Restless — An Alex Hall Portrait (Full Film) | Faction Skis

Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

258 Pages of Evidence

profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
So, the White House has released 258 pages of information pertaining to the memorandum from the justice department that stated that in the war on terror, regulations on actions like torture, undertaken by agents of the commander in chief, do not apply. This is mainly due to the assertion that Al Qaida is not a state, and therefore its members do not deserve the rights extended to soldiers and members of an opposing force in a war by the Geneva Convetion Rules. I've got them, and I'm going over them, though 258 pages is a lot to get through... here's the best sample I've seen.

'I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the legal authority to suspend the Geneva Conventions.'

Signed, George W. Bush.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 3:50PM
0 0
profile picture
misterbinz
Posts: 1099 - Karma: 10
Goodness that's ridiculous, you're crazy for going through the whole thing though. Props for that.

'its not rape....its surprise sex. you wake up and SURPRISE you had sex with me haha' - huckster989

'Everyday the biased scum-of-the-earth imbecile that is Bill O'Reilly never ceases to amaze me with his overall idiocy and lack of grey cells between his ears.' - trevorwoulddoit
Jun 24 2004 3:52PM
0 0
profile picture
powdygrl
Posts: 123 - Karma: 10
^^yup, props are definately in order. how long did it take you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Marija-what!?!?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quick Maggie, lets make out before anyone notices!!!
~Natalie~
So, do you like work here?
~Alisha~
TEAMWORK - There is no I in drunk!
NO BOYS ALLOWED: WE'RE GOING TOPLESS! - girls night out 2004
Jun 24 2004 3:55PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
As I said, I'm not close to finished with this stuff... I'm still going through the Jan 22 memo from the assistant attorney general. It's gonna take me a while... some of it is legalese, especially in the footnotes.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 3:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Lateralis
Posts: 1228 - Karma: 332
who the fuck cares, for fuck sakes drop all this shit about war and terrorism and bush and shit


'Did you know that average penis size is 6.4inches and that the average vaginal canal is 7.9inches? Therefore.... in this country alone, there is over 17,000 miles of unused virgin pussy' - Poolhall Junkies
Jun 24 2004 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
strode
Posts: 7549 - Karma: 14
god damn JD. it'll be interesting to see how this pans out, keep us updated



-Strode



Only in my sweetest dreams do my streams lack troubled waters, shallow pools full of shallow fools...
Jun 24 2004 4:26PM
0 0
profile picture
LittleDevil720
Posts: 3719 - Karma: 8
i agree, people put way to much shit on him, even though he has fucked up
Jun 24 2004 4:28PM
0 0
profile picture
bigJ
Posts: 3148 - Karma: 10
do you have a link?











Driving that Train
Jun 24 2004 4:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
um J.D , you need a lady friend...really, really soon
______________________________________________________
A view on the downfall of the US by 221:
'godzilla man. he's gonna show up and shit will hit the fan.'

ellermann -> i hope you realize you just threw yourselves a birthday party online. just think about that for a little while

Ryan V.G
Jun 24 2004 4:37PM
0 0
profile picture
wilkesyachtingco
Posts: 4425 - Karma: 41
well, technically, doesnt the president have that right? as far as i know we are fighting people who dont fall under the guidelines set forth by geneva, and therefore, we are not bound to treat them according to said convention. im not saying that it is the right thing or the moral thing to do, but legally, it sounds legitimate.















Mercy's eyes are blue
When she places them in front of you
Nothing holds a roman candle to
The solemn warmth you feel inside
Jun 24 2004 4:40PM
0 0
profile picture
GeneralButtNaked
Posts: 7854 - Karma: 89
hahahaha JDs from canada and i dont even know this stuff.





i was going to go for a quad daffy but i was like, why huck? -mommy
Jun 24 2004 4:44PM
0 0
profile picture
bigJ
Posts: 3148 - Karma: 10
Yes, this whole argument was going on since the first Al Qaeda prisoners were shipped to Guantanimo Bay. Being that they do not fight for a nation of any sort then they do not have the right to claim the geneva convention for protection. I think they should have thought that out before executing a terrorist attack on the US under Bush's watch.

