NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a short snippit from Time's Q&A interview here: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1687229,00.html


So I said something to the Nightline guy about waterboarding, and if the Bush administration didn't think it was torture, they ought to do some personal investigation. Someone in the Bush family should actually be waterboarded so they could report on it to George. I said, I didn't think he would do it, but I suggested Jenna be waterboarded and then she could talk about whether or not she thought it was torture.

Would that work to convince GWB and co that they're engaging in war crimes by ordering/excusing that crap?

No.

No.

Should we give it a go?

It's a short snippit from Time's Q&A interview here: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1687229,00.html




Would that work to convince GWB and co that they're engaging in war crimes by ordering/excusing that crap?

I don't know about Jenna, but I wouldn't mind 'waterboarding' Barbara Bush (the daughter not the granny), or have I just lowered the tone of the thread ...?

She might be too drunk to remember... heh.

True dat...

She might be too drunk to remember... heh.

Can we waterboard W on national TV, live? Just to prove it's not torture mind you.

She might be too drunk to remember... heh.
or worse... she likes it.... she really, really likes it... :eek:

Can we waterboard W on national TV, live? Just to prove it's not torture mind you.

hehehe... and if he should say "it's not painful at all" then what... after all, some people get turned on by being whipped and spanked...

Edit: Shit... now I got an image of W in bondage gear :headbang:

how about 4 years of the Guantanamo detainees as the US administration while our current leaders take the place of the detainees?

im not big on punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty so no, i would not support waterboarding jenna bush.

i would, however, love to see dick cheney prove that its not so bad by being waterboarded on the sean hannity show some evening. i would even tune in to foxnews to see that one.

if that doesnt bring back his irregular heartbeat nothing will.

Of course it wouldn't be torture for her. I mean, give her a drink, and it'll be like all the times other guys forced her head under water. ;)

And the Republican Noise Machine hasn't screamed out that Stephen King is an Al'Qaeda propagandist yet? Wow. That's amazing.

I don't know about Jenna, but I wouldn't mind 'waterboarding' Barbara Bush (the daughter not the granny), or have I just lowered the tone of the thread ...?

Laura Bush. That lady closed the Botanical Gardens just to have lunch. And she left our tour group high and dry.

I say do it.

If its not torture, wich of course, we NEVER do, then Mr Bush shouldnt have any problems with it, since OF COURSE, its not torture.

how about 4 years of the Guantanamo detainees as the US administration while our current leaders take the place of the detainees?

Eeek, that is not at all a pleasant thought. While some of the Gitmo detainees may be innocent, there are certainly terrorists among them - I certainly wouldn't want the followers of Osama bin Laden in control of the US, even for four years.

If she has turned into a terrorist all of a sudden I say go right ahead, otherwise...:rolleyes:

Thats why people like you shouldnt be allowed to vote.

Torture is wrong, whenever, to whomever, all the time.

Ever read the Constitution, or the Geneva Conventions?

Not that those stopped the US lately...

If she has turned into a terrorist all of a sudden I say go right ahead, otherwise...:rolleyes:

Thats why people like you shouldnt be allowed to vote.

Torture is wrong, whenever, to whomever, all the time.

Ever read the Constitution, or the Geneva Conventions?

Yeah, the terrorists in Gitmo have zero rights under the GC. They can be lined up and shot completely legally under international law.

Maybe you are the one that should read up on that.

Not that those stopped the US lately...

Now you see the kind of horrible division growing in this county.
If I were given my druthers, we'd be marching to the White House with torches and pitchforks, and arrest Bush's ass for treason.

Perhaps this will give you an idea of how much most of us hate our own President.

Yeah, the terrorists in Gitmo have zero rights under the GC. They can be lined up and shot completely legally under international law.

Maybe you are the one that should read up on that.

Nope thats the catch.
Laws apply to anyone on "American Soil", wich all military bases are considered to be. Geneva applies to any enemy soldier. Thats why theyre calling them "detainees", or "hostile combatants". Its an attempt to fudge those very laws wich prohibit the government from indefinate detention, and due process.

Eeek, that is not at all a pleasant thought. While some of the Gitmo detainees may be innocent, there are certainly terrorists among them - I certainly wouldn't want the followers of Osama bin Laden in control of the US, even for four years.


