If I come off as harsh, I'm sorry, these issues get me riled up. :] On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:54 PM, denstar <> wrote: > > > > What does McCain have to do with state sponsored torture? > > > You sound like you think we're on par with North Korea or Iran. All I can > say is that if you really believe that, you need to spend some time talking > with people who have lived in countries that are actually state sponsors of > torture, because your perspective borders on the delusional.
Oh get real, esse! I'm not saying we're Iran. Maybe *you* should talk to some people who lived in places like that. Maybe they can give you some pointers on what to look out for. > > They're trying to change the definition to cover what has been done, > > not what will be done. > > > > What's done is done. Am I sorry that they waterboarded Khaleied Sheikh > Muhammed? No way, [EMAIL PROTECTED] that guy, I'd put a bullet in his head > without a > second thought. Sure you would. Most folks probably would. Of course, the point, at which I'm getting, is that we /used/ to be above that. We had a stance like "you can torture us, but we will not torture you"-- we WILL NOT SINK TO THAT LEVEL. > > Speculation? The Secretary of Defense, and the President by > > extension, if not outright, has hemmed and hawed about the definition > > of torture. > > > > Evidence. Hemming and hawing about definitions is not the same thing as > evidence of actual practices. What you are implying is that there was a > cabal inside the government to torture people at Abu Ghraib, and the > evidence - given by the perpetrators of the crimes - simply does not support > that conclusion. I'm implying no such thing. I'm suggesting that at the highest levels, the "definition" of torture is being tested. This isn't some conspiracy theory. It's no secret. Hell, you just espoused what Judge Scalia said, this "ticking timebomb" TOTAL BULLSHIT IDEA. What, the fuck, are we doing, pushing the torture envelope? I'm thick as a brick, but even I see how blatantly THIS executive branch has pushed crazy shit. > > Further, they've gone so far as to basically stipulate that the > > president could torture someone if he wanted to, and is above the law, > > so to speak. > > > > The President will never actually do anything himself, and since he has the > power to pardon others, yes, basically they can get away with almost > anything in the case of real necessity, i.e. the ticking time bomb scenario. > In that case, though, the person that takes the drastic measures (torture) > is betting their own life that they are right, because the President isn't > going to pardon a bunch of clowns who just want to play S & M domination > with prisors. Yeah, he won't have to-- the evidence will be destroyed. And I seriously cannot stand that some people can't think the "ticking timebomb" scenario through to it's logical conclusion. Living in some fantasy T.V. land, detached from the reality, those blokes are. "ticking time-bomb scenario"... the very idea just makes me laugh. Where do these people get this stuff? > They're constantly trying to redefine the law, and, surprise surprise, > > defining it in a way that gives 'em more power. > > This is not just normal but expected behavior from the Executive branch. See > my earlier comments about how the country actually works. That is a sickening attitude, dude. =] "they all do it" type rationalizations are lame. Why do you support the continued erosion of our liberty? "That's how it works" is just, well- depressing, man. > > I like to think that even as little as 10 years ago, had crap like > > this gone down, people would have stood up, vs.actually trying to > > justify it. > > > > That is not justified by any actual historical evidence. Got me there. Guess we haven't really cared for a while now, neh? We're still paying income tax, aren't we. I'll bet you too can come up with liberties that were "borrowed" and never returned. > > We're busted torturing prisoners of war (depending on your definition > > of war, and maybe, upon what it can be waged) and then we're actually > > debating waterboarding and shit? What the hell kind of message do you > > think that sends? > > > > Prisoner of war is a term of art under international law and its definition > is very, very clear. There is no gray area. Someone who is a uniformed > member of the armed forces of a country fighting a war against another > country and is captured is a prisoner of war. Someone who walks around in > civilian clothes to blend into the local population while planting roadside > bombs, firing rockets and mortars from civilian areas and sending suicide > bombers to kill civilians is a terrorist, and if they get captured, they can > rot in hell for all I care. By saying we're waging a "war on terror", we're elevating