The reason they did think this, and I am going out on a limb here, was because the last Al Qaeda attack (93 WTC bombing) was treated like a criminal case by Clinton. They thought they could get away with it easier because Clinton allowed them to have rights that they were not required to have.










Driving that Train
Jun 24 2004 4:46PM
0 0
profile picture
petek
Posts: 8762 - Karma: 12
The president has the right, that doesnt make it justifiable by any means. You have the right to stab every one of your friends in the back when the opportunity calls for it, its just a bad fucking thing to do



Buck fush
Jun 24 2004 4:53PM
0 0
profile picture
bigJ
Posts: 3148 - Karma: 10
Yeah, but that is illegal, Bush suspending the rights of the Geneva Convention is legal, a bit of a diffrence










Driving that Train
Jun 24 2004 4:54PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
^Anewmorning: It depends on what angle he uses and what the specific situation is. There are numerous explanations of loopholes to be manipulated in various situations, instances where the convention can be interpreted in ways advantageous to the president, etc. The one I'm currently reading basically outlines both the American and UN definitions of torture, tries to show where the differences are and how those differences can be argued not to really exist (I'm not kidding), how to get around the definitions, what sorts of torture-like activities do not fall within these definitions and are therefore legally acceptable, and so on...

Here's another tidbit I found earlier in a brief letter by Ashcroft directly to President Bush regarding Geneva:
''If a determination is made that Afghanistan was a failed state (option 1 above) and not a prty to the treaty, various legal risks of liability, litigation, and criminal prosecution are minimized. This is a result of the Supreme Court's opinion in Clark v. Allen providing that when a President determines that a treaty does not apply, his determination is fully discretionary and will not be reviewed by the federal courts.''

In short, this means that if Bush makes the determination that Afghanistan did not count as a state during the war, Geneva's protections 'do not apply', and no body within the U.S. is allowed to second-guess him legally. This extends, of course, beyond Afghanistan; he can make the same determination in Iraq, for instance.

BigJ, I downloaded them individually in PDF format, I don't have a link because I don't remember what the site is, but if you look around I'm sure you'll find them. You shuld also be able to requisition a hard copy if you're willing to wait for the mail.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 4:55PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
Here's another quote about the ICC (International Criminal Court) and why the United States cannot be prosecuted by it.

''You have asked whether interrogations of al Qaeda operatives could be subject to criminal investigation and prosecution by the ICC. We believe that the ICC cannot take action based on such interrogations... Although President Clinton signed the Rome Statute, the United States has withdrawn its signature from the agreement... The United States, therefor, cannot be bound by the provisions of the ICC treaty nor can U.S. Nationals be subject to ICC prosecution.

...even if the ICC could in some way act upon the U.S. and its citizens, interrogation of an al Qaeda operative could not constitute a crime under the Rome Statute, even if certain interrogation methods being contemplated amounted to torture...

...in ordeer to constitute a war crime, torture must be committed against 'persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Conventions'. Rome Statute, art. 8. On Feb. 27, 2002, the President determined that neither members of the al Qaeda terrorist network nor Taliban soldiers were entitled to the legal status of prisoners of war...''

As you can see, the Justice Dept. Has found several loopholes to justify U.S. officials' deigning not to treat members of al Qaeda with any dignity. Apparently, because of an 'understanding' of Geneva on the part of the Bush administration, these people are not privy to basic human rights. Shocking.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 6:03PM
0 0
profile picture
*ELLA*
Posts: 1628 - Karma: 11
Damn no wonder your so smart, if you lived near me, i'd date you in a heart beat... Everyone should actually try to educate themselves, mad props to JD for actually growing up and caring and or recognizing what goes on around him.
~Ella

Messed knees for life

*skiing isn't a sport, it's a lifestyle*

Ella and Lauren: changing teenaged boys lives since 2001.
Jun 24 2004 6:14PM
0 0
profile picture
strode
Posts: 7549 - Karma: 14
^i think you're mistaking complaining for informing. you want to be informed don't you? or do you just want to be blindly led?



-Strode



Only in my sweetest dreams do my streams lack troubled waters, shallow pools full of shallow fools...
Jun 24 2004 6:22PM
0 0
profile picture
KingShit
Posts: 4483 - Karma: 7
^ Makes them feel better or something.

