Skip to main content

Up to Democrats to investigate Torture
by Amy Goodman

The new head of the Senate Judiciary Committee was angry. Sen. Patrick Leahy was questioning U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about a man named Maher Arar.

Arar is a Canadian citizen the U.S. detained without charge then sent to Syria in 2002. Leahy fumed: "We knew **** well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held. He'd be investigated. We also knew **** well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured."

Leahy was responding to Alberto Gonzales' comments that "there were assurances sought that he would not be tortured from Syria." Assurances? From the country that President Bush recently described as the "crossroads for terrorism"? From the country that Bush has vilified and threatened to attack? But before we point the finger at other countries, we have to look here at home.

Gonzales knows about torture. Arar was detained less than two months after Gonzales' office produced the notorious "Torture Memo," which has served as the legal basis for the Bush administration's brutal torture methods such as "waterboarding" (holding a victim's head underwater until unconscious) that are increasingly well-known and globally despised.

The U.S. government also engages in "extraordinary rendition." This Orwellian phrase describes how foreigners are grabbed off the street or from their home and secretly delivered to some other place, outside the U.S. (in Arar's case, Syria), where illegal and brutal interrogations can take place beyond the reach of Congress and the courts.

Arar's Kafaesque nightmare began Sept. 26, 2002. He was returning to Canada from a family vacation, with a plane change at New York's JFK Airport. There he was pulled aside, searched, questioned and imprisoned. Two weeks later, U.S. authorities sent Arar to Syria.

Arar spent the next 10 months enduring brutal beatings and psychological torture, kept in a cell the size of a grave. Arar was accused of being connected to al-Qaida, and of having been to a training camp in Afghanistan. Neither was true, but after weeks of beatings, he admitted to everything. Worse than the beatings, Arar said on "Democracy Now!," was how he suffered while isolated in the dank, windowless cell:


http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0125-30.htm
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pba:
Up to Democrats to investigate Torture
by Amy Goodman

The new head of the Senate Judiciary Committee was angry. Sen. Patrick Leahy was questioning U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about a man named Maher Arar. [QUOTE}
The old head on MY SHOULDERS IS SEATHING. pba, my uncle won two purple hearts and other decoratations in EUROPE fighting Nazi Torturers. My father coordinated the construction of practically EVERY B 29 Sent into combat, INCLUDING THE ENOLA GAY.
I live with and helped dozens of WW II vets, The man who taught me to fish landed on 9 Japanese held Islands. He had both legs shot out from under him at the last assault he was in. 73 BULLET WOUNDS TO HIS LEGS. Every Day from My Fifth Birthday till my 18th veterans of WW II and Korea came into my home to learn Accounting and business law. Some were whole, some had left large portions of their bodies in Europe, and the South Pacific, and Korea. THEY FOUGHT THE TORTURERS OF THE THIRD REICH, AND THE JAPANESE EMPIRE AND THE RED CHINESE. My Step mom is a former civilian employee of the Flying Tigers, and MY SATANIC WAR LOVING MONSTER OF A PRESIDENT IS DEMANDING THE RIGHT TO TORTURE, AND DENIED THE RIGHT TO TORTURE IS REFUSING TO STOP TORTURING.
If you think "The new head of the Senate Judiciary Committee was angry" you should BE IN MY HEAD.
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
I'm pretty sure every one of us has had family members in war. Personally mine were fighting Nazis and not tortures but feel free to see it how you wish.

ubermensch. THE NAZIS WERE TORTURERS. Consider carfully the effect of STARVATION, MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ON LIVE HUMANS, DEATH CAMPS RETRIBUTION KILLINGS, FORCED LABOR, ETC. the Japanese were no better. The horror of being occupied by Japan has left nearly permanent scars in China, and Korea.
One of those veterans I spoke of was named Betty. SHE WOULD HAVE A SCREAMING FIT IF YOU USED HER LAST NAME. She died as a result of a germ warfare experiment, 6 years after the war was over, with her skin falling away from her body. Betty could not stand the sound of her own last name because that is what her Japanese Captors called her after she was captured in the invasion of the Phillipines.
YOUR FAMILY MAY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING NAZIS...but they were fighting torturers.
Allow me to play 'Devil's advocate', if you will: Is there ANY time that 'torture' could be deemed 'acceptable'?

