy
Cheney
Alberto Gonzales
Possibly his own, but I doubt it.

Win! :D

Nah, he'll probably try for that annoying Nazi angle. It'll fulfill the qualities of being completely false and completely hypocritical.

Mmm... Do we or don't we tell him Nietzsche was a XIX Century philosopher? :p

It does nothing to hurt America's security to not be a sadistic sociopath. You're all out of excuses. It's just that you're evil.

I never had any excuses -- I came right out and said it. We need to fulfill the punishment part of crime and punishment. If they planned on committing a heinous act, they will be treated in a heinous way. They deserve it for their monstrosity.

Nah, he'll probably try for that annoying Nazi angle. It'll fulfill the qualities of being completely false and completely hypocritical.

He thinks we will all have freedom even though he also wants us to start conquering everyone we can, torture people and deport anyone who criticizes these policies. That they contradict each other makes no difference to him.

I never had any excuses -- I came right out and said it. We need to fulfill the punishment part of crime and punishment. If they planned on committing a heinous act, they will be treated in a heinous way. They deserve it for their monstrosity.
And here I thought that prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" had been written into the supreme law of the United States and anyone advocating it shows that they have as much loyalty to the country and its principles as Osama Bin Laden. Silly me.

I never had any excuses -- I came right out and said it. We need to fulfill the punishment part of crime and punishment. If they planned on committing a heinous act, they will be treated in a heinous way. They deserve it for their monstrosity.

So you admit your own monstrosity? You're just evil for the sake of evil?

Mmm... Do we or don't we tell him Nietzsche was a XIX Century philosopher? :p

He was also a complete joke. Look at other Nietzsche utterances.

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!"

"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star (damn, he must have been really high when he said that)."

This one is closer to my viewpoint.

"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome."

And here I thought that prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" had been written into the supreme law of the United States and anyone advocating it shows that they have as much loyalty to the country and its principles as Osama Bin Laden. Silly me.

If you are a suspected terrorist then no silly Bill of Rights for you. Bush is doing well to do what no terrorist will ever be able to accomplish on his own. Congrats for helping the terrorists win, Dubya.

He thinks we will all have freedom even though he also wants us to start conquering everyone we can, torture people and deport anyone who criticizes these policies. That they contradict each other makes no difference to him.

That's LITERALLY the basis of doublethink from "1984". LITERALLY.

And I can say that because I'm doing a STUDY on the book!

So you admit your own monstrosity? You're just evil for the sake of evil?

No...I said the terrorists were monstrous. To pay for their monstrosity, they need to be tortured, which can only pale in comparison to that which they wished to inflict on innocent civilians.

No...I said the terrorists were monstrous. To pay for their monstrosity, they need to be tortured, which can only pale in comparison to that which they wished to inflict on innocent civilians.

When was the last time a shrink examined you, kid?

No...I said the terrorists were monstrous. To pay for their monstrosity, they need to be tortured, which can only pale in comparison to that which they wished to inflict on innocent civilians.

So, the monstrosity of torture differs when you consider who is doing it and why? Getting your fingers broken slowly and deliberately is less objectionable when its done by U.S. officials to extract information?

No...I said the terrorists were monstrous. To pay for their monstrosity, they need to be tortured, which can only pale in comparison to that which they wished to inflict on innocent civilians.

If we are going to claim to be the good guys in this conflict then we can not say that some people are not deserving of rights. And we all have the right not to suffer under "creul and unusual punishment". To say otherwise just does not make sense.

If we are going to claim to be the good guys in this conflict then we can not say that some people are not deserving of rights. It just does not make sense.

By now you should have realized that Means is PERFECTLY able to hold two contradictory statements as true in his head.

If we are going to claim to be the good guys in this conflict then we can not say that some people are not deserving of rights. And we all have the right not to suffer under "creul and unusual punishment". To say otherwise just does not make sense.

We are the "good guys" because we only employ torture against those who wish harm to innocent civilians. They are the "bad guys" because they wish to harm innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever. It's not a very complex difference at all.

I voted for torturing convicted terrorists in order to extract information. In my opinion, the welfare and well-being of terrorists is irrelevant when information that can save innocents is in question. I know most people here are on the left, and usually anti-death penalty, but I was curious why people who do support the death penalty don't support torture (as it appears a large minority support it?). Surely causing someone pain is a lesser evil than killing someone.

No...I said the terrorists were monstrous. To pay for their monstrosity, they need to be tortured, which can only pale in comparison to that which they wished to inflict on innocent civilians.

Yes, but you want to do what they do. You want to share their monstrosity. You admit that you have no reason for advocating torture. And by that I mean no reason based in logic. No cause. You just hate, blindly and irrationally, and want to express that hatred in causing others pain. But because, like most neocons, you posess anger without any potency, you worship those with the power you lack, and trust them to do the evil that you yourself are not in a position to do.

