Unholy Trinity

[Universe Prince]

What we are and what we can be are two different things.

Quite.

What are your suggestions for getting us from point A to point B.

Well, for starters we could stop trying to justify torturing people.

Are they doing that or just making sure people have legitimate reasons to be in those neighborhoods.

Legitimate according to whom?

[Universe Prince]

IMHO, this is one of the main reasons why liberals are so much better human beings than conservatives.  Liberals can really put themselves in the other guy's shoes, conservatives just don't give a shit.

Better human beings? Nonsense. Or, better said, adult male bovine excrement. The whole "only liberals really care" bit is intellectually dishonest in every way.

[BT]

Well, for starters we could stop trying to justify torturing people.

Who is justifying torture?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Who is justifying torture?

Alan Dershowitz
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Juniorbush
among others.

[Michael Tee]

<<Better human beings? Nonsense. Or, better said, adult male bovine excrement. The whole "only liberals really care" bit is intellectually dishonest in every way.>>

Look through these threads yourself.  And I'll go beyond these threads too - - conservatives don't give a shit.  Look at BT - - torture is NBD, we're violent people, deal with it.  Torture's no worse than a firing squad.  The people who are horrified by a Dershowitz or a John Yoo are liberals, never conservatives.  "Intellectually dishonest," my ass.  Intellectual dishonesty is denying the truth that stares you right in the face.

[Universe Prince]

Who is justifying torture?

Apparently the current administration is.

[Universe Prince]

Look through these threads yourself.  And I'll go beyond these threads too - - conservatives don't give a shit.  Look at BT - - torture is NBD, we're violent people, deal with it.  Torture's no worse than a firing squad.  The people who are horrified by a Dershowitz or a John Yoo are liberals, never conservatives.  "Intellectually dishonest," my ass.  Intellectual dishonesty is denying the truth that stares you right in the face.

While I'm sure some people find it easy to make conservatives out to be Saturday morning cartoon villains, I don't do that. And your "look through these threads" argument is not persuasive. Particularly coming from someone who justifies Stalin's more draconian tactics. There are conservatives who don't approve of torture even if you don't know them personally. This whole "liberals are better people" bit is just nonsense. It reminds me of the "Muslims are out to destroy the West" bit. Oh, where are Muslims condemning terrorist actions? Where are conservatives condemning torture? Oh, oh, look at us, aren't we better people? No, you're not. Put some ice on that ego before it explodes and makes a mess over everything.

[Michael Tee]

,,While I'm sure some people find it easy to make conservatives out to be Saturday morning cartoon villains, I don't do that. ..

So what do you want, a gold star for moral blindness?

The victims of their failed policies, the millions of dead Vietnamese, the hundreds of thousands of dead Arabs, testify more to their works than anything you could ever say in their defence.

<<And your "look through these threads" argument is not persuasive. Particularly coming from someone who justifies Stalin's more draconian tactics. >>

Really?  Perhaps you could show me once, just once, where I EVER justified torture.  I'll save you the trouble - - you can't.  You are just blowing smoke.

<<There are conservatives who don't approve of torture even if you don't know them personally. >>

Yeah.  They must be the "silent majority" of conservatives.  Apart from sirs, who once, when pressed to the wall, finally had to disavow some of the most extreme forms of torture, I don't recall a single conservative in this forum come out and denounce the practice.  They'll minimize it, deny it exits, try to pin it on a tiny rogue minority or otherwise try to make the entire issue disappear.

<<This whole "liberals are better people" bit is just nonsense. >>

OF COURSE, they're better people.  They're the only ones who really give a shit about their fellow man.  Conservatives try to make a show of their "giving to charity" which is basically a few band-aids thrown at a problem, never any attempt to solve it systematically.

<<It reminds me of the "Muslims are out to destroy the West" bit. >>

Not my fault that you can't distinguish between statements that are generally true and hysterical fear-mongering nonsense. 

<<Oh, where are Muslims condemning terrorist actions? Where are conservatives condemning torture? >>

Yeah, good question, where ARE they?  Since their country is now one of the leading practitioners, since even some of their law school professors are in favour of it, WHERE ARE all those conservatives who are so adamantly opposed to torture/

<<Oh, oh, look at us, aren't we better people? No, you're not. >>

The temptation to reply "Are too" is almost irresistible, but I'll make some effort and try to keep this on a  more or less intellectual plane.  By forgetting that you made that "argument."

<<Put some ice on that ego before it explodes and makes a mess over everything.>>

And I'll forget that one, too.

[Plane]

Is there some evidence somewhere , that with Liberals in the Whitehouse or Congress or the CIA management , that torture is restricted more than The present administration restricts it?

What got George Bush into troubble was signing off on some new restrictions , not inventing waterboarding.

[Universe Prince]

So what do you want, a gold star for moral blindness?

It's not moral blindness to think beyond your silly categorizing. Just the opposite in fact.

The victims of their failed policies, the millions of dead Vietnamese, the hundreds of thousands of dead Arabs, testify more to their works than anything you could ever say in their defence.

