Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left

Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left

+6
Floridatexan
Hospital Bob
2seaoat
Wordslinger
TEOTWAWKI
KarlRove
10 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 5]

Guest


Guest

I'd go midevil on the sob... but that doesn't mean I want my govt to sanction it.

Hopefully a jury would forgive me.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

PkrBum wrote:I'd go midevil on the sob

That's an understandable reaction.

But the problem is, the people who the police name as the suspects and the people police arrest, are not ALWAYS the guilty party.
So, you could be going midevil on the wrong person.

And then the issue arises, what if you find yourself being a suspect who is the wrong person and someone goes midevil on you?
That's why our justice system has courts of law and rules of law to determine innocence or guilt and not just the police to do it.

And it doesn't matter if it's a criminal suspect OR a military combatant.
It's possible for both to innocent.


Guest


Guest

I'd probably find that out by the time I switched from pliers to a blowtorch.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

PkrBum wrote:I'd probably find that out by the time I switched from pliers to a blowtorch.

lol

By the way, do you know which movie the line "go to work on him with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch" originated from?
I'll give you this one hint. The obvious answer is not the correct one.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
PkrBum wrote:I'd probably find that out by the time I switched from pliers to a blowtorch.

lol

By the way, do you know which movie the line "go to work on him with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch" originated from?
I'll give you this one hint. The obvious answer is not the correct one.

Pulp fiction is what I was copying... lol.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I vividly remember watching Pulp Fiction the first time in a movie theater when it got to the scene where Ving Rhames,  playing Marcelus Wallace, says that line.

When I heard it I couldn't believe it.  That's because the line was already well known to me since it was said verbatim in one of my favorite movies of all time which preceded Pulp Fiction by twenty years.  
The movie was called "Charley Varrick".

Shortly after that,  Roger Ebert was a guest on a nationally syndicated call in radio talk show.  I got through to it and brought it up to him to see if he knew about Tarantino lifting that line from the earlier movie.  He didn't even know what I was talking about so I never really did get an answer to what happened.
My guess is Tarantino used the line to pay homage to the earlier movie rather than it being an act of plagiarism.  However,  if that's what we was doing I've never heard him provide the explanation.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left - Page 2 Pliers10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069865/quotes

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
KarlRove wrote:Doesn't apply in a time of war to enemy
Combatants.

See now you're contradicting your own reasoning.  

First you tell us since the specific word "torture" is not in the Constitution,  that this means torture is not covered by the Constitution.

But NOW you're using the exact opposite reasoning.  Because now you're telling us what the Constitution says about dealing with enemy combatants,  when there is no mention of the words "enemy combatant" or specifically how to deal with them in the Constitution either.

I already gave you a link today to educate you about the attitude of the Founders when it comes to torture.
Here is a whole slew of links to inform you of the same thing...

https://www.google.com/search?q=founding+fathers+on+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXCSY5KMslA5HWhHUEikd9O7aTOJz8zDAJRn29x3B5xeyzuNKx

The point you're missing Bob is that the detainees do not fall under the protection of the United States Constitution because they are not US citizens and are not in the United States. This places them under International Law and the Geneva Convention... The latter of which does not cover at least most of them because they do not meet the requirements of Article 4, as prisoner of war, of the Geneva Convention. This makes them at best spies and we all know what the military can do with spies.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

Smile



Last edited by Damaged Eagle on 12/17/2014, 2:15 am; edited 1 time in total

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Truthfully, this is the reason why I'm opposed to using torture, DE.
It's because when you start using torture as a policy, then people like this one could be tortured...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-terror-detainee-says-us-tortured-him/

...and I believe in the Golden Rule and the Golden Rule dictates that I wouldn't want to be tortured if I was him either.

It's the same problem I have with capital punishment.
My objection is not so much the torture itself or the execution itself. Not when it's the guilty party being subjected to it.
But I do have a big problem with the idea that it can happen to someone who is not the guilty party. And I don't have delusions about our government being so competent that it can always avoid that.



KarlRove

KarlRove

Damaged Eagle wrote:
Bob wrote:
KarlRove wrote:Doesn't apply in a time of war to enemy
Combatants.