For example: The US 'KNOWS' that a suitcase nuke HAS BEEN PLACED on U.S. soil...AND the U.S. has one of the MAIN terrorists in charge of planting said device IN CUSTODY. Would 'torture' be considered an 'acceptable' method to use in order to obtain the location of the device, thereby saving thousands of lives?
quote:
For example: The US 'KNOWS' that a suitcase nuke HAS BEEN PLACED on U.S. soil...AND the U.S. has one of the MAIN terrorists in charge of planting said device IN CUSTODY. Would 'torture' be considered an 'acceptable' method to use in order to obtain the location of the device, thereby saving thousands of lives?


I say absolutely. The Nazis tortured innocent people. Captured terrorists are far from innocent. If acquiring certain information means saving American lives, acquire it by any means necessary.
quote:
Originally posted by walter096:
Amy Goodman is pitiful...I read and watch her at times just to see how far to the left she has come...bless her heart she suffers from constipation of the mind...anyone that takes her seriously falls into the same catagory....

On top of that issue, she also does not understand what waterboarding is. Waterboarding involves using a wet sponge to make the individual think they are drowning. If they pass out, how are you going to get any info out of them? Also, Leahy needs to quit the grandstanding. But then again, he knows the media and the kos kids will eat it up.
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
I'm pretty sure every one of us has had family members in war. Personally mine were fighting Nazis and not tortures but feel free to see it how you wish.


The Nazi's killed six million Jews, and they are not torturers?


Of course they were but we were over there because they had overtaken Europe and were threatening to take England - not because they were torturers.

We didn't even understand the full scope of the Holocaust until after the war was over and to be frank the U.S. probably would not have gone to war in '38 had they known Jews were being rounded up for extermination. We were isolationists.
quote:
Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
Allow me to play 'Devil's advocate', if you will: Is there ANY time that 'torture' could be deemed 'acceptable'?

For example: The US 'KNOWS' that a suitcase nuke HAS BEEN PLACED on U.S. soil...AND the U.S. has one of the MAIN terrorists in charge of planting said device IN CUSTODY. Would 'torture' be considered an 'acceptable' method to use in order to obtain the location of the device, thereby saving thousands of lives?

Allow me to make an assumption. THE TERRORIST IS READY TO BE A MARTYR. HE LIES. OR DIES FROM THE TORTURE.
NO...THERE IS NO TIME WHEN TORTURE IS A LEGITIMATE MEANS OF OBTAINING INFORMATION. IT DOES NOT WORK, IT GIVE FALSE RESULTS, IT CANNOT BE DEPENDED ON.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
Allow me to play 'Devil's advocate', if you will: Is there ANY time that 'torture' could be deemed 'acceptable'?

For example: The US 'KNOWS' that a suitcase nuke HAS BEEN PLACED on U.S. soil...AND the U.S. has one of the MAIN terrorists in charge of planting said device IN CUSTODY. Would 'torture' be considered an 'acceptable' method to use in order to obtain the location of the device, thereby saving thousands of lives?

Allow me to make an assumption. THE TERRORIST IS READY TO BE A MARTYR. HE LIES. OR DIES FROM THE TORTURE.
NO...THERE IS NO TIME WHEN TORTURE IS A LEGITIMATE MEANS OF OBTAINING INFORMATION. IT DOES NOT WORK, IT GIVE FALSE RESULTS, IT CANNOT BE DEPENDED ON.


How do you KNOW it gives false results? How do you KNOW it can't be depended on? Who gave you the right to decide, for 300 million people, that there is no legitimate time for torture to be used?
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by walter096:
Amy Goodman is pitiful...I read and watch her at times just to see how far to the left she has come...bless her heart she suffers from constipation of the mind...anyone that takes her seriously falls into the same catagory....

On top of that issue, she also does not understand what waterboarding is. Waterboarding involves using a wet sponge to make the individual think they are drowning. If they pass out, how are you going to get any info out of them? Also, Leahy needs to quit the grandstanding. But then again, he knows the media and the kos kids will eat it up.

THIS IS WHAT WATERBOARDING IS. VIDEO IS Graphic. and accurate. It is also informative.
http://www.current.tv/pods/controversy/PD04399
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
Allow me to play 'Devil's advocate', if you will: Is there ANY time that 'torture' could be deemed 'acceptable'?

For example: The US 'KNOWS' that a suitcase nuke HAS BEEN PLACED on U.S. soil...AND the U.S. has one of the MAIN terrorists in charge of planting said device IN CUSTODY. Would 'torture' be considered an 'acceptable' method to use in order to obtain the location of the device, thereby saving thousands of lives?

