By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Two Al Qaeda Leaders Waterboarded 266 Times

halogamer1989 on 22 April 2009
akuma587 said:
The fact is that the Founding Fathers didn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in the relevant rights in the Bill of Rights. I don't see any words in there that say you have to be a citizen of the United States to qualify.

Eighth Amendment

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Fifth Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I would say we are at war and are in a time of public danger.

 



Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB on 22 April 2009
halogamer1989 said:
Any other country would just kill them on the spot.
halogamer1989 said:

No, I meant that almost every other country would have taken care of them, esp Middle Eastern countries which is a FACT, hate to break it to you.

You seem to tone it down when you get caught saying something ludicrous.

194 countries have ratified the Geneva Conventions.

"War crimes are against the customary laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention."

The fact that terrorists use torture doesn't mean we get to use torture.  That's just revenge.  The Geneva Convention isn't a deal we make to be nice to terrorists.  It's a deal we make with the rest of the entire world, promising that we won't use torture or other means to harm civilians or prisoners during war time.

 

This isn't about the Constitution.  It's about the Geneva Convention.  America signed both.  We should abide by both.  Torture does not give reliable information, and was used as an act of desperation to prove that Al-Qaeda had ties to Iraq.  It didn't work.  It doesn't work.  Petraeus himself said torture confessions aren't reliable.  People will lie to save their lives.  Everybody.  Ask John McCain.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

mesoteto on 22 April 2009

@halo---you do get that talking about our own forces right and does nothing to add to your point, infact it only makes hs more valid b/c teh clause that would justify these acts does not apply to them



 

halogamer1989 on 22 April 2009
The Ghost of RubangB said:
halogamer1989 said:
Any other country would just kill them on the spot.
halogamer1989 said:

No, I meant that almost every other country would have taken care of them, esp Middle Eastern countries which is a FACT, hate to break it to you.

You seem to tone it down when you get caught saying something ludicrous.

194 countries have ratified the Geneva Conventions.

"War crimes are against the customary laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention."

The fact that terrorists use torture doesn't mean we get to use torture.  That's just revenge.  The Geneva Convention isn't a deal we make to be nice to terrorists.  It's a deal we make with the rest of the entire world, promising that we won't use torture or other means to harm civilians or prisoners during war time.

 

This isn't about the Constitution.  It's about the Geneva Convention.  America signed both.  We should abide by both.  Torture does not give reliable information, and was used as an act of desperation to prove that Al-Qaeda had ties to Iraq.  It didn't work.  It doesn't work.  Petraeus himself said torture confessions aren't reliable.  People will lie to save their lives.  Everybody.  Ask John McCain.

Well here's the deal.  The Geneva Conventions dealt with uniformed soldiers that are easily id'ed by country. 

Al-Qaeda did have ties in Iraq btw.  Ever hear of al-Qaeda in Mesopatomia and don't give me that whole Pelosi line that they were only there in response to us.  

 



The Ghost of RubangB on 22 April 2009
halogamer1989 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
halogamer1989 said:
Any other country would just kill them on the spot.
halogamer1989 said:

No, I meant that almost every other country would have taken care of them, esp Middle Eastern countries which is a FACT, hate to break it to you.

You seem to tone it down when you get caught saying something ludicrous.

194 countries have ratified the Geneva Conventions.

"War crimes are against the customary laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention."

The fact that terrorists use torture doesn't mean we get to use torture.  That's just revenge.  The Geneva Convention isn't a deal we make to be nice to terrorists.  It's a deal we make with the rest of the entire world, promising that we won't use torture or other means to harm civilians or prisoners during war time.

 

This isn't about the Constitution.  It's about the Geneva Convention.  America signed both.  We should abide by both.  Torture does not give reliable information, and was used as an act of desperation to prove that Al-Qaeda had ties to Iraq.  It didn't work.  It doesn't work.  Petraeus himself said torture confessions aren't reliable.  People will lie to save their lives.  Everybody.  Ask John McCain.