See now you're contradicting your own reasoning.  

First you tell us since the specific word "torture" is not in the Constitution,  that this means torture is not covered by the Constitution.

But NOW you're using the exact opposite reasoning.  Because now you're telling us what the Constitution says about dealing with enemy combatants,  when there is no mention of the words "enemy combatant" or specifically how to deal with them in the Constitution either.

I already gave you a link today to educate you about the attitude of the Founders when it comes to torture.
Here is a whole slew of links to inform you of the same thing...

https://www.google.com/search?q=founding+fathers+on+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXCSY5KMslA5HWhHUEikd9O7aTOJz8zDAJRn29x3B5xeyzuNKx

The point you're missing Bob is that the detainees do not fall under the protection of the United States Constitution because they are not US citizens and are not in the United States. This places them under International Law and the Geneva Convention... The later of which does not cover at least most of them because they do not meet the requirements of Article 4, as prisoner of war, of the Geneva Convention. This makes them at best spies and we all know what the military can do with spies.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

Smile

On top of that the do not wear recognizable uniforms and use the indigenous population to blend in which violates the Geneva Convention itself. Because they are blending in as spies, they get the worst of it because spies are not prisoners of war.

KarlRove

KarlRove

Damaged Eagle wrote:
Bob wrote:
KarlRove wrote:Doesn't apply in a time of war to enemy
Combatants.

See now you're contradicting your own reasoning.  

First you tell us since the specific word "torture" is not in the Constitution,  that this means torture is not covered by the Constitution.

But NOW you're using the exact opposite reasoning.  Because now you're telling us what the Constitution says about dealing with enemy combatants,  when there is no mention of the words "enemy combatant" or specifically how to deal with them in the Constitution either.

I already gave you a link today to educate you about the attitude of the Founders when it comes to torture.
Here is a whole slew of links to inform you of the same thing...

https://www.google.com/search?q=founding+fathers+on+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXCSY5KMslA5HWhHUEikd9O7aTOJz8zDAJRn29x3B5xeyzuNKx

The point you're missing Bob is that the detainees do not fall under the protection of the United States Constitution because they are not US citizens and are not in the United States. This places them under International Law and the Geneva Convention... The later of which does not cover at least most of them because they do not meet the requirements of Article 4, as prisoner of war, of the Geneva Convention. This makes them at best spies and we all know what the military can do with spies.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

Smile

On top of that the do not wear recognizable uniforms and use the indigenous population to blend in which violates the Geneva Convention itself. Because they are blending in as spies, they get the worst of it because spies are not prisoners of war.

2seaoat



Those individuals who authorized torture should be held accountable. You start with the legal interpretations. They must lose their law licenses at a minimum, and possible face criminal charges.

The fact that a taxi driver in Afghanastan is not wearing a uniform does not give any shelter to those who snatched him up and tortured an innocent man. Those who authorized the torture must be held responsible.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Truthfully,  this is the reason why I'm opposed to using torture,  DE.
It's because when you start using torture as a policy,  then people like this one could be tortured...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-terror-detainee-says-us-tortured-him/

...and I believe in the Golden Rule and the Golden Rule dictates that I wouldn't want to be tortured if I was him either.

It's the same problem I have with capital punishment.
My objection is not so much the torture itself or the execution itself.  Not when it's the guilty party being subjected to it.  
But I do have a big problem with the idea that it can happen to someone who is not the guilty party.  And I don't have delusions about our government being so competent that it can always avoid that.




Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQx088yAZyzjqaf0O5-C2XWSlqd1lnXCAIFBRwTRx7dY2X5J1FV

I usually don't tell stories about my time in the service but here's one I'll pass on...

Just prior to my arriving at a new command in Italy there was a dependent wife who was driving to Naples to go to the exchange. Along the way she passed a carabinieri (Italian police) who was standing at the side of the road waving his lollipop sign that they carry. He waved it at her as she approached, which means that she should pull over to be inspected, but she did not know what it meant so she kept driving. They pulled over forty slugs out of the back of car and the dependent wife was in the hospital for over six months in critical and/or serious condition prior to being sent back to the states at the request of the US embassy. There were no indictments of the police officers involved. In Italy you are guilty until proven innocent and if you don't obey the orders of the police they will shoot you because it's believed you are disobeying for a reason.