those fools to the level of combatants. Who, exactly, is the enemy, if not "the terrorists"? What would The Army of Terror's uniforms look like, do you think? Or are you seriously proposing we'll be fighting this war till we've won "against" terror? You honestly think war can be waged on an emotion, and furthermore, that it can be won? How do you qualify/quantify that battle? Sounds almost exactly like 1984, dude. It's disgusting. > Mere husks. > > > > People are trying to justify this crap, man. > > > > What crap? Abu Ghraib? No one is justifying that kind of abuse. WTF? You just said, only a couple paragraphs back, that you don't give a shit if we're torturing "bad guys". You'd put a bullet in 'em. There are people who actually say "in a ticking time-bomb scenario, it's o.k." You don't see that as justifying? Wonky Rationalizing, perhaps? We should be firmly, FIRMLY against torture, as every Good American knows. > I'm not a conservative, though I do believe in small government. Never mind. Who knows what the word conservative conveys these days. > > I would have thought you'd rather personally choose what the money was > > spent on, versus either of those choices. :-) > > > > You think it's o.k. to say "I'll get you that bike path, but you have > > to vote yes on bill 365"? > > > > No, personally I would rather keep the money out of the hands of government > entirely and have local communities build things like bike paths with local > funding, but if Congress is going to take my money, the least they can do is > send a little bit of it back to my community. What exactly are you saying, Rob? Are you saying you don't mind the bribery, because you'd do things different? I'd do things different too, but I still have a problem with bribery as a modus operandi. Big problem with it, actually. I'm tired of "us" trading our souls for bike paths. > > What do people who are willing to give up liberty for temporary safety > > deserve? > > Again with the hyperbole. Here is what you need to do. Go have a > conversation with someone that lived under Soviet rule in the days when you > could be exiled or killed for expressing the wrong opinion. Or take a trip > to Tibet. Oh yeah, you can't actually go to Tibet right now, because the > Chinese government has sealed it off to all outsiders. Go to Iran and see if > you get out alive or if they arrest and torture you as a suspected > government agent or worse a journalist. We have not given up liberty at all, > we have made small accommodations to the government to protect the core > liberties that we value. The argument that "we're still not as bad as other countries" doesn't hold water with me, Munn. I'm not holding myself to, say, Iran or China's standards. Even the suggestion is preposterous. Yet, here it is: "look at China and Iran" shining beacons, those. You don't make "small accommodations" with the devil. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The very fact that you see these changes as "small accommodations" belays a lack of critical thinking. This is our core, man. Vivec gave excellent examples as to why. > We express all sorts of opinions and beliefs on this list, some in favor of > the government, some opposed to the government. Have you been visited by the > FBI for writing something on here? I haven't. I guarantee you if we lived in > China or Iran or Syria or any other un-free place, most of the regular > contributors to this list, including me, would be rotting in jail right now, > without due process, without any recourse to the government. So when you > talk about giving up liberty, I suggest you hear from someone who has > actually lived in an un-free country and then re-consider what liberty > really means. Again with the rationalizations! "Hey, this ain't that bad, look at /them/!" That argument won't work for my kid, and it won't work for you, either. I had a dollar before, and now I've got 25 cents-- but hey, that's still better than nothing, right? Heck, that's good! > I hate the idea of the government nosing into my personal things, but I am > willing to give up some of my jealously guarded privacy in exchange for the > government's efforts to prevent people from killing me at random in a > terrorist attack. Your faith in the government is astounding. I'm not sure what else to say. Sadly, people who feel the way you do will probably be the death of the country. How did we get here from there? Oh, yeah, it's just "some". -- Loss of freedom seldom happens overnight. Oppression doesn't stand on the doorstep with toothbrush moustache and swastika armband -- it creeps up insidiously... step by step, and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realizes that it is gone. -Baron Lane ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:257135 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
