RE: Can Bush do this?

RE: Can Bush do this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sanity -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:07:23 PM)
You're constantly editing your posts. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Rewriting the record... That's a new tactic.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:08:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Since you don't believe that drowning people, albeit mostly without fatality, isn't torture, why don't YOU consent to the exact same procedure? I still will cover your expenses, should you not crack in less than 10 minutes. Please define your use of the word "crack" in the above quote. Loosely, "Crying like a bitch and begging us to stop, agreeing to whatever we suggest." Like good porn, you'll know it when you see it. quote: Why is it not an effective interrogation tool? You have first hand experience with it? Well, ONE REASON, ( you can do your own homework if you feel this isn't sufficient), is that it's a crime. In a nation of Laws, the INTERROGATOR who uses torture, is duty bound to report himself to the authorities, and plead guilty to the charges of Torture when arraigned, and accept the sentencing of the court. If you make it a common practice, you'll soon run out of interrogators, as they will all be in prison. Otherwise the Laws of The United States don't apply to officers, agents, employees and contractors of the US. Is anyone really going to suggest that seriously?

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:11:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You're constantly editing your posts. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Rewriting the record... That's a new tactic. Yeah, that's true for spelling, quoting, etc... I don't materially change the content of my posts during minor revision. That would be dishonest. Care to repost the ORIGINAL content of that message, so we can examine the extent of your edit?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:15:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Loosely, "Crying like a bitch and begging us to stop, agreeing to whatever we suggest." Like good porn, you'll know it when you see it. "So ... we suggest you stop crying like a bitch and tell us everything you know about the AQ cells structure, and the current plans, and locations of your IED's, weapons and other explosives. Here's a pencil and paper. Details, please, and we'll check. Attempt to deceive us and we will return to the interrogation." quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Why is it not an effective interrogation tool? You have first hand experience with it? Well, ONE REASON, ( you can do your own homework if you feel this isn't sufficient), is that it's a crime. In a nation of Laws, the INTERROGATOR who uses torture, is duty bound to report himself to the authorities, and plead guilty to the charges of Torture when arraigned, and accept the sentencing of the court. If you make it a common practice, you'll soon run out of interrogators, as they will all be in prison. Otherwise the Laws of The United States don't apply to officers, agents, employees and contractors of the US. Is anyone really going to suggest that seriously? Your legal interpretation doesn't match that of many other lawyers. What makes your interpretation the correct one? And ... you don't have any first hand experience, either, I take it to understand. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:18:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You're constantly editing your posts. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Rewriting the record... That's a new tactic. Yeah, that's true for spelling, quoting, etc... I don't materially change the content of my posts during minor revision. That would be dishonest. Care to repost the ORIGINAL content of that message, so we can examine the extent of your edit? He's not your bitch. Neither am I. Go find a sub or slave. She might agree to follow your orders. Firm

Sanity -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:22:34 PM)
It doesn't matter why you claim that you change the record. The fact remains that you do it - and you do it often. So your whining about me editing my posts sounds funny, at best.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:23:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Your legal interpretation doesn't match that of many other lawyers. What makes your interpretation the correct one? Firm Well, the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment are quite clear how ALL PERSONS get Due Process, and Equal Protection, so considering the US Law relevant to the issue ( US Code TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113C ) § 2340. Definitions (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; § 2340A. Torture (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. (c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. Additionally, § 2441. War crimes (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. (b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). (c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct— (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907; (3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Your legal interpretation doesn't match that of many other lawyers. What makes your interpretation the correct one? Firm Well, the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment are quite clear how ALL PERSONS get Due Process, and Equal Protection, so considering the US Law relevant to the issue ( US Code TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113C ) § 2340. Definitions (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; § 2340A. Torture (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. (c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. You are completely avoiding the issue. The question is simple: Why is your interpretation more accurate than lawyers who you disagree with? Here, let me help you. Here is the key area of dispute: ... intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) ... Again, I ask you, what is your experience in the legal field on the subject under discussion that makes your opinion more correct than the lawyers who have reviewed the technique and who say it passes legal muster? Also, what is your experience (first hand experience) on the effectiveness of the "waterboarding" technique of interrogation? Firm

