And I would add that these are not POW's, they do not adhere to the laws of war, are not deserving of Geneva protections, are not American citizens, and hasn't the question of torture been answered legally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

hasn't the question of torture been answered legally?

---

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. Maybe you could answer my question.

It defies logic how 39 seconds of waterboarding ISN'T torture, but 40 seconds IS. It's bizarre to even consider such a notion.

Nonetheless, let's for a minute assume that standard... Now, let's take your ticking time bomb scenario. You've got a guy on the waterboard, who you KNOW, knows stuff that can save American lives...

The waterboarder notices the detainee struggling, but NOT talking, after 35 seconds. At 38 seconds the guy is about to give up the vital, life saving information - but he doesn't - not quite yet.

So, with a pure heart and mind, and every good intention, the waterboarder goes 45 seconds, and the guy gives up his stuff.

Is the waterboarder a hero or a war criminal? What if the guy DIDN'T give up the stuff? Does it matter?

So, NO! The legality has NOT been established. We do NOT live in bizarro world.

excon

Chatty Joe Biden
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_ha...g_pandoras_box_

Well then ex, since Congress approved all means necessary, funded Gitmo, many were kept apprised of what was going on and raised no objections, investigate and let the chips fall where they may. Just don't stop with half the story. But like I said before, either Congress doesn't want this investigation because they have something to hide or they don't really believe we broke any laws either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. Maybe you could answer my question.

It defies logic how 39 seconds of waterboarding ISN'T torture, but 40 seconds IS. It's bizarre to even consider such a notion.

---

It similarly defies logic that people who are 18 years old can vote, but those who are 17 and 11 months can't. Or that a person who is born on this side of a line on a map is considered a legal citizen, but someone born 20 feet away on the other side of the line is not. Nevertheless, those are the standards that have been set. And they are the LEGAL STANDARD.

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, let's for a minute assume that standard... Now, let's take your ticking time bomb scenario. You've got a guy on the waterboard, who you KNOW, knows stuff that can save American lives...

The waterboarder notices the detainee struggling, but NOT talking, after 35 seconds. At 38 seconds the guy is about to give up the vital, life saving information - but he doesn't - not quite yet.

So, with a pure heart and mind, and every good intention, the waterboarder goes 45 seconds, and the guy gives up his stuff.

Is the waterboarder a hero or a war criminal? What if the guy DIDN'T give up the stuff? Does it matter?

So, NO! The legality has NOT been established. We do NOT live in bizarro world.

Excon

---

Actually, once the legal standard is set, anything beyond it IS illegal. So at 40 seconds the interrogator is fine. At 41 he's not. The standard may not make sense to you, but it is THE standard... it HAS been settled, it HAS been established. You just don't like it. Fine. You thinks it's immoral. No problem. We can disagree about the morality of it. But it isn't AGAINST THE LAW, and that's what this issue is all about: Should the guys responsible (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo, and the rest) be prosecuted for breaking the law? The answer is NO because no law was broken.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dare81

Most people voted for him because he was a better canditate than mc cain, if you think the only reason he won was because he was black then you need to get off that rush limba cool aid.

---

I agree with you Dare. I am as white as the new fallen snow and I voted for him. So did my son, and so did my daughter. My husband voted for McCain was has recently been leaning the other way. And, I would vote the same way today. Obama, a breath of fresh air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverfoxkit

Perhaps in some areas that may be true but the large majority of black people in my area did vote for him, when asked why most of them had no logical reason other then his race.

Would you be supporting him so much yourself if he was not black? If he really was a southern white guy? Answer truly. Considering all of the facts, would you still support him and why?

---

Don't forget about the large numbers that did NOT vote for him because he was black. My niece is usually a very compassionate, sweet person but she really shocked me around election time. I said something like" you voted for McCain?!?" she came back with... "I'm not voting for no ni&&er!" You could have knocked me over with a feather after hearing this come out of her mouth. She went on to say, "I voted for who my daddy told me to vote for". I just had to realize that she hadn't started thinking for herself yet (age 21) and was just mimicikng her father. The big corporate exec, my sisters ex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverfoxkit

I'm not generalizing. I asked a large number of people personally. The fact is that out of the people I asked most African Americans supported Obama. Some of them did not but the majority did.

I am personally not much of a fan of either choices, however due to my own personally beliefs I am more inclined towards Mcain. I wish there had been better candidates for both parties.

I am getting quite tired of you accusing me of being racist. Anytime anybody has a problem with Obama too many people instantly try and throw that card out there.

---

You went around asking blacks if they voted for Obama because he is black? Or did they just say that they supported Obama and you assumed it was because of the black thing.

I am not throwing out any race card antics here. I'm just asking you how you know their reason for backing Obama. Was because he was black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I'v heard that Obama has spent about $800,000 in legal fees to keep from having to provide his legal birth certificate. That would seem to provide fuel for the conspiricy theory.