Anyway my point here is that there seem to be a lot of people around here who naturally assume that the protection of the United States Constitution extends to all corners of the world... It doesn't. When I listen to some of them whine about possible police brutality in the United States, and yet the idiot in the film who was hurt or killed was resisting arrest, all I have to do is think about that incident and a few others that I know of from my time overseas. The carabinieri most likely would have shot a lot of them instead of allowing them to come within physical contact range.

This doesn't mean I condone torture as set forth in the Geneva Convention... On the other hand I don't condone beheading prisoners for political motives or bombing a wedding group to attempt to take out one or two suspected terrorists either.

Right now I have no desire to travel outside the United States and if I do one of the few countries I would even feel comfortable in would be... Canada. You should also take note of where I finally decided to move to after leaving the service.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA7iGxV6rt4

Smile



Last edited by Damaged Eagle on 12/16/2014, 1:36 pm; edited 7 times in total

Guest


Guest

KarlRove wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
Bob wrote:
KarlRove wrote:Doesn't apply in a time of war to enemy
Combatants.

See now you're contradicting your own reasoning.  

First you tell us since the specific word "torture" is not in the Constitution,  that this means torture is not covered by the Constitution.

But NOW you're using the exact opposite reasoning.  Because now you're telling us what the Constitution says about dealing with enemy combatants,  when there is no mention of the words "enemy combatant" or specifically how to deal with them in the Constitution either.

I already gave you a link today to educate you about the attitude of the Founders when it comes to torture.
Here is a whole slew of links to inform you of the same thing...

https://www.google.com/search?q=founding+fathers+on+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8




The point you're missing Bob is that the detainees do not fall under the protection of the United States Constitution because they are not US citizens and are not in the United States. This places them under International Law and the Geneva Convention... The later of which does not cover at least most of them because they do not meet the requirements of Article 4, as prisoner of war, of the Geneva Convention. This makes them at best spies and we all know what the military can do with spies.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

Smile

On top of that the do not wear recognizable uniforms and use the indigenous population to blend in which violates the Geneva Convention itself. Because they are blending in as spies, they get the worst of it because spies are not prisoners of war.

Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkqbo3aCoD5-n9ISoWhm0glRoFgchMIYFhnOwQaHddnK6kFEWD

I said that in my post you're quoting Pace.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Those individuals who authorized torture should be held accountable.  You start with the legal interpretations.   They must lose their law licenses at a minimum, and possible face criminal charges.

The fact that a taxi driver in Afghanastan is not wearing a uniform does not give any shelter to those who snatched him up and tortured an innocent man.   Those who authorized the torture must be held responsible.

Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkqbo3aCoD5-n9ISoWhm0glRoFgchMIYFhnOwQaHddnK6kFEWD

You can prove that waterboarding violates the terms set forth in the Geneva Convention and/or International Law?

Do you even know what the Geneva Convention says about the treatment of prisoners?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile

Sal

Sal

2seaoat wrote:Those individuals who authorized torture should be held accountable.  You start with the legal interpretations.   They must lose their law licenses at a minimum, and possible face criminal charges.

The fact that a taxi driver in Afghanastan is not wearing a uniform does not give any shelter to those who snatched him up and tortured an innocent man.   Those who authorized the torture must be held responsible.

If the aim was to provoke a reaction that would reveal the shining-city-on-a-hill 'Murika as sheer hypocrisy covering economic imperialism, cruelty and raw brutality, Bin Laden could not have dreamed of a more eager and active collaborator than the Dubya/Cheney administration.

Our reputation has been irrevocably tarnished.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Damaged Eagle wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Those individuals who authorized torture should be held accountable.  You start with the legal interpretations.   They must lose their law licenses at a minimum, and possible face criminal charges.