I thought of that but not much will change. Terrorists are already in the White House.

Eeek, that is not at all a pleasant thought. While some of the Gitmo detainees may be innocent, there are certainly terrorists among them - I certainly wouldn't want the followers of Osama bin Laden in control of the US, even for four years.

If almost none of them have been allowed due process of law, how do we know whos a "terrorist" and who isnt?

Very few of them have been given any kind of trial, and without that, how do we determine the guilt or innocence?

Thats why people like you shouldnt be allowed to vote.

Torture is wrong, whenever, to whomever, all the time.

Ever read the Constitution, or the Geneva Conventions?

Water boarding is a just a TAD different from thumb screws. Anyway, thats why I could never be a "liberal" because you are against torture and killing, but want bush to die (and be tortured). You think every one has rights, except people you disagree with...like me.

Water boarding is a just a TAD different from thumb screws. Anyway, thats why I could never be a "liberal" because you are against torture and killing, but want bush to die (and be tortured). You think every one has rights, except people you disagree with...like me.


I recommend that you review what you write before hitting the submit button and I'm not talking about spelling and grammar.

I'd like to board Jenna Bush with my water
;) *wink wink*

I recommend that you review what you write before hitting the submit button and I'm not talking about spelling and grammar.

I see no rebuttal here, just a whiny little comment.

I see no rebuttal here, just a whiny little comment.

OK I'll rebutt you.

(_)_)

1) There was no whining - just advice so you stopped making yourself look like a mentally disable 9 year old.

2) When the person you quote says "Torture is wrong, whenever, to whomever, all the time." and you claim they are for torture.... I'll let you figure that one out yourself.

3) Do I look gay in this outfit?

I'd like to board Jenna Bush with my water
;) *wink wink*

so you're into water sports eh?

I'd like to board Jenna Bush with my water
;) *wink wink*

I think "Water her with my board" would have sounded better, but that's just me.

OK I'll rebutt you.

(_)_)

1) There was no whining - just advice so you stopped making yourself look like a mentally disable 9 year old.

2) When the person you quote says "Torture is wrong, whenever, to whomever, all the time." and you claim they are for torture.... I'll let you figure that one out yourself.

3) Do I look gay in this outfit?

Well...a little bit...:(

If anyone was to ask me, I say this whole thing is irrelavant to American politics. Waterboarding is in some respects a form of "torture", however it does not kill or injure, so what is wrong with it?

I don't know, maybe the fact that it's a form of torture? Torture, much like owning slaves, writes your ass out of the human race.

I consider techniques such as waterboarding - whether you define them as torture or not - to be potentially hazardous to national security. It does not guarantee accurate information.

Water boarding is a just a TAD different from thumb screws. Anyway, thats why I could never be a "liberal" because you are against torture and killing, but want bush to die (and be tortured). You think every one has rights, except people you disagree with...like me.

So it's not torture when done to other people, but torture when done to you. Lovely double standards there.

As for the suggestion that Jenna be given this, she has done nothing illegal to deserve this and seeing how this practice is intended to extract information, I doubt she would have anything to hide, thus not warranting such a thing.

Subjects of waterboarding are typically drawn from random people kidnapped by Afghani warlords and labeled "terrorist".

They have done nothing illegal other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and without a trial, there is no proof of any wrongdoing. Merely "They are guilty because I say they are."

As such, I hereby label you a terrorist. Please report yourself to your nearest CIA outpost for immediate waterboarding.


Waterboarding is in some respects a form of "torture", however it does not kill or injure, so what is wrong with it?

Life imprisonment on the whim of the powers that be does not kill or injure. Seizure of all your worldly goods and barring you from ever owning a penny does not kill or injure. Stripping you naked and tossing you into the Antarctic does not kill or injure in itself. Doing all of the above because someone say's so does not kill or injure. What is wrong with it?

Probably not, but can we forget to take her out of the water?

with my vote it looks like we gots ourselves a mexican standoff

I say do it.

If its not torture, wich of course, we NEVER do, then Mr Bush shouldnt have any problems with it, since OF COURSE, its not torture.
Bullshit. There are plenty of non-pleasurable things that aren't torture.

Good plan. And I think we should imprison her in Guantanamo too since it's such a nice prison, apparently. And then she can fight her daddy's war.