Vietnamese? As I recall, President Johnson was not a conservative. And again, you're a guy who defends Stalin's regime killing people in the name of protecting "the Revolution", so your stance is weak at best.

Really?  Perhaps you could show me once, just once, where I EVER justified torture.  I'll save you the trouble - - you can't.  You are just blowing smoke.

I didn't say you justified torture. But let's be clear, "if a sentence of more than 15 years is needed to make the guy pay for  his crime, it's cheaper and faster to just have him shot and spare the people the cost of his upkeep" is not really putting oneself in the other guy's shoes. It's callous to say the least. But you like it.

Yeah.  They must be the "silent majority" of conservatives.  Apart from sirs, who once, when pressed to the wall, finally had to disavow some of the most extreme forms of torture, I don't recall a single conservative in this forum come out and denounce the practice.  They'll minimize it, deny it exits, try to pin it on a tiny rogue minority or otherwise try to make the entire issue disappear.

Well, obviously you missed the Republican Presidential debates.

OF COURSE, [liberal are] better people.  They're the only ones who really give a shit about their fellow man.  Conservatives try to make a show of their "giving to charity" which is basically a few band-aids thrown at a problem, never any attempt to solve it systematically.

More completely self-righteous nonsense.

Not my fault that you can't distinguish between statements that are generally true and hysterical fear-mongering nonsense.

That's just it though, I can. And I did.

Yeah, good question, where ARE they?  Since their country is now one of the leading practitioners, since even some of their law school professors are in favour of it, WHERE ARE all those conservatives who are so adamantly opposed to torture/

One of them is running for President.

The temptation to reply "Are too" is almost irresistible, but I'll make some effort and try to keep this on a  more or less intellectual plane.  By forgetting that you made that "argument."

First, you left the intellectual plane when you started with the "liberal are better people" bit. Second, it wasn't an argument. It was a chastisement.

[Michael Tee]

<<One of them [conservatives against torture] is running for President.>>

NEWSFLASH - McSame reversed his original opposition to allowing the President to determine what is or isn't torture and signed on to a bill that effectively puts the President above the law where torture is concerned, since the law will be whatever he says it it.

[Universe Prince]

NEWSFLASH - McSame reversed his original opposition to allowing the President to determine what is or isn't torture and signed on to a bill that effectively puts the President above the law where torture is concerned, since the law will be whatever he says it it.

I didn't say he wasn't a politician. I'm not even a McCain supporter. He's still against torture.

[Lanya]

Is there some evidence somewhere , that with Liberals in the Whitehouse or Congress or the CIA management , that torture is restricted more than The present administration restricts it?

What got George Bush into troubble was signing off on some new restrictions , not inventing waterboarding.

Plane, you mention this time after time, this "Bush signing off on some new restrictions" and it's not accurate.  I believe I have cited chapter and verse before but here are a few cites:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_57/ai_n16520067/pg_1

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm#torture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Victim_Protection_Act_(1992)

[]
'...................U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441). The act defines a war crime as any grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as torture or inhuman treatment) or any violation of
common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (which not only includes torture, but also ?outrages upon personal dignity? and ?humiliating and degrading treatment?). Penalties include fines or imprisonment for life or any term of years, and the death penalty if death results to the victim.

Contractors, such as those serving as military interrogators, could also be prosecuted under the federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. 2340), which prohibits torture by anyone who commits an act of torture outside of the United States. A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim's death.

Contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA was enacted in 2000 primarily to protect U.S. soldiers and their dependents on U.S. bases abroad, who became victims of crimes committed by military contractors with effective immunity from prosecution.'
[]
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-Policy-Weapons-346/Military-policy-concerning-prosecution.htm

And that's just from a very quick google search.

[Plane]

Is there some evidence somewhere , that with Liberals in the Whitehouse or Congress or the CIA management , that torture is restricted more than The present administration restricts it?

What got George Bush into troubble was signing off on some new restrictions , not inventing waterboarding.

Plane, you mention this time after time, this "Bush signing off on some new restrictions" and it's not accurate.  I believe I have cited chapter and verse before but here are a few cites:
....................................
And that's just from a very quick google search.

Yes but, the CIA has always had this habit and has exercisd it before.
Which of these articles is about the actual thing that Bush did?

President Bush and staff were presented witha list of things that might be done , mostly things that had been done, and Bush and Cheny struck some of the things down shortining the list.

 

[Lanya]

Is there some evidence somewhere , that with Liberals in the Whitehouse or Congress or the CIA management , that torture is restricted more than The present administration restricts it?

What got George Bush into troubble was signing off on some new restrictions , not inventing waterboarding.

Plane, you mention this time after time, this "Bush signing off on some new restrictions" and it's not accurate.  I believe I have cited chapter and verse before but here are a few cites:
....................................
And that's just from a very quick google search.

Yes but, the CIA has always had this habit and has exercisd it before.
Which of these articles is about the actual thing that Bush did?

President Bush and staff were presented witha list of things that might be done , mostly things that had been done, and Bush and Cheny struck some of the things down shortining the list.

 

Link please? Thanks.