Page 1 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

werbert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,069

15 Sep 2006, 4:17 am

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2439721

Imagine that. All people, not just whites, have the right to fair trials and to be safe from torture.

Next thing you know, these senators will be giving the vote to women and (Impolite term for African-Americans) and (Impolite term for Hispanic-Americans). They must be stopped.



Last edited by werbert on 15 Sep 2006, 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

violet_yoshi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,297

15 Sep 2006, 8:27 am

Uhm, you're being sarcastic right?


_________________
"Sprinkle, sprinkle, little bar, what I wonder is a cat" - Cheese from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends


Scrapheap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,685
Location: Animal Farm

15 Sep 2006, 2:59 pm

violet_yoshi wrote:
Uhm, you're being sarcastic right?


No, he's being serious. You see, werbert is from the 1600's. He came here through a space/time continum worm-hole. He's an interegator for the NSA. :wink: :roll: :lol:


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

15 Sep 2006, 3:44 pm

I think The President is wrong in not allowing classified evidience, and allowing coered testimony at trial of the defendant and protecting interrogators that use methods that are against the Geneva Conventions.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


DirtDawg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,154
Location: Indy Area

15 Sep 2006, 7:33 pm

kevv729 wrote:
I think The President is wrong in not allowing classified evidience, and allowing coered testimony at trial of the defendant and protecting interrogators that use methods that are against the Geneva Conventions.


Can't have it both ways ... Congress would not 'declare war'. The same 'treaty' may not apply in this case, legally.

I'm not saying I agree with their methods, but I recognize many inconsistencies in the various arguments.


_________________
It's just music for me. The other stims don't work.


werbert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,069

15 Sep 2006, 7:50 pm

Scrapheap wrote:
violet_yoshi wrote:
Uhm, you're being sarcastic right?


No, he's being serious. You see, werbert is from the 1600's. He came here through a space/time continum worm-hole. He's an interegator for the NSA. :wink: :roll: :lol:


Actually, I'm from the 1890s. And DirtDawg, surely there must be some international law against kidnapping and torturing foreign citizens, even if they are terrorists.



DaveB78
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 126

16 Sep 2006, 11:39 am

Can anyone really think the terms "degraging and inhumane" are not vague and don't need clarification?



werbert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,069

16 Sep 2006, 2:02 pm

DaveB78 wrote:
Can anyone really think the terms "degraging and inhumane" are not vague and don't need clarification?


Nope.



DaveB78
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 126

16 Sep 2006, 4:40 pm

OK, then tell me what they mean in the context of what may or may not be done during the interrogation of prisoners? BE specific, what IS allowed and what is NOT allowed?



werbert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,069

17 Sep 2006, 12:17 pm

I would think anything that doesn't leave any lasting marks and will make terrorists think twice about their line of work should be allowed.

For Example
Water torture
Sleep Deprivation
Not allowing them to practice their religion

I would suggest forcing them to listen to Paris Hilton's CD, but I don't see any way that won't leave them scarred for life.



DaveB78
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 126

17 Sep 2006, 12:35 pm

Under current intrepretation all of the items you listed are considered degrading or in humane...It is for that exact reason the president seeks clarification, so that Agents can comply with the law and still conduct effective interogations..he is not attempting to change Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.



werbert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,069

17 Sep 2006, 12:44 pm

They're not allowed?! !! What kind of hippy, bleeding-heart liberal wrote the Geneva Convention???! !! !

People can talk all they want about preserving human dignity and whatnot, but the bottom line is, POW camps are not supposed to be pleasant places, and sometimes you need to get some information.

And besides, judging by the living conditions these people were used to before their capture, Gitmo is practically a luxury resort. The U.S. has to do something to make them feel uncomfortable.



Aeturnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 842

18 Sep 2006, 3:01 am

If the United States cut its ties from supporting the quasi-fascist regimes of Israel and Saudi Arabia ...

If the United States started funding research into forms of alternative energies ...

If the United States ended the military occupations of many Asian countries ...

If the United States supported cooperative economic policies and shut down the IMF and the World Bank ...

If the United States disbanded the WTO, NAFTA, etc ...

If the United States actually took the time to look at reasons why terrorism forms in the first place ...

If the United States actually, for once, had the gall to tell a few oil investors to go to hell ...

If the United States actually, for once, supported alternative strategies, like community currencies ...

If the United States actually said publicly that the current infilitration of Iraq and others by Christian missionaries is wrong ...

If the United States actually had the gall to internationally declare the new Pope as an intolerant prick ...

If the United States actually, for once, told Halliburton to go to hell in the rebuilding of countries' infrastructures ...

If the United States actually cut off tax credits for companies like Caterpillar who give to quasi-fascist regimes like Israel ...

If the United States actually gave some of these countries credits for solar and wind power ...

If the United States actually rolled back all third world debt ...

If the United States actually read the book by Joseph Stiglitz, "Globalization and its Discontents" ...

Wow! This list can go on and on.

If the United States did these things, then we just might not be in the kinds of predicaments with terrorists we are in right now. But the fact is that we will probably never know, because the United States has no intentions of doing any of these things. The United States has the balls only to advocate force on its behalf, and the protection of its own people is something of a joke. It is a known fact that the United States knew about the Sept 11 attacks before they were about to happen, and it is better in the high interests of the United States to keep Osama alive. Even if he were not alive, I would not put it past the CIA and the NSA and whomever to come up with strategic plans to keep his face alive in the public eye. The United States can get away with anything, because all it has to do is hide behind classified documentation. Sure, there is a need for classified documentation, but do you honestly think that the need for classified documentation does not enter into public relations? And do you honestly think that what you happen to see on the news is actually things the government does not want you to hear? Do you honestly think FOX News is saying stuff that the so-called liberal papers do not want you to hear about? Come on, guys ... open your eyes ...