And then after all that is over, she'll probably just get drunk again.

A good amount of people get attacked by sharks while waterboarding, because the boards make them look like prey such as humans...er..seals rather.

Why let nature do our dirty work?

Bullshit. There are plenty of non-pleasurable things that aren't torture.

Is waterboarding lumped in with things which are merely non-pleasurable? Diet Coke is non-pleasurable. Howie Mandell is non-pleasurable. Any music which is described as Ol' Honky-Tonk is non-pleasurable.

Water boarding is a just a TAD different from thumb screws. Anyway, thats why I could never be a "liberal" because you are against torture and killing, but want bush to die (and be tortured). You think every one has rights, except people you disagree with...like me.

Ya know, he's got a point, hypocrites.

Thankfully, Kontor, not all of us liberals are that hypocritical. I for one would not only not want to see Bush waterboarded, I wouldn't want to see anyone tortured, no matter who they are.

It doesn't matter if they're war crimes, because to the Bush administration they're admissible if they think they're fighting terrorism.

It doesn't matter if they're war crimes, because to the Bush administration they're admissible if they think they're fighting terrorism.

You'd almost think any serial killer could get away with all sorts of horrific crimes if they explained their reasoning with "I was doing it to fight terrorism for the government."

Thankfully, Kontor, not all of us liberals are that hypocritical. I for one would not only not want to see Bush waterboarded, I wouldn't want to see anyone tortured, no matter who they are.

I have a very simple view in these matters. You can advocate whatever you want, as long as you're the first target of whatever you advocate, based on the parameters of your advocacy.

You'd be surprised at how many people turn tail when they are on the receiving end of genocide, false arrest, indefinite arrest, asset seizure, torture, etc, etc.

If almost none of them have been allowed due process of law, how do we know whos a "terrorist" and who isnt?

Very few of them have been given any kind of trial, and without that, how do we determine the guilt or innocence?

That is a significant problem in my opinion; we do not know who the terrorists are and therefore, we are almost obligated to keep them under custody to ensure that the terrorists cannot be freed and go out to commit terrorist acts.

By the way, I would love for all the Gitmo detainees to be given a trial and acquited or sentenced, the problem is that much of the evidence is still held by individuals that have not yet been found (i.e. Osama bin Laden, et. al.). The problem of course is that if we give them a trial now, we cannot try them on the same offence again, due to the double jeopardy laws - even if they turn out to be terrorists later.

And the Republican Noise Machine hasn't screamed out that Stephen King is an Al'Qaeda propagandist yet? Wow. That's amazing.
I knew The Village was secret attempt to destroy our morale!

Water boarding is a just a TAD different from thumb screws.[

Now I suspect you dont know what waterboarding is.
Its simulated drowning, friend. The person receiving it, thinks and feels like they are drowning.
If you dont think thats torture, forgive me, but your'e stupid.




Anyway, thats why I could never be a "liberal" because you are against torture and killing, but want bush to die (and be tortured).

Umm...way to totally make up a lie.
I would suggest that you ought to know better than to suggest that I would want even Bush to be tortured, but Im guessing you really dont know any better. In wich case, maybe you shouldnt suggest such things on a public forum, it makes you look silly.




You think every one has rights, except people you disagree with...like me.

You dont know anything about me. Dont insinuate that you have any idea of what I think, unless youre directly quoting me. This, makes you appear pompous.

I happen to think you have the right to think whatever you want, and say it as loud as you want to anyone who will listen, so that everyone in the world can know just how dumb you may be. :)

Ever hear that old addage, "Never assume anything, it makes an ASS of U and ME?"

In this case, mostly just you.

I have a very simple view in these matters. You can advocate whatever you want, as long as you're the first target of whatever you advocate, based on the parameters of your advocacy.

You'd be surprised at how many people turn tail when they are on the receiving end of genocide, false arrest, indefinite arrest, asset seizure, torture, etc, etc.

Yes, and it's all well and good to discuss that academically.

However, what I was objecting to was those who were truly serious about their urge to torture Bush and whatnot, which IS hypocrisy. I don't like hypocrisy. I absolutely hate it when I'm accidentally hypocritical and I don't like it in others either. Hypocrisy is against my personal moral code.