---

You've "heard" ? Sounds like you hang out at the beauty parlor with the other gossips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Wow, gay marriage, pedophiles and the death penalty all in one shot. As I said before Skell, the mere fact that we're having this discussion, that we DO wrestle over it, shows we are not like them.

---

Some would argue that it shouldn't need a discussion or wrestling...

And yes, I got three of your favourit discussion points in one post. A new record for me. But you failed to address the point I made. Where does it stop?? The slippery slope remember? You've brought it up before..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Ex, I've never been convinced we broke any laws. As Cheney pointed out yesterday Congress gave consent to do whatever was necessary to protect America. They've just blocked funding to close Gitmo and now have blocked the release of the alleged "torture" photos. Either they're hiding something or they don't really believe we've done anything wrong and all the posturing was just political theater.

---

Oh, so it was OK cause Congress said so? C'mon Steve, that's laughable.

Anything else Congresss does you reject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And I would add that these are not POW's, they do not adhere to the laws of war, are not deserving of Geneva protections, are not American citizens, and hasn't the question of torture been answered legally?

---

So for once you disagree with Elliot? He calls them POW's.

What do you call them? Oh that's right. Enemy combatants...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

It similarly defies logic that people who are 18 years old can vote, but those who are 17 and 11 months can't. Or that a person who is born on this side of a line on a map is considered a legal citizen, but someone born 20 feet away on the other side of the line is not. Nevertheless, those are the standards that have been set. And they are the LEGAL STANDARD.



Actually, once the legal standard is set, anything beyond it IS illegal. So at 40 seconds the interrogator is fine. At 41 he's not. The standard may not make sense to you, but it is THE standard... it HAS been settled, it HAS been established. You just don't like it. Fine. You thinks it's immoral. No problem. We can disagree about the morality of it. But it isn't AGAINST THE LAW, and that's what this issue is all about: Should the guys responsible (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo, and the rest) be prosecuted for breaking the law? The answer is NO because no law was broken.

Elliot

---

Who made this law and when? Was it made to justify illegal actions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Some would argue that it shouldn't need a discussion or wrestling...

---

But since the events in question actually took place the fact that we can and do discuss it freely still shows we're not the same as them. They wold have no discussion on the morality of it beyond what heinous act would Allah have them do next to accomplish their goal.

Quote:

---

And yes, I got three of your favourit discussion points in one post. A new record for me. But you failed to address the point I made. Where does it stop?? The slippery slope remember? You've brought it up before..

---

I'm not as huge a fan of the slippery slope as you might think, but on those issues I have precedents and history on my side. No one is actively campaigning for more torture and I doubt the court system is going to find any precedents to justify increased torture. We do have Lambda which has for years campaigned for the right to have their little boy lovers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

So for once you disagree with Elliot?? He calls them POW's.

What do you call them? Oh thats right. Enemy combatants...

---

Do we always have to agree? I know you guys think we walk in lockstep together but we don't. I've never, ever, not once considered rogue jihadists as POW's. They don't fit any of the legal criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverfoxkit

Alright, alright I just have to ask. Was that random joke or a reference to my sig?

---

Catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Who made this law and when? Was it made to justify illegal actions?

---

Ummm... if it is law, then the actions pursuant to it are not illegal. Changing the law now doesn't make past actions illegal as you can't charge somebody ex post facto. As for who made the law, I would hazard a guess that it was either congress or an activist judge but don't my word for it as I am only a Political Scientist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do we always have to agree? I know you guys think we walk in lockstep together but we don't. I've never, ever, not once considered rogue jihadists as POW's. They don't fit any of the legal criteria.

---

Steve,

An illegal combatant or an unlawful combatant captured in battle is still a POW. He is just simply not subject to the rights and protections of the Geneva Conventions. He's still a POW. He's just a POW without rights.

A spy caught during wartime is similarly a POW. But because he's a spy, he's not subject to GC protections. He's an unlawful combatant as per the GC, and not subject to the protections of the GC, but he's still a POW.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SailorMark

Ummm...if it is law, then the actions pursuant to it are not illegal. Changing the law now doesn't make past actions illegal as you can't charge somebody ex post facto. As for who made the law, I would hazard a guess that it was either congress or an activist judge but don't my word for it as I am only a Political Scientist.

---

So if a law is made to justify illegal activity than that is OK.

And thanks, I won't take your word for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

So if a law is made to justify illegal activity than that is ok.

And thanks, I wont take your word for it.

---

Claiming something is an "illegal activity" doesn't make it an "illegal activity." You have to have the law to back it up making it "illegal." It becomes law when congress makes it a law. Now, a lot of liberals like to think that anything that they find distasteful is an "illegal activity," and they simply need to make it a statement of fact (like you just did) and repeat it over and over again until everyone around them believes it or else find an activist judge who agrees with them and legislates it from the bench ex post facto. The basis of your argument is that you have already decided what is "illegal,' and you've made up your mind and the rest of us just need to accept your enlightenment as superior to our reasoning.


Sorry, not buying it anymore!