Allow me to make an assumption. THE TERRORIST IS READY TO BE A MARTYR. HE LIES. OR DIES FROM THE TORTURE.
NO...THERE IS NO TIME WHEN TORTURE IS A LEGITIMATE MEANS OF OBTAINING INFORMATION. IT DOES NOT WORK, IT GIVE FALSE RESULTS, IT CANNOT BE DEPENDED ON.


How do you KNOW it gives false results? How do you KNOW it can't be depended on? Who gave you the right to decide, for 300 million people, that there is no legitimate time for torture to be used?

Easy the results have been inaccurate, are not admissable in court and will result in the same treatment for us when held by them, and no legitimate complaint about the treatment.
Besides being illegal under the Rules of War, and national and international law.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by walter096:
Amy Goodman is pitiful...I read and watch her at times just to see how far to the left she has come...bless her heart she suffers from constipation of the mind...anyone that takes her seriously falls into the same catagory....

I did not see anything graphic in the video. All I saw was a very couersive technique that after 24 minutes of use did absolutely no damage to the person it was used on. I see no way you can call this torture.
On top of that issue, she also does not understand what waterboarding is. Waterboarding involves using a wet sponge to make the individual think they are drowning. If they pass out, how are you going to get any info out of them? Also, Leahy needs to quit the grandstanding. But then again, he knows the media and the kos kids will eat it up.

THIS IS WHAT WATERBOARDING IS. VIDEO IS Graphic. and accurate. It is also informative.
http://www.current.tv/pods/controversy/PD04399
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by walter096:
Amy Goodman is pitiful...I read and watch her at times just to see how far to the left she has come...bless her heart she suffers from constipation of the mind...anyone that takes her seriously falls into the same catagory....

I did not see anything graphic in the video. All I saw was a very couersive technique that after 24 minutes of use did absolutely no damage to the person it was used on. I see no way you can call this torture.
On top of that issue, she also does not understand what waterboarding is. Waterboarding involves using a wet sponge to make the individual think they are drowning. If they pass out, how are you going to get any info out of them? Also, Leahy needs to quit the grandstanding. But then again, he knows the media and the kos kids will eat it up.

THIS IS WHAT WATERBOARDING IS. VIDEO IS Graphic. and accurate. It is also informative.
http://www.current.tv/pods/controversy/PD04399


32 + 24 + 57. My post of the video 12:32, your response, 12:40 pm. YOU COULD NOT HAVE WATCHED TEN MINUTES AND THREE SECONDS OF THE VIDEO IN EIGHT MINUTES.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by walter096:
Amy Goodman is pitiful...I read and watch her at times just to see how far to the left she has come...bless her heart she suffers from constipation of the mind...anyone that takes her seriously falls into the same catagory....

I did not see anything graphic in the video. All I saw was a very couersive technique that after 24 minutes of use did absolutely no damage to the person it was used on. I see no way you can call this torture.
On top of that issue, she also does not understand what waterboarding is. Waterboarding involves using a wet sponge to make the individual think they are drowning. If they pass out, how are you going to get any info out of them? Also, Leahy needs to quit the grandstanding. But then again, he knows the media and the kos kids will eat it up.

THIS IS WHAT WATERBOARDING IS. VIDEO IS Graphic. and accurate. It is also informative.
http://www.current.tv/pods/controversy/PD04399


32 + 24 + 57. My post of the video 12:32, your response, 12:40 pm. YOU COULD NOT HAVE WATCHED TEN MINUTES AND THREE SECONDS OF THE VIDEO IN EIGHT MINUTES.


Don't need to see all of it. Skip the BS talk and watch him actually going through the technique. I really don't care to hear his view on it one way or the other. I did, however, watch enough to hear him talk and laugh immediately after they were through with him.
All this "torture" debate is just political grandstanding.Another example of "we ain't really doing nothing but it looks good".
All the President and Congress should do is make the decision whether or not to go to war.After that decision is made they should turn it over to the Armed Forces and STFU. They should tell them "do what needs to be done". I'm pretty sure George Bush or Hillary Clinton don't have any experience in these matters. We either need to be in it to win it, or not be in it at all. We're to worried about being PC and what people will think of us to win a war. It's like that old saying "if you carry a knife to a gunfight, you're in trouble".
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
Allow me to play 'Devil's advocate', if you will: Is there ANY time that 'torture' could be deemed 'acceptable'?