We are the "good guys" because we only employ torture against those who wish harm to innocent civilians. They are the "bad guys" because they wish to harm innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever. It's not a very complex difference at all.

Too bad you don't give a fuck about them being tried to see wether or not they ARE terrorists.

Admit, you derive sexual pleasure from watching other people - preferably those in a weakened position - suffering. Consider, you defend a paedophile and you describe torture with visible glee. It's not hard to realize that it has a sexual component here. I'm thinking seeing an Arab child getting tortured would arouse you to no end.

We are the "good guys" because we only employ torture against those who wish harm to innocent civilians. They are the "bad guys" because they wish to harm innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever. It's not a very complex difference at all.

It makes a hell of a lot of difference. No one is to have such punishment. That is the entire point of the amendment in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't matter what your crime is, how heinous it is, you will still get all the rights that anyone else would get. Trying to do otherwise gets us on a slippery slope of saying if we can torture terrorists, why not regular murderers? Pedophiles? They are scum as well. You can not say that some can have rights and others can not. Otherwise it will just show the world who could very well be looking to America for guidence, what a hypocritcal nation we really are.

Surely causing someone pain is a lesser evil than killing someone.

I'd take the opposite point of view. Horrible, unending pain is surely worse than death. There is a such thing as a life not worth living -- that's what we need to expose terrorists to.

When has torture ever done any good for anything?


To extract information? It has been shown, time and time again, that information gained through the use of torture is highly falliable and often flat-out wrong. when you peel back their fingernails, they will say anything to get you to stop. even *gasp* lies!

For justice? What is the purpose of our justice system? to find people who break the law, and ensure that they do not do so again. Isn't locking them away enough to ensure that they don't break our laws anymore? Our system is not based on revenge, but on security. If they can't break laws again, then it works.

I'd take the opposite point of view. Horrible, unending pain is surely worse than death. There is a such thing as a life not worth living -- that's what we need to expose terrorists to.


Why?

Why?

Because it turns him on.

We are the "good guys" because we only employ torture against those who wish harm to innocent civilians. They are the "bad guys" because they wish to harm innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever. It's not a very complex difference at all.

It is an incredibly complex difference. There is a reason we don't torture murderers, rapists, serial killers, or any other person that harms another, and that is because we recognize that no good guy ever took a bad guy's skin off with a hot knife blade while the bad guy was still alive.

Torturing someone isn't justice and isn't just punishment, it is a sadistic act of inflicting pain on a living human being for pleasure, and no one who ever commits such an act is worth being called "good", no matter what excuses he gives for torture.

Why?

It's great logic. See, when we're relatively nice, the terrorists see us as monsters. So, if we become monsters, they must see us as relatively nice!

No...I said the terrorists were monstrous. To pay for their monstrosity, they need to be tortured, which can only pale in comparison to that which they wished to inflict on innocent civilians.

Funny, they say the same thing about us. I think you and they are one and the same. In fact, I don't ever remember seeing you and bin Laden in the same room at the same time. You're him!! Admit it!!

We are the "good guys" because we only employ torture against those who wish harm to innocent civilians. They are the "bad guys" because they wish to harm innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever. It's not a very complex difference at all.

No. The US is the bad guy, because good guys do not torture people.

I don't think torture should be used because the risks of torturing innocent people is too great. It's also a great propaganda piece for the enemy. But aside from this, I see no moral qualms with torturing a terrorist. It can gain information, and even if it doesn't it's what they deserve. It's just that the risks and disadvantes outweigh any gains.

We are the "good guys" because we only employ torture against those who wish harm to innocent civilians. They are the "bad guys" because they wish to harm innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever. It's not a very complex difference at all.

No, "we" have already tortured innocent civilians because we leave it up to Bush's people to decide who is to be tortured. If you support Bush, you support the torture of innocent civilians.

"They" wish to hurt us to get us out of their countries. If this were Star Wars, they'd be the Rebel Allicance, whom Vader certainly considered terrorists.

It has been built into human consiousness since the begining of human thought.

To be the good guy you need two things. The ability to consider the feelings of others and unwillingness to hurt others when not necessary (you've already admitted that the torture is not necessary, you just like it.)

The other is the ability to defend others against threats.

What is necessary to be the bad guy is the power to do what you want done, but to rely on it to solve all problems, so that you gain more and more enemies and ultimatly create the "good guy," you're so afraid of. They use nothing but force and pain to get others to comply.

That's why we have stories about Macbeth, Darth Vader, Richard III, Nixon (well, the Oliver Stone version anyway) and so on. Dubya is uniting the world against him because he is trying to use his military power where it should not be used. He is using torture, the sole province of the bad guy. Stories are coming out of the White House about Dubya becoming unstable and paranoid. Just like Macbeth, Richard III, Nixon... all the big tragic bad guys. You could not create a more complete "Bad Guy" if a novelist were to have scripted his presidency for him.