That is a significant problem in my opinion; we do not know who the terrorists are and therefore, we are almost obligated to keep them under custody to ensure that the terrorists cannot be freed and go out to commit terrorist acts.

I agree with your assesment of the problem. We dont know who is guilty and who isnt. Thats why its crucial to begin due process on them. I believe as Americans whos system of law is based on the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, that we are OBLIGATED to give them that opportunity to face thier accusers in a court of law. To NOT do so, i believe, is unconstitutional.


By the way, I would love for all the Gitmo detainees to be given a trial and acquited or sentenced, the problem is that much of the evidence is still held by individuals that have not yet been found (i.e. Osama bin Laden, et. al.). The problem of course is that if we give them a trial now, we cannot try them on the same offence again, due to the double jeopardy laws - even if they turn out to be terrorists later.

If you were an American citizen, (maybe you are, I dont know), you would have the right to a speedy trial by jury, wherein you get to face your accusers and have them attempt to prove your guilt.

Even if the people who could give testimony against you are not present, that simply lessens the case against you.
Remember, you dont have to prove your innocence, the prosecution must prove your guilt, "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
If they cannot, you are free to go.
Thats how our justice system works.

If we have the gall to detain these people on American soil, then by the Constitution, they should be subject to our legal system, this implies that they too, must be given due process.
The mere fact that there are people who have been detained for over 5 years with no such trial, or process, is completely against what this country was founded for, over 200 years ago.

THATS why I hate Bush and his cronies, for ignoring the very foundations our nation was conceived upon.

I knew The Village was secret attempt to destroy our morale!

Psst....that was M night Shamalyan...(or however he spells it)

Psst....that was M night Shamalyan...(or however he spells it)

M. Night Shyamalanadingdong.

M. Night Shyamalanadingdong.

Damn you constant mixing up of their works!

Steven King is a puppet of the Hollywood Liberal elite media, communist, drug-dealing, Islamo-fascist, feminist Al'Qaeda propaganda machine.

Bullshit. There are plenty of non-pleasurable things that aren't torture.

Are you saying its not torture?

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GcXl1y_mQw

or this:
(not as good, but still pretty clear)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RXTWMiBkg&feature=related

Or, find out what John (bit of a douchebag) McCain thinks about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIHHZ59aWoA&feature=related


Or...ask a French journalist who has been waterboarded if it was torture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ6Uk9swcAo&feature=related

I think "Water her with my board" would have sounded better, but that's just me.

Yeah, it would have

Strip Waterboarding anybody???

However, what I was objecting to was those who were truly serious about their urge to torture Bush and whatnot, which IS hypocrisy. I don't like hypocrisy. I absolutely hate it when I'm accidentally hypocritical and I don't like it in others either. Hypocrisy is against my personal moral code.

No seriously, from my point of view, it isn't hypocrisy to put them through what they want, which they claim is "for the greater good" or "harmless".

If anything, it's exposing hypocrisy on the the ones who advocate such measures.

Of course however, I also get where you're coming from. That being the hypocrisy of those who are against such measures but are willing to use them on their advocates.

The difference here? I'm neither against or for it, but the ones who advocate it had better go through it first.

Methods and tools aren't inherently bad or evil. People tend to forget that. It's the people that make them bad or evil or whatever title fits.

I was actually unclear as to what waterboarding entailed until fairly recently.
It's damn nasty.

No seriously, from my point of view, it isn't hypocrisy to put them through what they want, which they claim is "for the greater good" or "harmless".

If anything, it's exposing hypocrisy on the the ones who advocate such measures.

Of course however, I also get where you're coming from. That being the hypocrisy of those who are against such measures but are willing to use them on their advocates.

The difference here? I'm neither against or for it, but the ones who advocate it had better go through it first.

Methods and tools aren't inherently bad or evil. People tend to forget that. It's the people that make them bad or evil or whatever title fits.
Fair enough mate. Fair enough.

I agree with your assesment of the problem. We dont know who is guilty and who isnt. Thats why its crucial to begin due process on them. I believe as Americans whos system of law is based on the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, that we are OBLIGATED to give them that opportunity to face thier accusers in a court of law. To NOT do so, i believe, is unconstitutional.

My own belief is that I would love to see the Gitmo people go to court, however, given the double jeopardy constraints, the fact that we are dealing with potential terrorists here and the fact that crucial people have not yet been found, it is something that cannot be done at the present. The last thing that I, and any reasonable person, would want is to allow these people their day in court, and find out later that someone, anyone was in fact a terrorist and is now plotting to blow up a subway train or fly a plane into another building.

If you were an American citizen, (maybe you are, I dont know), you would have the right to a speedy trial by jury, wherein you get to face your accusers and have them attempt to prove your guilt.

While I am not an American, down here in New Zealand, we share the same common law basis and I do believe in all the above rights, and I do believe that the Gitmo prisoners should get them; however, the risk if something goes wrong is far too great.

Even if the people who could give testimony against you are not present, that simply lessens the case against you.
Remember, you dont have to prove your innocence, the prosecution must prove your guilt, "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
If they cannot, you are free to go.
Thats how our justice system works.

Of course, I have no dispute with this, however, again, we are dealing with people that could possibly endanger our lives on a great scale (like we could also be dealing with some sheep farmers). Once they are free to go; they cannot be charged with terrorism again - that is my concern.

If we have the gall to detain these people on American soil, then by the Constitution, they should be subject to our legal system, this implies that they too, must be given due process.
The mere fact that there are people who have been detained for over 5 years with no such trial, or process, is completely against what this country was founded for, over 200 years ago.

THATS why I hate Bush and his cronies, for ignoring the very foundations our nation was conceived upon.

The foundation on which America was founded was ignored a very long time ago; long before you and I were ever born. Same with the foundation on which New Zealand was founded was ignored.

I would love to see Gitmo go, but the potential cost of letting even one terrorist through is far too great.

Are you saying its not torture?

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GcXl1y_mQw

or this:
(not as good, but still pretty clear)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RXTWMiBkg&feature=related

Or, find out what John (bit of a douchebag) McCain thinks about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIHHZ59aWoA&feature=related


Or...ask a French journalist who has been waterboarded if it was torture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ6Uk9swcAo&feature=related

Psssh. French opinions are like fine wine.

They're practically worthless now, but give it a hundred years and we'll talk.

My own belief is that I would love to see the Gitmo people go to court, however, given the double jeopardy constraints, the fact that we are dealing with potential terrorists here and the fact that crucial people have not yet been found, it is something that cannot be done at the present. The last thing that I, and any reasonable person, would want is to allow these people their day in court, and find out later that someone, anyone was in fact a terrorist and is now plotting to blow up a subway train or fly a plane into another building.

So you're saying they should be held indefinitely in case they might turn out to be terrorists in the future even if they're not at the present? That high-pitched sound we hear now is the combined turbine spin of Kafka and Orwell powering a continent together.

While I am not an American, down here in New Zealand, we share the same common law basis and I do believe in all the above rights, and I do believe that the Gitmo prisoners should get them; however, the risk if something goes wrong is far too great.

You're afraid of a self-fulfilling prophecy that resulted from a miscarriage of justice.

Of course, I have no dispute with this, however, again, we are dealing with people that could possibly endanger our lives on a great scale (like we could also be dealing with some sheep farmers). Once they are free to go; they cannot be charged with terrorism again - that is my concern.

Double Jeopardy only applies to a specific instance of a crime. It does not apply if they happen to commit a different instance of the same crime in the future. That is to say as an example, O.J. Simpson can never be tried again for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman barring extreme circumstances, but if he were to be accused of a different murder he can be tried and possibly convicted for that.

The foundation on which America was founded was ignored a very long time ago; long before you and I were ever born. Same with the foundation on which New Zealand was founded was ignored.

I would love to see Gitmo go, but the potential cost of letting even one terrorist through is far too great.

And you're worried about one potential terrorist who might have only ended up becoming one through unjust incarceration and torture, as opposed to the growing number of actual terrorists who ended up becoming such due to propaganda fueled off of the fiasco that is "The War On Terror"?

Why would you need to convince him it's torture? He knows it's torture, he's just pretending that it's not so he can ignore all those pesky laws against torture.

Steven King is a puppet of the Hollywood Liberal elite media, communist, drug-dealing, Islamo-fascist, feminist Al'Qaeda propaganda machine.