Motherfuckers...
Jun 24 2004 6:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Mattman
Posts: 19108 - Karma: 16
we Canadians are smart eh..?


thats nothing, try calling the teachers nephew a retard so she freaks out and shoves a meter stick up your ass and tells you to jump up and down on it, towards the end of the year i would call her nephew a retard everyday just so i could bounce up and down on a meter stick, the other classmates even paid to take off my clothes while i did it - Lateralis

f i was a fat black chick, id live in a zoo- Lateralis

have nothing, I dont save anything from ns, i have mostly porn on my comp tho- Lateralis

hahah yeah, if i was able to do a 1620 smoothly with a grab, do you think id still be in a shit ass town with a tiny ass hill?? no id be in mammoth ripping it up everyday repping my sponsors!-Lateralis

I almost broke my penis once, i fell down my gfs stairs naked and with a boner, i was never so scared in my life - Lateralis
Jun 24 2004 6:29PM
0 0
profile picture
wilkesyachtingco
Posts: 4425 - Karma: 41
^ grand. well, this will be interesting indeed. personally, i am glad that we withdrew from the icc. its inherently contrary to our national interest. ( in more ways than the one at hand) but lets also remember that simply because these loopholes exist ( in a document that was not designed soley by the u.s.) doesn mean that we are going to run out and start shoving needles under peoples fingernails or holding peoples heads underwater. (or maybe im totally off base, and it is already being done) personally i have more faith in our leaders than that. perhaps that is nieve, but if it is, then it is. one would kind of hope that we would extend the same rights to these 'enemy combatants' as we would to anyone under geneva. i dont know. on the one hand i would really enjoy being able to sock each one of those al quaida bastards in the bridge of the nose with my brass knuckles, but i dont know what that would accomplish in the long run aside from my own personal satisfaction. i really hope that we ( our leaders) can be responsible even in the face of these little details that they have uncovered. this little trial will act as a true moral barometer. its easy to not do things when they are explicity forbidden, but to not engage in acts that may be morally wrong, even when they are technically legal is the real test. this is a big chance to re shape what the worlds opinion of our conduct is. i hope we are up to it.















Mercy's eyes are blue
When she places them in front of you
Nothing holds a roman candle to
The solemn warmth you feel inside
Jun 24 2004 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
^Firstly, these weren't details that were just randomly uncovered, the Justice Department was specifically set out to find this stuff. In one memo to the President and his aide, Alberto Gonzales, I quote:

''You have asked for our Office's views regarding the standards of conduct under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment... this question has arisen in the context of interrogations outside of the United States.''

They were LOOKING for information about what could be defined as torture, and what could be argued to be acceptable;

''These acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture... We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A's proscription of torture.''

Finally, to be fair, Donald Rumsfeld has opposed certain measures such as causing the interrogated to feel that his/her life or his/her family's life is in danger, or near-drowning. However, he is in favour of humiliation, the use of unmuzzled dogs, dietary manipulation, sleep deprivation and other forms of borderline torture such as 'stress positions' (forcing prisoners to stand for up to 4 hours).

Humorously enough, as reported on the Daily Show (I don't have this on my copy) Rumsfeld apparently wrote on his own copy of one of the memos, ''I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?''

Gotta admit, he's a funny bastard.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 7:10PM
0 0
profile picture
SkiSundownJibber
Posts: 1013 - Karma: 19
If the Geneva Convention applied, we wouldn't have been able to kill many of the 3 or 4 thousand terrorists we have... because killing them would've been 'assassination.' You're merely being adamant in your liberalism by giving a shit about this.



From the desk of Mr. S.S. Jibber
Jun 24 2004 8:25PM
0 0
profile picture
SkiSundownJibber
Posts: 1013 - Karma: 19
...but then again, whatever floats your boat. There are worse things than reading reports.



From the desk of Mr. S.S. Jibber
Jun 24 2004 8:30PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
If I'm being adamant in my liberalism by refusing to condone rampant torture, then I'm pretty much ok with that. Better than being on a moral par with the people you pro-war people are so keen on fighting. Are you not reading this? How can you possibly justify it? My God... some people just leave me speechless.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 8:36PM
0 0
profile picture
petek
Posts: 8762 - Karma: 12
the geneva convention says that its against international laws to do anything against it. Bush has every right to break it, because he has secluded himself from international law, in fact he said that himself.



Buck fush
Jun 24 2004 8:47PM
0 0
profile picture
SkiSundownJibber
Posts: 1013 - Karma: 19
Well, for example, the fact that they were 'LOOKING' for what does and does not constitute really doesn't mean anything. Did you know that the US has contingency plans for invading Canada, or defending against a Canadian invasion? Does this mean we're going to invade Canada, or that we fear an invasion? Negative. The US government is merely thorough.



From the desk of Mr. S.S. Jibber
Jun 24 2004 8:49PM
0 0
profile picture
SkiSundownJibber
Posts: 1013 - Karma: 19
But then, of course, there was some 'torture,' although, in my opinion, certain activities (standing and staying awake, for instance) are more effective than inhumane.



From the desk of Mr. S.S. Jibber
Jun 24 2004 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
And yet, the fact that high ranking members of the Bush administration, including Bush himself, have both asked for this information specifically and endorsed the Justice Department's conclusions, DOES mean something.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 8:55PM
0 0
profile picture
SkiSundownJibber
Posts: 1013 - Karma: 19
What does it mean?



From the desk of Mr. S.S. Jibber
Jun 24 2004 9:03PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
I really have to put 2 and 2 together for you? It means that the Bush administration not only condones torture, but, in fact, supports some forms of it. I suppose you'll say that this is perfectly understandable, and that torture is a part of war?

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 9:07PM
0 0
profile picture
cobalt
Posts: 1913 - Karma: 12
i learned about it on the daily show. gotta love the daily show.



_____________
''I'd rather die in flaming glory than live a life of mediocrity.''
-Mark Hoppus
Jun 24 2004 9:51PM
0 0
profile picture
wilkesyachtingco
Posts: 4425 - Karma: 41
hmmm... condones it eh? and as far as supporting some forms of it, well, i would still prefer to be interigated by americans than russians or isrealis, or by lots of other folks... does that make it okay? of course not. i think that ss.jibber is failing to be supprised, as opposed to failing to be understanding.















Mercy's eyes are blue
When she places them in front of you
Nothing holds a roman candle to
The solemn warmth you feel inside
Jun 24 2004 9:56PM
0 0
profile picture
h3ofilms
Posts: 4214 - Karma: 12
let them torture the bastards, they kidnap americans and cold bloodedly behead them with no regard to the suffering they put the victim through...a good jab in the god damned chin with the butt of a rifle is the least these bastards have coming to them....you dont think they would torture us if they were in our shoes...your damn right they WOULD...except it would be 10x worse...i dont have a problem at all with the torture...it will teach them a damn lesson

no im not cold blooded or an asshole, im just sick of hearing about it all over the news...their TERRORISTS, if a few innocents are in the jail, oh well...THATS WAR...you dont think the vietkong tortured us in NAM, look at Senator McCain, he was tortures while a POW in Nam...the Nazis tortured prisoners

every war has this, but the media makes it seem like its a RARE occurance

those are my two cents..if you dont agree, post an intellegent response, not a 'your a faggot'

haha i mean all that in a non-angry way ^

Hibachi King drops 9/9/04...and it shouldnt suck! hah
Jun 24 2004 10:02PM
0 0
profile picture
skierdudeguy
Posts: 6574 - Karma: 81
ghostdragon? help! make a good point! fast!

I'm not to sure but i did score in the jenious area- loafrider, on IQ tests
Jun 24 2004 10:02PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
Whatever your claims, H30films, you are exactly what you claim not to be: an extremely cold-blooded individual. In supporting this kind of behaviour, you show yourself to be no better than those terrorists you so despise. How dare you justify this by saying it's alright because they'd do the same to us? The Nazis did torture people, but I wouldn't want to be remembered as one of them. 'That's war'? No, that isn't war. It's inhumanity, and it's indefensible. Take a fucking ethics class, people, because frankly, it's disgusting.

This isn't a partisan issue at its heart. I don't need to be left wing or right wing to see things the way they are. It's a simple case of right and wrong. The terrorists are wrong because they treat prisoners the way they do, and so are American soldiers like those who commit torture, American commanders like General Sanchez who order torture, and American government officials like Donald Rumsfeld who know about it and allow it to go on.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 10:12PM
0 0
profile picture
wilkesyachtingco
Posts: 4425 - Karma: 41
obviously it happenes. and obviously the majority of legitimate al quida guys deserve it, and more. thats not the point though. the problem is, that unlike so many other issues today it is pretty easy to see that it (unadulturated torture) is wrong. im not talking about making people strip down, or wear hoods, or stand up for a long time. i mean needles under the fingernails, broken bones, leaving people just short of death. that kind of thing is clearly immoral and should not happen, no matter who the prisoner is. would i feel bad if we got ahold of zarcoui and beat him until he was barley clinging to life, only to let him recover, and then do it again? no. but is that kind of action going to benefit us in the long run, and more importanly, is it ethical? no.

this brings up an interesting thing i think. the idea of moral realitivism. here is a clear cut case where everyone can see that wrong is wrong. it makes one wonder where the line stops. why would it be so inhumane to crush the skull of a terrorist, and yet it remains legal to do the same in a partial birth abortion? (i have already discussed the fact that this practice can legally take place up to the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, at which point the fetus could in some cases survive outside the womb).... where does the moral realitivism stop? the aclu defends the rights of the homosexual pedofile group NAMBLA (national man/boy love association) to distribute their literature on child rape under the first amendment, and will then turn around and sue to get a miniscule cross off the seal of the city of los angeles ( a symbol of great historical signifigance, as the the city of LA was founded in part by jesuit mission builders) because it is a religous symbol... does this seem a bit weird to anyone else? the attitude of 'im okay, youre okay' is becoming more and more prevailant, as long as your arent a christian... that, aperantly, is not okay.

back to the original point. this torture issue has caused alot of people to unanimously declare injustice and immorality. i wish that this sudden increase in piety would spread to the other parts of out society. what it comes down to is that things are generally okay, as long as they dont affect you. i am getting fed up with the nonsense that i see everyday, from both sides, and i think that i am just gonna move to port alice and become a lumberjack to escape it all...















Mercy's eyes are blue
When she places them in front of you
Nothing holds a roman candle to
The solemn warmth you feel inside
Jun 24 2004 10:24PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
^I'm totally with you (aside from the fact that I'm not even going to bring up the abortion debate). Moral relativism is utterly nonsensical, and easily proven to be completely insupportable. In just about everything you've said, I agree entirely. however, I have to extend the definition of torture to any action that causes physical or mental pain for the purposes of punishment or coercion. Killing terrorists is necessary. Making them suffer is wrong, because (and I know this is a big thing for some of you to accept) they are, in fact, human beings.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 10:30PM
0 0
profile picture
h3ofilms
Posts: 4214 - Karma: 12
whether you think im cold blooded or not, im just stating my opinion. never will i have any sympathy for the prisoners of this war being tortured. JD, i really appreciate your opinion, and understand where your coming from. i definately respect the fact you can write a smart response to what i said.

The Iraq war is a war where there is definately no middle ground. Every opinion seems to be the polar opposite of the other one

if i was imprisoned, of course i would hate being tortured. I cant imagine anything more degrading and basically more HORRIBLE then torture. But I also wont say our government is in 'the wrong' if they in fact DID allow certian torture for information

if we torture ONE prisoner, and he gives any relevant information to save the lives of innocent people, then the ends justify the means

thats just what i think, im definately not GLORIFYING torture (if i was in the soldgiers place, id step back and not partake) but i also say in instances, it does produce a helpful after effect

Hibachi King drops 9/9/04...and it shouldnt suck! hah
Jun 24 2004 10:34PM
0 0
profile picture
wilkesyachtingco
Posts: 4425 - Karma: 41
the problem lies in the fact that the people in the military, the people in charge of the whole project, the interogaters, as well as the terroists are also human beings. our brains arent capable at all times of completely detached rational actions. so to say that they (terroists) deserve whatever they get can feel so right, even if its not...

