Recommended Posts
kallend 1,623
Quote
Dosent change what Holder says now does it?
Marc
Repeatedly misrepresenting what Holder said is not getting you anywhere. We can all read it for ourselves. You are just making yourself look foolish.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
champu 1
QuoteDosent change what Holder says now does it?
Eric Holder's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee this spring is a good example of why people need always be willing to be critical of others that are trying to argue on behalf of a viewpoint they share. On several occasions I've ragged on people in this forum for making terrible / misguided arguments in favor of things I agree with.
There's at least a couple problems with bad arguments. First, getting partially right answers for the wrong reasons is non-repeatable, and leads to things like Phlogiston. Second, in today's polarized political environment it's just as effective to parade around a terrible counter-point as it is to make a good point of your own. And if the point being promoted this way is wrong, then it's a hell of a lot easier too.
I'm not going to defend what Eric Holder said because I don't have to.
Whether there is intent to cause lasting physical harm is immaterial. Torture is as much or more a psychological affair than a physical one. SERE training is exactly that: training. Entrants may not know what they're in for, but they know they're training. It's ridiculous to think that a particular technique used in these two different circumstances will have the same psychological impact and thus automatically carry the same designation as either torture or non-torture.
jakee 1,255
QuoteI have answered your questions. what is it you do not think I have answered??
Okaaay. I'll repeat it again. What exactly is it you think he said about waterboarding not being torture? What is it he said that means waterboarding terrorist suspects is not torture?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
billvon 2,400
> Constitutional rights don't apply to the underwear bomber regardless
>of McVeigh.
They apply to both, actually, since they are both in the US. You don't get to ignore the constitution just because you're scared.
>of McVeigh.
They apply to both, actually, since they are both in the US. You don't get to ignore the constitution just because you're scared.
Quote
I guess it must be a driving conservative desire since so many conservatives seem to get off on it.
Completely asinine.
*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----
Amazon 7
QuoteQuote
I guess it must be a driving conservative desire since so many conservatives seem to get off on it.
Completely asinine.
What's wrong.. does the truth hurt there dude??? It sure seems the only people that seem to think its a good idea are certainly all the usual rePUBIClowns... you know.. the ones who have never served in the military. the only thing they have ever served is themselves.... but certainly seem to be awful rah rah rah for war ( as long as it is someone else that has to go)
We can use our laws to bury him for the rest of his life in our courts with our laws. You and others would sink to international war crimes to support a bunch of sadists.
There is no value add to your tactics or to theirs.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites