On May 14 2009 22:44 Velr wrote: I'm 100% for torture. I'm 100% for the death penalty. IF it's 100% sure the person to torture or kill is guilty person.
If you are not 100% sure, which you nearly never will be, go fuck yourself and don't even think about doing stuff like this.
I don't agree at all.
I'm against torture, and against death penalty. Even if you talk about a mass murderer, a pedophil or a war criminal. Hitler, Ben Laden, Rupert Murdoch, whoever, I am against death penalty.
Because I'm a human, not a beast. Killing a murderer is stupid: you basically do what you reproach him. That's nonsense. That's the same crime.
On May 15 2009 05:03 Physician wrote: Aegraen, a question since you seem to know your stuff, has "waterboarding" never being torture, for the military that is? Has the US military ever called it torture in the past?
Not only has it been considered torture, but we have executed at least one Japanese soldier for waterboarding Americans
U kno wat blows my mind? that khalid sheikh mohammed made it through 187 sessions of waterboarding and that the information he gave was still not all that reliable. apparently he held upwards to 2minutes at a time O_O if i was the torturer (call it what you will, we are referring to the same person) i would be like "holy shit...im torturing jesus"
but like hitchens points out; it was likely he was trying to attain martyrdom. great article btw
On May 15 2009 01:10 Syntax Lost wrote: It's strange that people often forget that the American Constitution is nothing more than a legal and procedural document and their founding fathers were racist slave-owners.
really?.. like, can you not control yourself from posting absolute shit?
On May 14 2009 22:44 Velr wrote: I'm 100% for torture. I'm 100% for the death penalty. IF it's 100% sure the person to torture or kill is guilty person.
If you are not 100% sure, which you nearly never will be, go fuck yourself and don't even think about doing stuff like this.
I don't agree at all.
I'm against torture, and against death penalty. Even if you talk about a mass murderer, a pedophil or a war criminal. Hitler, Ben Laden, Rupert Murdoch, whoever, I am against death penalty.
Because I'm a human, not a beast. Killing a murderer is stupid: you basically do what you reproach him. That's nonsense. That's the same crime.
Nothing justify torture. Absolutely nothing.
I dunno if its just me but it looks as if he is against death penalty/torture as well...
When the 2nd dude asks the question @ 5:20, she says... "...nothing we would do would be outside of our legal obligationsunder the convention against torture..." "...i conveyed the authorization of the administration, to the agency that they had policy authorization, subject to the justice department's clearance..." "...United States was told, nothing that violates our obligations under the conventions against torture..." "By definition if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the conventions against torture..."
what i got out of this was basically that if the President ordered it done, it did not violate any legalities simply because HE authorized it.
Hah I didn't know Ventura was a former Navy Seal. Now hes twice as badass as I thought before with just Predator "Blaine" in mind.
e: Bout half way in that line about SEALs and Navy guys at Airborne school is so true and made laugh. We had SEALs in my Airborne class and they were hilarious, they didn't give a fuck about army rules.
On May 15 2009 07:44 ragnasaur wrote: When the 2nd dude asks the question @ 5:20, she says... "...nothing we would do would be outside of our legal obligationsunder the convention against torture..." "...i conveyed the authorization of the administration, to the agency that they had policy authorization, subject to the justice department's clearance..." "...United States was told, nothing that violates our obligations under the conventions against torture..." "By definition if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the conventions against torture..."
what i got out of this was basically that the President ordered it done, it did not violate any legalities simply because HE authorized it.
yeah standard deflection but it sets up Bush for the fall and not her, Rice is bright in that sadistic manipulating sense man. no fan of Bush so maybe they put his ass in prison and change the name on the USS G W Bush
I've never understood why any American likes/respects this guy
On May 15 2009 07:44 ragnasaur wrote: When the 2nd dude asks the question @ 5:20, she says... "...nothing we would do would be outside of our legal obligationsunder the convention against torture..." "...i conveyed the authorization of the administration, to the agency that they had policy authorization, subject to the justice department's clearance..." "...United States was told, nothing that violates our obligations under the conventions against torture..." "By definition if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the conventions against torture..."
what i got out of this was basically that the President ordered it done, it did not violate any legalities simply because HE authorized it.
yeah standard deflection but it sets up Bush for the fall and not her, Rice is bright in that sadistic manipulating sense man. no fan of Bush so maybe they put his ass in prison and change the name on the USS G W Bush
I've never understood why any American likes/respects this guy
Well maybe it's because not all people are like-minded and sometimes people think for themselves? I supported Bush throughout his 8 years for several reasons. I'm not going to go into a lengthy debate about my political views, because this isn't the place, but know that not everyone thinks like you do.
On May 14 2009 22:44 Velr wrote: I'm 100% for torture. I'm 100% for the death penalty. IF it's 100% sure the person to torture or kill is guilty person.
If you are not 100% sure, which you nearly never will be, go fuck yourself and don't even think about doing stuff like this.
My thoughts exactly.
The implementation will always be flawed, and so can never be practiced without err, and therefore should never be practiced. It's pragmatism versus philosophy.
This is the most powerful argument against torture and capital punishment, rather than to claim that there is never desert of such things. That is easy to disprove.
In fact, one could generalize from this principle and make an enemy of the government's intrusion into many aspects of private life "for your own good".
great post. Never heard of him before but now i love the guy. But i would never want to see him in office because I doubt he will be able to change the country in the way he wants to. And it would suck to see this man crushed by politics.
On May 15 2009 11:02 Archerofaiur wrote: You know what the crazy part is? The grand old party is supposed to be the moral party. When did strong religous values make torture permisable?
Because the Republican party has strayed from proper conservatism, becoming obsessed instead with foreign intervention and empire building.
EPT