No. The US is the bad guy, because good guys do not torture people.

Well, let's be fair.

This particular story doesn't have a whole lot of good guys.

No. The US is the bad guy, because good guys do not torture people.

Nope. Good guys treat even their enemies by their own laws and rights. This torture business is a disgrace to our national image. I really can not see how anyone could support such actions as they are against everything moral and against every law in this country. Making up crap like Bush is doing.... makes me sick.

Torture is wrong, always.

End of discussion.

Two minutes of waterboarding and Khalid Sheik Mohammed was crying like a little girl and giving up ACCURATE intel that prevented future terrorist attacks.

Allowing terrorists to act with impunity and hide behind the Constitution of the country they seek to destroy is wrong, always.

End of discussion.

Two minutes of waterboarding and Khalid Sheik Mohammed was crying like a little girl and giving up ACCURATE intel that prevented future terrorist attacks.

Allowing terrorists to act with impunity and hide behind the Constitution of the country they seek to destroy is wrong, always.

End of discussion.

Two minutes of watching Khalid Sheik Mohammed being waterboarded and you were milking your pants, isn't it so?

CIA experts say torture does not yield decent info, and that, where it does, said info can be obtained by other, quicker and more effective means. You only have one reason, and one reason alone to contradict all experts on torture. That is, it turns you on.

Allowing terrorists to act with impunity and hide behind the Constitution of the country they seek to destroy is wrong, always.

End of discussion.

Who here has suggested we just let the terrorists run around with impunity?

And how is attempting to uphold the Constitution by adhering to its principles "hiding" behind it? Do you really think a law is best upheld when it is ignored?

Allowing terrorists to act with impunity and hide behind the Constitution of the country they seek to destroy is wrong, always.

End of discussion.

Wow. What exactly is the point of having a Constitution if we aren't going to follow it? There is no such thing as hiding behind it. There is only us choosing to follow it or us trashing it.

Two minutes of waterboarding and Khalid Sheik Mohammed was crying like a little girl and giving up ACCURATE intel that prevented future terrorist attacks.

Here. A link that proved the first half of your statement:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

The part that you neglected to prove is whether the intel was any good.

Wow. What exactly is the point of having a Constitution if we aren't going to follow it? There is no such thing as hiding behind it. There is only us choosing to follow it or us trashing it.

Terrorism is not a matter of criminal law. Terrorists are entitled to NO rights IMO. I am perfectly happy to give up the "right" of UBL, KSM and their henchmen to plot against my country without fear of discovery and to kill my family, friends and fellow countrymen. I want to know exactly what they are plotting, and I want that information by any means expedient.

I value my life, my family's lives, my friends' lives and my fellow Americans' lives infinitely more than I value any so-called "rights" of terrorists.

When the next terrorist attack occurs, and occurs because the squeamish, the self-righteous and the generally stupid have handcuffed our efforts to stop it, the blood of every dead American will be on their hands as well as on the savages' hands.

Oh, and after that happens, there will be martial law in this country, and all the purists' ridiculous posturing on behalf of terrorist "rights" will be rendered moot. And it will be thanks to them that we reach that state of affairs.

Terrorism is not a matter of criminal law. Terrorists are entitled to NO rights IMO. I am perfectly happy to give up the "right" of UBL, KSM and their henchmen to plot against my country without fear of discovery and to kill my family, friends and fellow countrymen. I want to know exactly what they are plotting, and I want that information by any means expedient.

I value my life, my family's lives, my friends' lives and my fellow Americans' lives infinitely more than I value any so-called "rights" of terrorists.

When the next terrorist attack occurs, and occurs because the squeamish, the self-righteous and the generally stupid have handcuffed our efforts to stop it, the blood of every dead American will be on their hands as well as on the savages' hands.

Oh, and after that happens, there will be martial law in this country, and all the purists' ridiculous posturing on behalf of terrorist "rights" will be rendered moot. And it will be thanks to them that we reach that state of affairs.

Not a matter of criminal law. Terrorism is a crime isn't it? Trying to say anything else like that it is some kind of "special circumstance" is the kind of term that oppressors like to use. I am not at all impressed with the justifications that our government is trying to use to excuse torture. People who want to try to put an illusion of safety before our civil rights are only looking in the short term and not seeing the long term consequences of such an act. A power the government gets is one it will be very reluctant to let go.

And if martial law is ever declared then the American people have a duty to rise themselves and kick out our oppressors from power.

Terrorism is not a matter of criminal law. Terrorists are entitled to NO rights IMO. I am perfectly happy to give up the "right" of UBL, KSM and their henchmen to plot against my country without fear of discovery and to kill my family, friends and fellow countrymen. I want to know exactly what they are plotting, and I want that information by any means expedient.