Well here's the deal.  The Geneva Conventions dealt with uniformed soldiers that are easily id'ed by country. 

Al-Qaeda did have ties in Iraq btw.  Ever hear of al-Qaeda in Mesopatomia and don't give me that whole Pelosi line that they were only there in response to us.

I just read that the waterboarding was used so frequently because they were under a great amount of pressure to prove Iraq and Al-Qaeda were connected.  They didn't find a tie from waterboarding.  If you know more than the CIA, please provide a link.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Around the Network
akuma587 on 22 April 2009
halogamer1989 said:
akuma587 said:
The fact is that the Founding Fathers didn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in the relevant rights in the Bill of Rights. I don't see any words in there that say you have to be a citizen of the United States to qualify.

Eighth Amendment

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Fifth Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I would say we are at war and are in a time of public danger.

 

When is the last time we had an attack on American soil?  2001? How do you think they defined War back then?  You can't just define war however you want.  There is no evidence that suggests they would have considered our current situation to be a war.

We are always in danger.  There were more terrorist attacks on American soil in the 90's than there have been in the 2000's.  You can't just throw away the Constitution because of perceived threats.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Tyrannical on 22 April 2009
akuma587 said:
The fact is that the Founding Fathers didn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in the relevant rights in the Bill of Rights. I don't see any words in there that say you have to be a citizen of the United States to qualify.

 

 I don't think they had to. The social contract between the people and the government did not involve foreign terrorists.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

akuma587 on 22 April 2009

"Terrorism" has been around for centuries. What do you think a lot of the revolutionaries did to the British? What do you think Guy Fawkes day is about? What do you think coup d'etats essentially were when ever the government is overthrown? We just freak out about it much more today than they did, and justifiably so to some degree if nukes are involved.

But look at it this way. About 3000 people died during 9/11. In that same year, 42,611 people died in car accidents. Yet we waged a multi-trillion dollar war about one and don't even bat an eye at the other. Isn't that kind of ludicrous if you step back and think about it?

Lets say a plane crashes and everyone on board dies. If it was the fault of the pilot, people will forget about the story next week. If a terrorist caused it, people would be shitting themselves for months and maybe years. I think in terms of the actual risk terrorists pose that we worry far too much about them. We allow them to change our way of life when the risk they pose in even a lot of the most extreme circumstances is not that great if you quantify it in terms of the loss of human life.

Car accident numbers:

http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

The Ghost of RubangB on 22 April 2009
akuma587 said:

"Terrorism" has been around for centuries. What do you think a lot of the revolutionaries did to the British? What do you think Guy Fawkes day is about? What do you think coup d'etats essentially were when ever the government is overthrown? We just freak out about it much more today than they did, and justifiably so to some degree if nukes are involved.

But look at it this way. About 3000 people died during 9/11. In that same year, 42,611 people died in car accidents. Yet we waged a multi-trillion dollar war about one and don't even bat an eye at the other. Isn't that kind of ludicrous if you step back and think about it?

Lets say a plane crashes and everyone on board dies. If it was the fault of the pilot, people will forget about the story next week. If a terrorist caused it, people would be shitting themselves for months and maybe years. I think in terms of the actual risk terrorists pose that we worry far too much about them. We allow them to change our way of life when the risk they pose in even a lot of the most extreme circumstances is not that great if you quantify it in terms of the loss of human life.

Car accident numbers:

http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html

On September 11th, 2001, over 35,000 people starved to death.  In a single day.  And it's happened every day since.

Now we send Burger King to the 3rd world to do Big Mac vs. Whopper taste tests, to find out the real truth.

So I piss on terrorism AND car accidents combined.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

mesoteto on 23 April 2009

yeah well Ghost

"Roughly 250-1000 people die each year from AEA mishaps."

so poop on both world hunger and car accident and terriost

AEA=autoerotic asphyxiation