The liberals and the conservatives are in this together. Any schism that may exist, and it could be a lot, is completely fabricated just to keep the population in line. They want arguments to persist, but they want controlled arguments to persist. If there are a lot of arguments that do persist, the government has effectively created the illusion of a much-different, two-party system.

It appears that many people here have somehow become embroiled in this puppetry, the so-called rationalism of aspergers surely not withstanding. I can understand it from an aspie perspective, somewhat ... They have a tendency to be unable to read between the lies, and they may actually mistake many perceived lies and declare them as truths. The government is very, very smart. We must understand that there is a tendency for us to be perceived by many neurotypicals as naive because of our perceived inability to read between the lies. There is some truth to that, actually, because we have a tendency to take things at face value. I tend to believe that the government would love an aspie, because they could be led around easier on a leash. Unless, of course, that aspie has decided that he / she is just not going to read between the lies anymore. He / she will just refuse to believe anything that the government reports. He / she will look elsewhere for information, say magazines that are free of federal or corporate funding.

Also, there can be another factor going on here. Many aspies are not totally social individuals, and there is a tendency to view a lot of alternative platforms as being based on socialism. There are different types of socialism -- there is authoritarian and libertarian. The Marxist and Leninist types are authoritarian. Cooperative types, such as that employed by cooperative enterprises, tends to be more libertarian. Bakunin was more of a libertarian. Nobody says that we have to participate in protests and so forth, or that even we have to be the ones to lead any sort of group. But, come on, do you honestly think, in the context of current institutions, that your desires and interests are being supported? Most aspies are not easily employed, therefore by calling people lazy who receive government handouts, just what do you think SSI is? If you don't get it, I know that most wish that they did. I just didn't think that hypocrisy was an asperger symptom. The idea is to equalize payments across the national board such that each person can live an affordable and happy life. If this idea is unbeknownst to you, I'd have to question your rationality ...

- Ray M -



DaveB78
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 126

18 Sep 2006, 5:33 am

Well, I am not sure what that has to do with the proposed legislation, but capitalism is solely dependent on vuluntary cooperation. If coercion is involved through force or fraud the transaction is no longer voluntary and there is legitimate need for government intervention.

That being said, the premise of many of yor "if" s is simpy wrong, and completely out of US control.



Aeturnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 842

19 Sep 2006, 3:29 pm

DaveB78 wrote:
Well, I am not sure what that has to do with the proposed legislation, but capitalism is solely dependent on vuluntary cooperation. If coercion is involved through force or fraud the transaction is no longer voluntary and there is legitimate need for government intervention.

That being said, the premise of many of yor "if" s is simpy wrong, and completely out of US control.


The proposed legislation is a form of government control. The only reason people even support it is because they believe the stuff being vomited out on newspapers and through television screens. People are taught how to be afraid, and the US policymakers are not entirely different from those of the Middle East. The United States has been known to use fear to achieve its ends.

You are making an assumption that we in the United States truly live under capitalism and in a free market. Actually, there really is no true capitalist infrastructure. Such an infrastructure could never survive, so there is always government interference. The idea that the Republicans do not utilize government interference and that government interference is a liberal idea is ridiculous. The Republicans just believe that government interference must be handled through force, whereas the liberals believe it can be handled through regulatory and diplomatic processes. They provide two different ways at achieving the same goal.

Most of what runs our economy, such as computers and biotech and aviation and more, was created at taxpayer expense. Much of this was not created at the private sector. Computers were created by the Navy, and the Internet was originally called ArpaNet, when it was under control of the federal government. Automation was used in the military and the prison system, where it was established, and then it was given to the private sector. Now, automation is being used to throw people out of work. The Internet was simply given away to the private sector, and so were the early computers.

The WTO and other trade agreements are protectionist devices utilized through the federal government to ensure that American companies have less competition in global markets, not more. Thes trade agreements are also used to squash alternative ideas. All the countries that have received aid from the IMF have turned to s**t, including Thailand and Russia and now Argentina, and still, the IMF is still trying to quash modern movements in Argentina that could actually pave the way for a new world economy.

The IMF has been called on to help rebuild Iraq, and that alone is enough to make me believe there is absolutely no intention on the part of the US to rebuild that country, at least not in any way that will benefit its local populations. Investors move in, pillage the resources and then move out to elsewhere. And we're talking about the best ways we can handle terrorists? It's almost sort of a joke. Sleep deprivation is a form of torture, and most of the information received will be lies and half-truths that will be spun way out of proportion to the American population. I am not even convinced that the so-called ring of terrorists recently broken in Britain was even accurate. I find it very strange that these individuals would try to take over planes again, especially with methods that had a high probability of getting them caught to begin with. The box cutters and taking over of cockpits was far more probable than trying to bring a bomb on to ten planes in the midst of some pretty high-tech security infrastructures in place here and in many other countries, including Britain. It could be that one, two or three planes got through, but all ten? It may sound a bit more plausable if it happened in France and not Britain, but even then, I'd still have some concerns about authenticity.

- Ray M -



DaveB78
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 126

20 Sep 2006, 2:14 pm

Er, Uh, Ray the legislation in question is about interrogating prisioners in the ar on terrorism....