For example: The US 'KNOWS' that a suitcase nuke HAS BEEN PLACED on U.S. soil...AND the U.S. has one of the MAIN terrorists in charge of planting said device IN CUSTODY. Would 'torture' be considered an 'acceptable' method to use in order to obtain the location of the device, thereby saving thousands of lives?

Allow me to make an assumption. THE TERRORIST IS READY TO BE A MARTYR. HE LIES. OR DIES FROM THE TORTURE.
NO...THERE IS NO TIME WHEN TORTURE IS A LEGITIMATE MEANS OF OBTAINING INFORMATION. IT DOES NOT WORK, IT GIVE FALSE RESULTS, IT CANNOT BE DEPENDED ON.


How do you KNOW it gives false results? How do you KNOW it can't be depended on? Who gave you the right to decide, for 300 million people, that there is no legitimate time for torture to be used?


And what gives you the right to decide that there is? Same discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by e:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
Allow me to play 'Devil's advocate', if you will: Is there ANY time that 'torture' could be deemed 'acceptable'?

For example: The US 'KNOWS' that a suitcase nuke HAS BEEN PLACED on U.S. soil...AND the U.S. has one of the MAIN terrorists in charge of planting said device IN CUSTODY. Would 'torture' be considered an 'acceptable' method to use in order to obtain the location of the device, thereby saving thousands of lives?

Allow me to make an assumption. THE TERRORIST IS READY TO BE A MARTYR. HE LIES. OR DIES FROM THE TORTURE.
NO...THERE IS NO TIME WHEN TORTURE IS A LEGITIMATE MEANS OF OBTAINING INFORMATION. IT DOES NOT WORK, IT GIVE FALSE RESULTS, IT CANNOT BE DEPENDED ON.


How do you KNOW it gives false results? How do you KNOW it can't be depended on? Who gave you the right to decide, for 300 million people, that there is no legitimate time for torture to be used?


And what gives you the right to decide that there is? Same discussion.
OK Dog Soldier, here goes:

Torture cannot be used to obtain evidence for a courtroom. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEPEND ON WHAT A TORTURE VICTIM SAYS.
Why is it not? Because when the victim gives a response satisfactory to the interrogator, the torture ends.
An unsatisfactory answer, the torture continues.
Case in point, to avoid further torture a prisoner named names. ALL INNOCENT PEOPLE. One of the accused was a college professor, who was subsequently arrested and tortured. He was named by the first victim because he had given a low grade on an assignment. Two people tortured for information, one because the first was angry with him.
Case in point, Jose Padilla, held four years in isolation may have been planning to build and detonate a dirty bomb. No physical evidence existed, corroboration, according to the government was from illegal wire taps, and not admissable, and from aggressive interrogation of Padilla. Also not admissible. THEY COULD NOT TURN HIM LOOSE, HE MIGHT BE A MAD BOMBER. They could not charge him, all their evidence was tainted, So, the tortured another prisoner, and got him to implicate Padilla on a less serious charge. AGAIN torture obtained worthless evidence.
With Padilla they could have accomplished much more by TAKING HIM, HOLDING HIM A COUPLE OF DAYS, AND RELEASING HIM. They could have held him at the most luxurious hotel in Chicago, in the most luxurious room, and turned him loose under close observation. ANY CONSPIRATORS WOULD HAVE BEEN EITHER UNWILLING TO CONTACT HIM OR CAUGHT.
Information from Abu Grahib. So far, the government has not even CLAIMED that any valuable suspect or plot was uncovered by the techniques used there. Yet the exposure of the mistreatment has almost certainly caused the death of Americans, and may have enable Zawahari to gather additional supporters.
THAT IS BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN ADMISSION.
Gaining the reputation for abusing prisoners gets people killed on the field of battle. An Iraqi, sure that he will be tortured if captured is far more likely to fight to the death. In death throwes he kills two men who wanted to capture him alive for his information. THREE DEAD. HIM AND THE TWO WOULD BE CAPTORS, BECAUSE WE TORTURED SOMEONE ELSE.
Mistreatment of captives is a War Crime. Under the Geneva conventions, ANY AND ALL PERSONS IN THE CUSTODY OR UNDER THE OCCUPATION OF A FOREIGN FORCE ARE GRANTED THE SAME PROTECTIONS REGARDLESS OF THEIR STATUS. Violating that provision of the Convention is a War Crime. Persons who violate or order the violation are subject to trial and criminal penalties up to life in prison. Under Iraqi law they can be hanged to death. Example, SADDAM HUSSAIN.
Violation of the law of common decency. It is indecent to abuse a helpless person.
DO YOU WANT MORE? ARE YOU CONVINCED? OR ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE URGING IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR BY YOUR GOVERNMENT?
There is some good points made here on the post, some hard to fathom though because the link given wasn't easy to navigate and see what you all saw. So I am going cold turkey with this debate after NOT viewing what all you guys did...