to go back to the realitivism thing, i think that there are a myriad of things, issues, whatnot that are alot more black and white than people want to think, and as far as i can tell, the predominate reason for the creation of a grey area is conveinience, or more spacifically, inconvieience. people dont want to be bothered by changing their ways to fit a truth, and i am of the opinion that there is an absolute truth out there obfuscated in the nebula that is our modern culture. it probably wasnt always so, but what with many years of people not wanting to be inconvienienced, it has become more or less lost in the fray.... but man... how have we become so hypersensitive to everything under the sun, so long as that doesnt include things like honesty, chastity, chivalry, religious peity, and general uprightness of character?

i was driving though davis, ca the other day on my way to san francisco, and i saw a car with a bumper sticker that said ' doing my part to piss off the religious right' ? what does that mean? why on earth is that a worthy goal? i understand that there are alot of people that fit the bill of absolutley intolerant on the right hand side of things, and that is obviously inexcusable as well... but when you value youreself as someone who is so against the establishment that youre going to have a sticker like that on your car, well, i think there are probably better things you could be doing with your time.

im also sick of the starbucks philosophers who think theyve got it all figured out, but who at the same time couldnt tell you who thomas moore was.... if youre going to try and act the part of educated, or knowledgeble, or of a great thinker, or if youre going to try and seem novel by being 'anti establishment' then please do so in light of more ideas than what you read in the rage against the machine cd jacket.

maybe this is how its always been in one way or another, and maybe im way off base... i guess this has become more of a rant to let off some steam than any comment on the ashcroft memo....sorry....















Mercy's eyes are blue
When she places them in front of you
Nothing holds a roman candle to
The solemn warmth you feel inside
Jun 24 2004 10:50PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
^Not off base at all, you're totally correct. It's not always to cause inconvenience, though. Even when you accept that absolutism is the only possible foundation on which to base a moral system, there's really no way to determine what that absolute morality is in a lot of cases. Other times, you might have two things that we've accepted as undeniably right or two that have been declared universally wrong come into conflict, where one rule or another must be broken. It's great to know that there is a right and a wrong that isn't based on circumstance, background or what each of us thinks, but by no means does it follow that the moral right is clear.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 24 2004 10:58PM
0 0
profile picture
h3ofilms
Posts: 4214 - Karma: 12
alotta big words in this convo now, haha this is where i end

Hibachi King drops 9/9/04...and it shouldnt suck! hah
Jun 24 2004 11:07PM
0 0
profile picture
misterbinz
Posts: 1099 - Karma: 10
gah, this is getting a little too dense for me. I liked the arguments between JDMay and SUPilot more than these between Jd and anewmorning. The arguments of the latter two were always fun because each side was so mad, now, both these guys are going a little too deeply for me to have the desire to comprehend.

That being said, i think the seeming lack of regret and care from the US government about what has been done is worrysome.

'its not rape....its surprise sex. you wake up and SURPRISE you had sex with me haha' - huckster989

'Everyday the biased scum-of-the-earth imbecile that is Bill O'Reilly never ceases to amaze me with his overall idiocy and lack of grey cells between his ears.' - trevorwoulddoit
Jun 24 2004 11:20PM
0 0
profile picture
misterbinz
Posts: 1099 - Karma: 10
whoops, i meant arguments of the former, not latter

'its not rape....its surprise sex. you wake up and SURPRISE you had sex with me haha' - huckster989

'Everyday the biased scum-of-the-earth imbecile that is Bill O'Reilly never ceases to amaze me with his overall idiocy and lack of grey cells between his ears.' - trevorwoulddoit
Jun 24 2004 11:23PM
0 0
profile picture
skierdudeguy
Posts: 6574 - Karma: 81
your mom

I'm not to sure but i did score in the jenious area- loafrider, on IQ tests
Jun 24 2004 11:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Boards
Posts: 849 - Karma: 27
h30 how do the ends justify the means?

you realize the war in iraq was very difffernet than that against al quada. the two shouldn't be compared other then they were both agressive actions taken by your government.

if one american prisoner is tortured in war for info, does that make it right? were the nazis right to torture POWs for information? you say this is war...but then you are excluding the american gov't from any liability.

