Cheney: Don't Ban Prisoner Torture
 

Hummmm.... I just love that taste of democracy...

They just keep them cumming ....

:1orglaugh

that's good... besides, america > everyone else.

Isn't that one of the things that seperates "us" from "them"?

Supposed too ...

After all, 2000+ US soldiers died to " close the rape rooms " ...

Looks like " them" won....

Good, Beat the fuckers untill they crack, then beat them some more.

I don't see an issue here.

** knocking my head on computer screen **

So you're OK with this also, ain't you?

http://www.aztlan.net/hanging.jpg

http://www.aztlan.net/cooked4.jpg

Why not just be honest and say that the president can ignor the constitution and human rights whenever he wants to?

He promises to have his spindoctor's use the word terrorism to make it seem palatible.

directfiesta, ALL democratic countries have certain laws that hurt some human rights, and/or freedoms. it doesn't mean the country is undemocratic.

for example, in most european countries it's illegal to form parties that have forms of racism in their ideology. it hurts freedom, but it's still necessary to save another very important principle or value.

in the same way, it can be legitimate to allow forms of torture if it is likely to prevent a terrorist act from happening (for example, the prisoner can lead to other terrorists if he has this knowledge). you hurt a human right, but you save a highly important value/principle - national security.

an innocent man was shot in London a few months ago for the same reasons.

democracy is not black and white.

The Dictatorship grows stronger and stronger...

don't be a hypocrite.

If there will be a terrorist attack in Toronto, you will see how the local police start ignoring human rights and arresting muslims left and right. everyone deserves a fair trial right? not unless he poses danger to national security.

Video of blackops CIA agents torturing innocent iraqi:

http://www.flurl.com/uploaded/Army_o..._Spy_2717.html

idiot. :upsidedow

I'm sorry, but if it'll save innocent lives, American or not, I say take a belt sander to them until there's nothing left. IMHO, a terrorist's life or personal comfort is not worth the lives of the innocents he's trying to kill.

Well, I sure hoppe so ...

Isn't the act itself of torture terrorism ... Who decides... According to the article, it is the Monkey In Chief, the one thatr has " darn good intelligence " , the one that has proof and location of WMD ... You are not talking about a 100 watts bulb here ...

And fuck Geneva Convention.... So the Vietcongs were RIGHT to torture John McCain: He should shut the fuck up :2 cents:

He was shot because he was brownish ... Then, the administration tried to cover it up with false statments ....

It prevented nothing , it jusyt infuriated and justified the muslims in their actions !


So if this is going to be the way, fine. But the US could shut the fuck up about their values, the freedom and the spreading of democracy...

China shuts up, Iran, Saudia Arabia ... they all shut the fuck up....

You cannot be recognized as a virgin if you fuck like a tramp.

If the American army and police were instructed to capture innocent people on the street and torture them, then yes that would be terrorism.
terrorism is when your goal is to kill as many civilians, without distinguishing between children, women etc'.

torturing a man who has information that can in high probability save innocent lives is NOT terrorism.

The problem with this is giving Bush the power to say do it. If someone attacks us or if we have a solid lead, I'm sure some rights will be violated. But we don't need to give Bush the power to say who should be tortured.

Sorry, but I think you mean "torturing a man who YOU BELIEVE MAY HAVE information"

The problem with torture is that you can do serious harm to someone for no good reason what so ever. You'll have someone telling you anything and everything just to make you stop causing them unbearable harm.

In the end, you may end up with no information... and then you have to distinguish between a tough guy who can take it, and an innocent person who just got brutally harmed for nothing.

And no, that's not worth giving up democracy and freedom just to stop one terrorist.

As I said above, how do you know that... the CIA ????

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...light=jay+leno

How long should you torture those guys ....


THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR TORTURE, EVEN MORE WHEN YOU CLAIM TO BE A LIBERATOR AND FREEDOM SPREADER :2 cents:

No that's not terrorism.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

The issue here is that the patriot act makes it possible to name anyone a terrorist almost regardless of the crime or where they come from, including americans..

in that case, no point in arguing with you. :2 cents:

thanks for the info smartass

I never said the US intelligence is perfect (nobody can say that after 9/11), and I don't know how often the CIA does a good job.

All I wanted to say is that what Chenney said (the general idea behind it) doesn't contradict with democracy, unlike you suggested.

see, with this statement I don't agree.

there CAN be an excuse for torture under very specific circumstances.

I agree that your forecast as to what the response to a terorrist attack in Toronto would be.

I would oppose it, and I oppose any and every law that would facilitate it happening.

Terrorists *do not* pose a danger to national security.

I didn't post it as a smartass remark. Your position seems to rest in part upon what you define terrorism to be. I think a lot of people think terrorism is what you defined it as, which is incorrect, so the distinction should be made. You don't have to kill 100's of people or even drop bombs to commit a terrorist act.

Like if some intelliegence agency thought that *you* might have some information about an upcoming terrorist attack?

just like for a pre-emptive attack ? :1orglaugh

I give up ... I am going to find a cute chick that I can " torture " .

for some reason this has never happened, and I doubt it ever will...

it's not like intelligence agencies are bringing suspects from their ass

:1orglaugh

you can't be serious....

Obviously the government supports torture because it works.

When you KNOW someone has information, we have a right to get it out of them if it means protecting national security.

Anyone here read George Orwells 1984?

Think about how some countries hold there people in check by fear. North Korea is a prime example.

Once you have them cowered in the corner you can herd them like sheep.

of course, you can kill only 1 person and still be a terrorist. or even not kill anyone but engage in some sort of terrorist activity. but the reason you killed just one person, is because you didn't have enough resources, or brain or whatever to kill more. it's not like you target a specific person who is guilty of something. you target who-ever... you target civilians....that makes one a terrorist.

and if it still doesn't fit in your dictionary definition, then ok... I only think it's ok to torture THIS kind of terrorists that I just described.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4408410.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4403166.stm

No comment needed.

If a group of terrorists managed to kill Bush, would you still back your above statment?

And the people who KNOW are the same who KNEW there was WMDs in Iraq. Seems you lost they debate before it started.

The UK citizens in Guantonimo Bay were released without charge, interviewed at length in the UK and no charges were brought against them.

So how many Afghan and Iraqi citizens are in the prison because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Maher Arar thought it would never happen to him either. But he is arab, so I guess it is just a risk he has to accept.

Maher Arar