I value my life, my family's lives, my friends' lives and my fellow Americans' lives infinitely more than I value any so-called "rights" of terrorists.

When the next terrorist attack occurs, and occurs because the squeamish, the self-righteous and the generally stupid have handcuffed our efforts to stop it, the blood of every dead American will be on their hands as well as on the savages' hands.

Oh, and after that happens, there will be martial law in this country, and all the purists' ridiculous posturing on behalf of terrorist "rights" will be rendered moot. And it will be thanks to them that we reach that state of affairs.

OR it could happen like it did in England, where the IRA decided, after fighting against LAW enforcement, to become a political faction.

But let's not get the facts in the way of your personal dream of a dystopian USA, shall we?

Terrorism is not a matter of criminal law. Terrorists are entitled to NO rights IMO. I am perfectly happy to give up the "right" of UBL, KSM and their henchmen to plot against my country without fear of discovery and to kill my family, friends and fellow countrymen. I want to know exactly what they are plotting, and I want that information by any means expedient.

I value my life, my family's lives, my friends' lives and my fellow Americans' lives infinitely more than I value any so-called "rights" of terrorists.

When the next terrorist attack occurs, and occurs because the squeamish, the self-righteous and the generally stupid have handcuffed our efforts to stop it, the blood of every dead American will be on their hands as well as on the savages' hands.

Oh, and after that happens, there will be martial law in this country, and all the purists' ridiculous posturing on behalf of terrorist "rights" will be rendered moot. And it will be thanks to them that we reach that state of affairs.

Ah yes, your wonderful sense of responsibility. If terrorists attack, it's because of Evil Liberals. If the government declares martial law, it's because of Evil Liberals. Very original and piercingly logical. I guess if someone shoots you, the gun should go to prison.

BTW, did you masturbate before fantasizing about martial law? Be honest here.

Terrorism is not a matter of criminal law. Terrorists are entitled to NO rights IMO. I am perfectly happy to give up the "right" of UBL, KSM and their henchmen to plot against my country without fear of discovery and to kill my family, friends and fellow countrymen. I want to know exactly what they are plotting, and I want that information by any means expedient.

I value my life, my family's lives, my friends' lives and my fellow Americans' lives infinitely more than I value any so-called "rights" of terrorists.

When the next terrorist attack occurs, and occurs because the squeamish, the self-righteous and the generally stupid have handcuffed our efforts to stop it, the blood of every dead American will be on their hands as well as on the savages' hands.

Oh, and after that happens, there will be martial law in this country, and all the purists' ridiculous posturing on behalf of terrorist "rights" will be rendered moot. And it will be thanks to them that we reach that state of affairs.


Squeamish, eh?

We're the ones willing to put our lives where our mouth is.

You, however, are a snivelling little coward willing to fritter away all the things that make our country free just so you can feel that big daddy government is protecting you from the evil Islamic bogeyman.

There are certain principles that our nation claims to hold. You would probably claim to share them, too.

Your principles are worth nothing if you're not willing to die for them.

Either you believe in liberty or you don't.

Torture is something I would expect every American, in fact, every person who claims to be a civilized human being to be very strongly against. My safety is not worth my soul.

Wow. What exactly is the point of having a Constitution if we aren't going to follow it? There is no such thing as hiding behind it. There is only us choosing to follow it or us trashing it.

The same as having a Messiah when you aren't going to do anything he told his followers to do. It makes you feel superior to others.

"We might not be following our constitution, but at least we have a constitution."

Resorting to such low tactics would make us as bad as them.

Torturing people goes against all the great ideals that this country should stand for.

It's a truly repugnant idea.

Seconded. A few of the "people" (and I use the term subjectively) on this thread should be deeply ashamed of themselves.:eek:
I hoped, at first, that the topic creator and his apparent allies in this argument were playing Devil's Advocate, but no such luck:(

Well, let's be fair.

This particular story doesn't have a whole lot of good guys.

You can have a story with nothing but bad guys in it. The news proves that every day.

Seconded. A few of the "people" (and I use the term subjectively) on this thread should be deeply ashamed of themselves.:eek:
I hoped, at first, that the topic creator and his apparent allies in this argument were playing Devil's Advocate, but no such luck:(

It's a joke, but it isn't funny. Welcome to our nightmare.

If we embraced the 'terroists' with open arms and love and gave them what they whant they mite be moore wiling to tel su wut we wan to know. weve never tryed it so how do we kno it wont werk?

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. " - Friedrich Nietzsche

Well, Friedrich was plainly wrong there. If you gaze for long into the abyss, you see Cthulhu. :)

"We might not be following our constitution, but at least we have a constitution."

Not unlike information obtained by torture:

"we might be getting rubbish/false/imaginary information, but at least we're getting it"