- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
- Messages
- 26,657
- Reaction score
- 15,930
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't "feel" anything.
Even when I do THIS.......
I don't "feel" anything.
I don't feel that Coronado feels that Deuce is speaking for the entire left so much as I feel that Coronodo feels that Deuce feels he is doing so.
At least that's what I feel.
Easy there, not without taking me to dinner. I'm not that kind of girl! :3oops:Even when I do THIS.......
I feel dizzy now:mrgreen:
You're right, an action either meets the definition of torture or it doesn't. But when you say "it is either torture or it isn't," if by "it" you mean "water-boarding" you are fantastically incorrect. An action must meet the definition of torture to be considered the war crime of torture.
An act being severely painful isn't enough to make it torture. Is a dentist appointment torture? Of course not, because you go to the dentist and give your consent, and moreover it isn't for interrogation purposes.
An act has to occur under certain circumstances, such as with lack of consent and for interrogation purposes. Water-boarding performed on detainees for interrogation purposes without consent is torture, and water-boarding performed on consenting trainees for training purposes is not torture.
I don't really see what's so hard about this to understand. We've been over this same point many, many times already.
Easy there, not without taking me to dinner. I'm not that kind of girl! :3oops:
We should never let Amnesty International or any other international "authority" try any American President for anything, nor even any American soldier. To do so is a surrender of our sovereignty. (That's what happens to you when you LOSE the war, btw.)
I don't "feel" anything. I'm just responding to your implication that he is. :shrug:
Whatever you say, champ. :roll:I'm quite a straightforward person, Coronado, and don't tend to 'imply' anything. If i felt he was speaking for the entire left I would have said so.
But the implication, if you want one, was towards those of the left who "hate" George Bush. That should have been clear.
I disagree. There are plenty of occasions where it is correct and even desirable for a state to cede sovereignty, or at least a portion of sovereignty, to another entity. It is not only after losing a war, nor does it happen after all wars are lost. The 13 colonies ceded a good bit of their sovereignty to the federal government when this country was founded, and that worked out pretty well.
And more to the point, willingly trying American war criminals in America would be preferable, I agree. But the appropriate venue really is the Hague, so why not?
So why not?
Sure we've been over this several times, and you continue to be wrong.
Whatever you say, champ.
Why is The Hague more appropriate to try Americans than American courts?
Not that this isn't laugh-out-loud stupid anyway. The colonies ceded authority to the central government because it was their wish to form a single nation. We do not wish to form a worldwide government.
I responded to what you said, but you tried to push the clear implication of what you said off on me.Exactly. Not what I didn't say.
Well, it's neither more nor less appropriate, it has concurrent jurisdiction with American courts. But there are two reasons that the Hague is preferable. First, the Hague specializes in war crimes, and second, the American justice system has shown no interest in prosecuting Bush, and as Ikari observed earlier, there is a rigged game preventing it from happening.
I'm not going to delve into ad hominems, Harshaw, but you might want to reread the above sentences and see who it makes look stupid. Hint: it's not me.
see who it makes look stupid. Hint: it's not me
Well, it's neither more nor less appropriate, it has concurrent jurisdiction with American courts.
But there are two reasons that the Hague is preferable. First, the Hague specializes in war crimes, and second, the American justice system has shown no interest in prosecuting Bush, and as Ikari observed earlier, there is a rigged game preventing it from happening.
I'm not going to delve into ad hominems, Harshaw, but you might want to reread the above sentences and see who it makes look stupid.
We're already there, globalization is happening all around you. Get with it, get out of the way, or get left behind.
What did GW Bush do to you or anyone in your family that warrants this vitriol on your part?
Pot, kettle, etc.Guy, did you ever serve in the Military?
Is that supposed to be an argument?
You betray the weakness of your position by not addressing my points on their merits. Good day.
He tortured. Nothing else matters.
That is your opinion but doesn't answer the question, what did GW Bush do to hurt you or your family?
Amnesty International Calls to Prosecute Bush for Admitted Waterboarding
I support this and basically feel that these activities constitute a war crime.
What does that have to with whether or not Bush is responsible for torture?