Obvious troll is obvious

It's a short snippit from Time's Q&A interview here: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1687229,00.html




Would that work to convince GWB and co that they're engaging in war crimes by ordering/excusing that crap?
Pfft. Jenna is a not-man. Not-men aren't real humans. They're weak, stupid creatures who somewhat resemble men, but they certainly can't be respected the way men are. Not-men are notoriously incapable of making judgments regarding their own health and well-being, which is why Bush supports making sure that not-men have their medical decisions made by men and politicians (also men).

Pfft. Jenna is a not-man. Not-men aren't real humans. They're weak, stupid creatures who somewhat resemble men, but they certainly can't be respected the way men are. Not-men are notoriously incapable of making judgments regarding their own health and well-being, which is why Bush supports making sure that not-men have their medical decisions made by men and politicians (also men).

I have this image in my mind, of these not-men you speak of performing said actions against the men who advocate them.

Except, I get this feeling that they'd like it.

Ya know, he's got a point, hypocrites.

Thankfully, Kontor, not all of us liberals are that hypocritical. I for one would not only not want to see Bush waterboarded, I wouldn't want to see anyone tortured, no matter who they are.

Water boarding isn't torture. Dear Leader™ says so.

I was actually unclear as to what waterboarding entailed until fairly recently.
It's damn nasty.

But Jenna Bush is hot!!!

;)

Ya know, he's got a point, hypocrites.

Thankfully, Kontor, not all of us liberals are that hypocritical. I for one would not only not want to see Bush waterboarded, I wouldn't want to see anyone tortured, no matter who they are.

Well I can respect you for that, congrats for not being a hypocrite( no sarcasm intended).

So you're saying they should be held indefinitely in case they might turn out to be terrorists in the future even if they're not at the present? That high-pitched sound we hear now is the combined turbine spin of Kafka and Orwell powering a continent together.

No, I am talking about people that are terrorists at the present. I can guarantee you that among the hundreds at Gitmo, there is at least one terrorist, right there, right now. In fact, I am confident that there are more. The problem is that we cannot differentiate the terrorists from the sheep farmers that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You're afraid of a self-fulfilling prophecy that resulted from a miscarriage of justice.

Not exactly a self fulfilling prophecy; what concerns me is that the following scenario could occur

terrorist joins Al Qaeda and fights in Afghanistan
terrorist captured
terrorist gets shipped to Gitmo
terrorist gets sent to trial and is found not guilty for being a member of Al Qaeda
Osama bin Laden gets captured and we find out that this individual was a member of Al Qaeda; but we cannot charge him now, since he was found not guilty
terrorist commits heinous act, and government gets slaughtered by the media

Double Jeopardy only applies to a specific instance of a crime. It does not apply if they happen to commit a different instance of the same crime in the future. That is to say as an example, O.J. Simpson can never be tried again for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman barring extreme circumstances, but if he were to be accused of a different murder he can be tried and possibly convicted for that.

In the case of the terrorists that are at Gitmo, it would be membership of Al Qaeda. As you said yourself, double jeopardy applies to a specific instance of a crime, and in this case, it is membership of Al Qaeda - in the event that they are found innocent of being a member of Al Qaeda, that is it, they can happily plot with Osama bin Laden and commit some heinous act. I don't exactly want to see a plane flying into a building again.

And you're worried about one potential terrorist who might have only ended up becoming one through unjust incarceration and torture, as opposed to the growing number of actual terrorists who ended up becoming such due to propaganda fueled off of the fiasco that is "The War On Terror"?

No, what I am worried about is the people that were terrorists before they entered Gitmo and would be found innocent since we do not have crucial information from key people at the moment. Likewise, I am also worried about the growing number of terrorists, however, that is another strategy for another debate.

I don't view water boarding as torture and as such I don't mind it. What I am against is torture, like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/flaying While that is extreme and not all I think is torture, you get the idea. So for another example, here we go. <Link removed> Disgusting, isnt it?

Of course it wouldn't be torture for her. I mean, give her a drink, and it'll be like all the times other guys forced her head under water. ;)
What's that supposed to mean?

Water boarding isn't torture. Dear Leader™ says so.

Irrelevant. You know damned well it is torture, regardless of what Bush says(And as much as I despise his lack of leadership and general poor doing of his job, these "Dear Leader" cracks are getting really old) and wanting to inflict it upon him makes you a hypocrite.