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:32:06 PM)
quote: He's not your bitch. I never said he was. I *INVITED* him to repost the original content of his edited message. I can, however, understand you feeling that way, considering the whipping you've received by my illustration of your poor judgment and lack of credibility. Of course, that's YOUR problem, not mine.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:33:36 PM)
Avoiding the questions, now, are we? [:D] Firm

Griswold -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:35:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ligar59 I was told that Pres Bush could declare Marshall law, which would suspend the elections indefinitely, thus allowing him to remain in office until he decided the "war" was over Tell me that is not possible I can't...because, since Andrew Jacksons Presidency and the allowances through political gain that have occurred since then, ...he has that right. Trust is all you have. With Bush, it's most assuradly not enough...however...until you have veto over the Congress...it's the best any of us have.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:36:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Again, I ask you, what is your experience in the legal field on the subject under discussion that makes your opinion more correct than the lawyers who have reviewed the technique and who say it passes legal muster? I am fully capable of reading. What else is relevant to the interpretation of Law? And exactly who are these lawyers of whom you speak? quote: Also, what is your experience (first hand experience) on the effectiveness of the "waterboarding" technique of interrogation? Well, if Sanity would have stood up for what he believes in, I would have had some really good hands on experience. Are YOU willing to let us waterboard you to prove it isn't torture?

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:38:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Avoiding the questions, now, are we? [:D] Firm What question?

luckydog1 -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:48:01 PM)
2340 says.... (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. So the nice folks in Gitmo adn Abu Ghrade are not covered, thanks for the info Farg....

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:49:07 PM)
"the alleged offender is a national of the United States;" means the people WORKING at Gitmo, doing the torture. Not the prisoner. The prisoner isn't the "alleged offender" here, the prisoner is the VICTIM of the "alleged offender".

Sanity -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:50:02 PM)
You have no experience? None? Are you completely ignorant about the subject then? A trained expert is one thing. You're something else. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, if Sanity would have stood up for what he believes in, I would have had some really good hands on experience. Are YOU willing to let us waterboard you to prove it isn't torture?

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:51:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You have no experience? Aren't you the person who alleges that Waterboarding isn't torture, but doesn't have the balls to subject himself to it -- to prove the point?

Sanity -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:53:49 PM)
On a reality TV show I might, sure. If they knew what they were doing. But you're some stranger I met on the Internet, who wants to tie me up... Dude, get a grip. It ain't happening. Really - you're not my type. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You have no experience? Aren't you the person who alleges that Waterboarding isn't torture, but doesn't have the balls to subject himself to it -- to prove the point?

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:55:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity On a reality TV show I might, sure. If they knew what they were doing. But you're some stranger I met on the Internet, who wants to tie me up... So, let's discuss the conditions under which you WILL stand up, and support your allegation of waterboarding NOT being torture. WHO, WHERE and HOW. What are your ideas?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 5:59:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Again, I ask you, what is your experience in the legal field on the subject under discussion that makes your opinion more correct than the lawyers who have reviewed the technique and who say it passes legal muster? I am fully capable of reading. What else is relevant to the interpretation of Law? And exactly who are these lawyers of whom you speak? You can read, and nothing else is relevant? Hmm, I can tell you've never had any actual experience with the law then. Tell me this then ... why would you take the opinion of a doctor, over your own, on the diagnosis of an uncommon illness? (Or would you?) quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Also, what is your experience (first hand experience) on the effectiveness of the "waterboarding" technique of interrogation? Well, if Sanity would have stood up for what he believes in, I would have had some really good hands on experience. Are YOU willing to let us waterboard you to prove it isn't torture? Sorry, been there, done that. And worst. Join the military, go into combat arms and special operations. Visit strange lands. Shoot and be shot at. You'll get some experiences that might allow you to talk with some real authority, and not simply expel flatulence out of your nether regions. You haven't addressed my earlier response to your claim of the effectiveness of waterboarding (the "crying like a bitch" comment that you made). You have made the claim that waterboarding is effective in getting the compliance of people that it is used on, have you not? Firm

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125