Is is up to the Dems to Investigate Torture... In my opinion, as much as I DO NOT like it, and as much as it sickens me, I would have to ADMIT that people right here in OUR own country is for it. Cheney did a lot of talking little over a year ago to get agreement to torture war prisoners, and got loads of grief for it...

What I don't understand, is we are in WAR, but it is NOT our war, so why should WE be the torturers????

And why should our VP be so inhumane to even WANT to be behind torture since this is doesn't even have anything to do with the terrorist attacks right here on our own soil...

All this smells fishy to me, and for some reason I have a sick feeling even KNOWING this about our VP. I know all the MANY reasons given to us about WHY we are in Iraq, but none of them justifies torture... it just isn't that sort of War... if torture does exist, it should be Iraqii doing it, not us...

I do NOT advocate it, but I am not a dummy either, and I know what war entails, it entails things that make us old women get sick to our stomachs...

But can someone tell me WHY our very own VP desired it so much? What could it possibly mean for US as a Nation? We are fighting for the freedom of Iraq, not ours.
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
There is some good points made here on the post, some hard to fathom though because the link given wasn't easy to navigate and see what you all saw. So I am going cold turkey with this debate after NOT viewing what all you guys did...

Is is up to the Dems to Investigate Torture... In my opinion, as much as I DO NOT like it, and as much as it sickens me, I would have to ADMIT that people right here in OUR own country is for it. Cheney did a lot of talking little over a year ago to get agreement to torture war prisoners, and got loads of grief for it...

What I don't understand, is we are in WAR, but it is NOT our war, so why should WE be the torturers????

And why should our VP be so inhumane to even WANT to be behind torture since this is doesn't even have anything to do with the terrorist attacks right here on our own soil...

All this smells fishy to me, and for some reason I have a sick feeling even KNOWING this about our VP. I know all the MANY reasons given to us about WHY we are in Iraq, but none of them justifies torture... it just isn't that sort of War... if torture does exist, it should be Iraqii doing it, not us...

I do NOT advocate it, but I am not a dummy either, and I know what war entails, it entails things that make us old women get sick to our stomachs...

But can someone tell me WHY our very own VP desired it so much? What could it possibly mean for US as a Nation? We are fighting for the freedom of Iraq, not ours.


The last sentance of the link you posted"
"As for Mr. Cheney: He will be remembered as the vice president who campaigned for torture."
As for the rest of us, will we be remembered as the people who allowed it?
The Geneva Convention was created by the same man who created the International Red Cross. The symbol, a red cross in a white square is the obverse of the Swiss National Flag, a White Cross in a Red field.
THE PRINCIPAL BEHIND BOTH THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND THE RED CROSS IS THE SAME.

There are some acts that Civilized People do not commit and others they are compelled to.

If this nation is Civilized, and that is being called into question all round the world, including here at home. WE DO NOT TORTURE PRISONERS. AND WE AID THE WOUNDED REGARDLESS OF WHO WOUNDED THEM.

The New Reason for invading Iraq is to free them from a cruel and evil despot. The old reason was to protect us from a growing threat.

We seem to have become the enemy we wish to destroy.

Herbert W Armstrong, who I believe is now dead, has left a legacy. http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com

This is a quote from his book, "People of the Lie" ""How are we to take Christ's admonition to " judge not lest you be judged" and still label someone as evil? If you see something wrong don't you try to correct it? Was Hitler OK? Was Jim Jones OK? Were the medical experiments on Jews OK? There is such a thing as an excess of sympathy, an excess of tolerance, an excess of permissiveness. The fact of the matter is that we cannot lead decent lives without making judgments; general and moral judgments in particular. Christ did not enjoin us to refrain from ever judging. What he went on to say in the next four verses is that we should judge ourselves before we judge others, not that we should not judge at all. We are to purify ourselves before judging others.