In the case of the terrorists that are at Gitmo, it would be membership of Al Qaeda. As you said yourself, double jeopardy applies to a specific instance of a crime, and in this case, it is membership of Al Qaeda - in the event that they are found innocent of being a member of Al Qaeda, that is it, they can happily plot with Osama bin Laden and commit some heinous act. I don't exactly want to see a plane flying into a building again.


That has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with double jeopardy. Kindly educate yourself on it.

Irrelevant. You know damned well it is torture, regardless of what Bush says(And as much as I despise his lack of leadership and general poor doing of his job, these "Dear Leader" cracks are getting really old) and wanting to inflict it upon him makes you a hypocrite.

Of course it's torture, everyone with sense knows that. He apparently doesn't have any. If he's so sure it's not torture he ought volunteer for it, just to prove it. Frankly you ought take a valium or something, cause you're way to fucking wound up.

I don't view water boarding as torture and as such I don't mind it. What I am against is torture, like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/flaying While that is extreme and not all I think is torture, you get the idea. So for another example, here we go. <Link Removed> Disgusting, isnt it?

Waterboarding usually does not leave permanent physical damage, but that does not mean it isn't torture... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding)

Eeek, that is not at all a pleasant thought. While some of the Gitmo detainees may be innocent, there are certainly terrorists among them - I certainly wouldn't want the followers of Osama bin Laden in control of the US, even for four years.

Yes after 4 years of torture they go someone to admit they were a terrorist. Wonder how long it will take before they all confess?

I don't view water boarding as torture and as such I don't mind it.


Really?

You got kids?

If so, hows about we waterboard them?

How about we waterboard your grandmother?

Why dont you yourself volunteer to get waterboarded?

After all, as long as you personally dont view it as waterboarding, how bad could it be? Its probably like a warm bath, huh?
Or, maybe....its completely torture, and you just dont care, as long as its not being done to you.

The kind of mentality you use to say that, is the same sort I would have to use if I were to say something as foolish as "I dont view Christianity as a real religion."
It doesnt matter what I think of it, its real regardless.

You dont have to believe in it to make it real. Waterboarding is not Santa Claus, Jesus, or the Easter Bunny.
It exists, and its torture.

I don't view water boarding as torture and as such I don't mind it.

You wouldn't mind being water boarded? OK...

Anyway, thats why I could never be a "liberal" because you are against torture and killing, but want bush to die (and be tortured). You think every one has rights, except people you disagree with...like me.

Well, since you seem to have just volunteered, this "argument" (strawman and red herring, BTW) goes out the window...

Water boarding is a just a TAD different from thumb screws. Anyway, thats why I could never be a "liberal" because you are against torture and killing, but want bush to die (and be tortured). You think every one has rights, except people you disagree with...like me.

Hello Mr. Pot. This is Mr. Kettle.

Water boarding is a just a TAD different from thumb screws. Anyway, thats why I could never be a "liberal" because you are against torture and killing, but want bush to die (and be tortured). You think every one has rights, except people you disagree with...like me.Prove that.

Really?

You got kids?

If so, hows about we waterboard them?

How about we waterboard your grandmother?

Why dont you yourself volunteer to get waterboarded?

After all, as long as you personally dont view it as waterboarding, how bad could it be? Its probably like a warm bath, huh?
Or, maybe....its completely torture, and you just dont care, as long as its not being done to you.

The kind of mentality you use to say that, is the same sort I would have to use if I were to say something as foolish as "I dont view Christianity as a real religion."
It doesnt matter what I think of it, its real regardless.

You dont have to believe in it to make it real. Waterboarding is not Santa Claus, Jesus, or the Easter Bunny.
It exists, and its torture.

Well, you see Im not a criminal or a terrorist. I don't plot to kill thousands and I don't carry in my brain the information that could save lives and neither does my family.

I don't know about Jenna, but I wouldn't mind 'waterboarding' Barbara Bush (the daughter not the granny), or have I just lowered the tone of the thread ...?

Can we waterboard W on national TV, live? Just to prove it's not torture mind you.

Proven again laerod.

Well, you see Im not a criminal or a terrorist. I don't plot to kill thousands and I don't carry in my brain the information that could save lives and neither does my family.

Now if only we had a crystal ball so we could be sure that the people we are tort-I mean, 'coercing' are actually terrorists...

im not big on punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty so no, i would not support waterboarding jenna bush.

i would, however, love to see dick cheney prove that its not so bad by being waterboarded on the sean hannity show some evening. i would even tune in to foxnews to see that one.

if that doesnt bring back his irregular heartbeat nothing will.

Another proof laerod

Laura Bush. That lady closed the Botanical Gardens just to have lunch. And she left our tour group high and dry.

Are you satasfied yet laerod?

I say do it.

If its not torture, wich of course, we NEVER do, then Mr Bush shouldnt have any problems with it, since OF COURSE, its not torture.

And finally here for you approval laerod, you to backwoods.

First of all, I am appalled that you would even consider our intelligence system that faulty--it is an insult. We do not randomly pick up people, and unless you read some propaganda made up by some liberal political party, you are not being factual.

Second of all, there is a difference between interrogation a criminal and persecuting people or causing genocide. There is nothing wrong with national security, or attempting to protect it. Finally, I doubt that you have any loyalties with our government. On the contrary, it is YOU who are a terrorist.

Okay, maybe not a terrorist, but a stuck up person.

Sarcasm, or just plain ultra nationalism? I wonder.

Following something unquestionably is a strange way of showing respect to it.

Are you satasfied yet laerod?

I didn't mean that remark seriously, but really, I am kinda pissed about it.

Literal truth. I am not known for sarcasm, and if you even had one ounce of respect for your country, you would think differently. It is called patriotism. Live with it or leave it.

Ahh, so ultra nationalism it is. Dissent of the state is treason. Freedom of speech is a lie. Sieg heil!

I reserve my respect for people, based on what they do, and how they do it, whether they be in the government or not. Not some vague concept that requires unthinking obedience.


First of all, I am appalled that you would even consider our intelligence system that faulty--it is an insult.

Oh yes, because gods inhabit your intelligence system. Oh no, they can't ever be affected by politics, gerrymandering, incompetence, external pressure to produce results, real or imagined. Oh no. They can't possibly be that.

If the truth is an insult, you had better go back to your tiny little cave hmm? NSG isn't kind to those who take the truth as an insult.


We do not randomly pick up people, and unless you read some propaganda made up by some liberal political party, you are not being factual.

Ahh, the typical "Any news to the contrary is propaganda". Typical of the reality challenged.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SOF_0804_Idema,00.html

Yes. Liberal political party that. And oh, their word is good. They'll never throw up some schmuck they picked off the road.

And "We"? Is that an admission of Langley connections? Fascinating.


Second of all, there is a difference between interrogation a criminal and persecuting people or causing genocide

You're a illegal combatant because I say so. In accordance to recent US laws, were I a member of the US intelligence services, I may hold you indefinitely as a non-human, and treat you as such.

And comparing the two, apples and orangutans. You fail. Sure, there's a difference between genocide and murder. I guess killing you is fine then.


There is nothing wrong with national security, or attempting to protect it.


When you subvert laws, treaties and your own damn constitution in the name of protecting "national security" you aren't. You're making an Orwellian nightmare.


Finally, I doubt that you have any loyalties with our government

Why should I? Why should I be a lockstep marching, unthinking drone of the government spouting nationalist phrases while giving a blank check to the government to do any damn thing it wants?

Because you hate democracy? Screw that.


On the contrary, it is YOU who are a terrorist.

Ultra Nationalists like you are too liberal with the term terrorist. Anyone who doesn't agree with you gets that brush. You use it so much that you haven't even the slightest clue as to what real terror is.

But the truth of the matter is that you can't even hold up a decent argument isn't it? All you can do is cling to that pathetic claim of "Ahhh! He didn't agree with me! He's a terrorist!" in lieu of actual ability to think.

Maybe because you don't want to think. Because once you do, you can't unthink. You're scared that your pretty little world will come apart if you poke it too much. Scared because then you'll become unsure what to do now that your comfort zone is gone.

Like a slave afraid of freedom because its uncertain.

I can understand that. Not commend it, but understand it. Little Monavia is afraid. So he can only lash out at anything different.

Oooooo laerod! Where arrrreeee you! Come out and playyy!!