We saw pictures of torture of iraqi POWs. embarassment only incites those we are resisting the occupation. you think it helps the maerican cause when torture is being allowed?

now the afganis in guantanamo is a whole differnet matter. america went to war, they claim it is a war yet they do not call the prisoners 'prisoners of war'. seems contradictory to me.
-------------------
www.arcloathing.com
Jun 25 2004 12:02AM
0 0
profile picture
SmoKinSkier
Posts: 5501 - Karma: 20
OK there is nuthin worth readin 258 pages of govt documents to fig sumthin out! Ill sum it up!
BUSH doesnt take shit from anyone and will fuck the terrorists up to get what he wants! You opposing this are tree huggin panzies who cant handle a lil war against the towel headed Fucks!




...I have Dated a girl for her brains Big, HUGE Brains!!
Jun 25 2004 12:11AM
0 0
profile picture
bigJ
Posts: 3148 - Karma: 10
I am very glad that we do have a president who will stand up for America in its time of need and not try to do just enough to get buy. During our last terror attack by Al Qaeda, 93 WTC bombing, we failed to have the appropriate responce. As I stated earlier Clinton treated the bombing as a mere criminal case and not as an act of aggression that it really was. Clinton did not do anything to prevent this from happining again, ex: going and finding Bin Laden while he admittable had the oppertunity. Clinton has admitted that he should have, yet he failed to do so.
It was this pasifistic appeasment responce that allowed the Al Qaeda to believe that America was just going to roll with the punches and not persue the origin of the problem. However, this time we did not have a pasifist liberal in office, we had a guy who was willing to defend his country at all costs, and he did so.
I must say that I am dissipointed in the American left when it comes to this war. THey seem to sympathise more with the prisoners in Abu Gahrab and the terrorist kidnapping and slaughtering civilans then the American soldiers who are fighting and defending your freedom. All the left wants to do is appease the arab world, make everything settle down again the harmless, hell mabey even through them Isreal. But let me tell you this, the only way we will ever be able to appease the middle east is if every American man, woman, and child shoots themself in the head.
So for the time being i suggest you be happy with Bush, because think of the alternitive of having a liberal president in office at the time, he would most likely try to take it to trial and forget about it.










Driving that Train
Jun 25 2004 7:21AM
0 0
profile picture
bigJ
Posts: 3148 - Karma: 10
here are 14 pages of it
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0623041doj1.html

sorry, nothing damning to the Bush admin











Driving that Train
Jun 25 2004 10:15AM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
BigJ, you're taking a partisan approach to this again and straying way off topic. This isn't about what Clinton did, whether Bush was right to go to war, or what a more left-leaning administration would have done under similar circumstances. This isn't about left vs. right wing, it's not about the Dems vs the Reps, the libs vs. the cons. It's about torture being condoned by a powerful government. It's about what's morally acceptable. If you want to argue about 1993, go make another thread.

By the way, the category II techniques they want to use are getting pretty sketchy there... I quote,
''Removal of all clothing''
''Using detainees' individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress''
Read between the lines, there. The use of unmuzzled dogs is a bit over the line, as far as I'm concerned, and forcing them to stand nude for four hours... I mean, look at all of these torture methods, and you'll find they go just a *bit* beyond what you'd see in a metropolitan police station. Once you get to page 11, things become questionable yet again; sleep deprivation for up to four days in succession, physically hitting detainees, and once again that ever-popular nudity.

But then we get to category III:
''Using a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation''
''The use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or for his family''
You don't think these go a bit too far? I certainly do. Gladly, Rummy seems to agree (that's his signature on page 5). However, they were apparently used for over a year (authorized by Rumsfeld) before permission to use them was rescinded.

Not damning at all, eh? Let me know when you've read the other 244 pages and somehow managed to blindly rationalize those.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Jun 25 2004 2:12PM
0 0
profile picture
bigJ
Posts: 3148 - Karma: 10
Ok, I believe that we are going to have reached a stalemate with this. I reread the list, the list that you concedier immoral and unethical, and have found nothing truly wrong with it. I just flat out don't see this as torture, I see it as manipulation, coersion, sensory depervation, but I do not see it as torture or pushing the envelope. Sure it is degrading to the detainees, but I don't see it as unsolicited and undeserved. I am fine with my government, which I am vey proud of, doing this to terrorists. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Also, I apologize for draging the poster-child for morality, Clinton, into this debate.










Driving that Train
Jun 25 2004 2:23PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)