This is where 'the evil' fail. It is the self-criticism they avoid."

does that remind you of anyone in political power today?
quote:
Originally posted by traderconnections:
Some souls think putting women panties on your head and face is torture...
Torture me ladies...torture me! I attempt to do that every week...I volunteer! Here I am!
I have one request thou...please have the washed first...


so that is not torture to you. Well then how about menstural blood on your face? Or men's briefs, with fresh tracks? How about putting you in a 6 by 8 by 8 concrete cell with no windows naked and running the temperature down to say 40 F? How about stripping you naked and holding an attack dog on a leash four inches from your genitals? I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE WILLING TO SAY "I support the abuse of HELPLESS people."
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by traderconnections:
Some souls think putting women panties on your head and face is torture...
Torture me ladies...torture me! I attempt to do that every week...I volunteer! Here I am!
I have one request thou...please have the washed first...


so that is not torture to you. Well then how about menstural blood on your face? Or men's briefs, with fresh tracks? How about putting you in a 6 by 8 by 8 concrete cell with no windows naked and running the temperature down to say 40 F? How about stripping you naked and holding an attack dog on a leash four inches from your genitals? I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE WILLING TO SAY "I support the abuse of HELPLESS people."


Yep,Its so easy for some to say they like torture,because they know they don't have to worry, because they're not the victim's.
Kindred, I am going to TORTURE YOUR POST, JUST FOR THE H-E-DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS OF IT.

quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
TorturING our partIES would MAKE US AS GOOD AT WAR AS THEM. OUR {CIVILIZED your caps} Nation HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TORTURE THEM, THEY TORTURE EACH OTHER. ...WE FOLLOW THE GOLDEN RULE at least we DID.


this is what your originally wrote. Torture on our part would only stoop us to their level... we live in a CIVILIZED Nation... at least we DID.

I did this to your post to make an example. I would appreciate it if those who SUPPORT TORTURE would consider how they would respond, should I choose to do the same to them. And then say their defense is a lie, that they changed things on purpose. The Only protection against that is the Edit notification, which, the instant it appears, removes any defense if the post is TORTURED.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
Kindred, I am going to TORTURE YOUR POST, JUST FOR THE H-E-DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS OF IT.

quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
TorturING our partIES would MAKE US AS GOOD AT WAR AS THEM. OUR {CIVILIZED your caps} Nation HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TORTURE THEM, THEY TORTURE EACH OTHER. ...WE FOLLOW THE GOLDEN RULE at least we DID.


this is what your originally wrote. Torture on our part would only stoop us to their level... we live in a CIVILIZED Nation... at least we DID.

I did this to your post to make an example. I would appreciate it if those who SUPPORT TORTURE would consider how they would respond, should I choose to do the same to them. And then say their defense is a lie, that they changed things on purpose. The Only protection against that is the Edit notification, which, the instant it appears, removes any defense if the post is TORTURED.



You could make the same point with the patriot act. Republican's say as long as you're not a terrorist no need to worry about torture, but what if you John Doe was accused of being one and you weren't, then you would not have any rights, and you could be tortured even if you were American.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
Kindred, I am going to TORTURE YOUR POST, JUST FOR THE H-E-DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS OF IT.

quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
TorturING our partIES would MAKE US AS GOOD AT WAR AS THEM. OUR {CIVILIZED your caps} Nation HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TORTURE THEM, THEY TORTURE EACH OTHER. ...WE FOLLOW THE GOLDEN RULE at least we DID.


this is what your originally wrote. Torture on our part would only stoop us to their level... we live in a CIVILIZED Nation... at least we DID.

I did this to your post to make an example. I would appreciate it if those who SUPPORT TORTURE would consider how they would respond, should I choose to do the same to them. And then say their defense is a lie, that they changed things on purpose. The Only protection against that is the Edit notification, which, the instant it appears, removes any defense if the post is TORTURED.


Ed, I meant what "I" wrote... we, (AMERICA) are a CIVILIZED nation and we should not stoop to that level...

Remember, we have a President and Vice President who ran on their Morals on abortions, Pro-Life, and living a Christial life... BOTH said that...

But since they took office, all they have done is LIE, FIGHT and WAR... Now the torture was SUPPOSED to be Cheney's idea, but of course, we all know that it was an idea of several people.

Hypocracy is just dripping out of the Oval office. The ONLY Golden Rule that is followed there is the amount of GOLD they are gonna take home when their time is up.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×