The fact that a taxi driver in Afghanastan is not wearing a uniform does not give any shelter to those who snatched him up and tortured an innocent man.   Those who authorized the torture must be held responsible.

Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkqbo3aCoD5-n9ISoWhm0glRoFgchMIYFhnOwQaHddnK6kFEWD

You can prove that waterboarding violates the terms set forth in the Geneva Convention and/or International Law?

Do you even know what the Geneva Convention says about the treatment of prisoners?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile



Who cares about whether the Geneva Convention was violated or not? Do you get your moral compass from the letter of the Geneva Convention? What if the Geneva Convention said "It is OK to rape and murder children who reside in countries that you occupy during a time of war", would you be OK with that simply by virtue of the fact that the Geneva Convention says it?


_________________
I approve this message.

2seaoat



You can prove that waterboarding violates the terms set forth in the Geneva Convention and/or International Law?

Do you even know what the Geneva Convention says about the treatment of prisoners?


Please turn the dimmer switch on your light bulb up a little bit. You do not even understand how war criminals are prosecuted. States have the primary obligation to prosecute a person who has committed a war crime against their citizens. A state may choose to discharge their obligation to prosecute and to do an international tribunal or mixed tribunal. The problem with most of these mixed tribunals involve the United Nations which America could veto indictments against American officials. So the nation state will need to bring those charges, but we cleverly have exemptions from prosecution signed by those nations we have invaded. However, if that state is overthrown, the successor most certainly can authorize war criminal indictments. Now is a new government in Iraq going to come to the United States and arrest Dick Cheney. Nope. However, like the Israelis tracking down war criminals, he could be kidnapped and transported to that state for trial, and hanging if found guilty........The target may be one of many lawyers who declared that torture was not torture, and it may not be a capital offense, but involve a long prison term in that country's penal system.......well organized kidnappers could put the fear of God in about 200 people who knowingly developed torture and war crimes as a modus operandi

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Just prior to my arriving at a new command in Italy there was a dependent wife who was driving to Naples to go to the exchange. Along the way she passed a carabinieri (Italian police) who was standing at the side of the road waving his lollipop sign that they carry. He waved it at her as she approached, which means that she should pull over to be inspected, but she did not know what it meant so she kept driving. They pulled over forty slugs out of the back of car and the dependent wife was in the hospital for over six months in critical and/or serious condition...

That just helps support the position I took on this in my last post.
Mistakes CAN and WILL be made. By ANY authority.
It's one thing when those mistakes lead to unjust imprisonment.
But when they lead to either torture or an execution. it goes beyond my willingness to tolerate it.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

And by the way,  let me be very clear about this.  I'm not talking about Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Not only do I not disapprove of torture for him,  if I was the one with authority to make it happen,  I would want to do what I saw Kris Kristofferson do in the movie "Payback".  I would torture him in a way which results in the maximum amount of pain and suffering it's possible to inflict on a human being.  And then I would give him blood transfusions to keep him alive so that he could be tortured again and again without dying.  And I would continue that process for the remainder of his natural life.
And if anyone doesn't understand why I take this position,  go read the thread I put up which has the title beginning with "Hey Sal..." (in the general discussion forum).

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

So if American bombs blow up my kids I would be oKay in your book Bob to cut the pilots legs and arms off inch at a time and cauterize the wounds each time   Maybe we could feed his legs to a dog while he watched.  Sure does feel good to be a subhuman demonic psychopath.  Mmmm

Guest


Guest

I was going to suggest a cheese grater and a blow torch... but then I got a guilty pang.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

I PkrBum wrote:I was going to suggest a cheese grater and a blow torch... but then I got a guilty pang.
Sorry you are just not CIA material.

Guest


Guest

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
I PkrBum wrote:I was going to suggest a cheese grater and a blow torch... but then I got a guilty pang.
Sorry you are just not CIA material.

Lol... you may be right. But if anyone deserves no mercy it's those that target the innocent or hide behind them.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:
Lol... you may be right. But if anyone deserves no mercy it's those that target the innocent or hide behind them.

It's not about them, it's about us.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 5]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Self-hating Americans: What the CIA report says about the American left

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum