Yeah, how dumn is that! Banning the assassination of foreign leaders??

I'm sure that you would be glad if countries like North-Korea would also have such a legislature, so they couldn't kill Bush. I don't know if they have it.

The more I read you, the more I admire you, Mick. You got brain. And talent. [/b][/quote]Mick is one of the brightest people on this BB. And, he's leftwing! Too bad he doesn't post much when it's about politics.

So even if torture would be a successful method (as it has been in the past, such as the French during the Algerian Crisis) to extract vital intelligence that could save lives, we should still stop this eye for an eye policy?

I think this is the problem with our actions in Iraq at this point. We aren't willing to play dirty, to utilize all methods, however "reprehensible" to the world community, in order to disband the Iraq insurgents and eventually Al Qaeda.

I was surprised when I learned Sen. McCain was the person who proposed this legislation, I would like to know why he thinks this would be beneficial to our effort.

Banning the assassination of a genocidal or masochistic leader would be for the benefit of the people of a nation. Again, despite how it is considered reprehensible, it is a viable policy in some situations to alleviate a particular party who is either unwielding or unyielding to compromise.

As far as your reference to North Korea goes, I doubt that Il would have the balls to go after President Bush, knowing the consequences that would result from such an action. His country, despite his bravado for gaining nuclear weapons, still ranks near the bottom of the world in standard of living, economic prosperity, and human rights. A legislature in North Korea? Let's not kid ourselves, I think its obvious a legislature to Kim Jung Il means about as much as elections under Stalin in Soviet Russia.

Maybe he feels that way because he was a prisoner of War for 5 years who was confined to solitary confinement for almost as long, and was tortured by the enemy. And his feeling that way, if you or I agree with it ir not, is quite understandable coming from someone such as himself who's had first hand experience with being tortured.


Don Cardi

We don't torture, or shouldn't be. It's not what humans do. And while I agree that some of these prisoners are sub-human, we are not.

It is disgraceful to attach this to far more important legislation that needs signing. We should not be politicizing such a thing. But that's what politicians do.

Inquiry - any thoughts on my previous question?

I know McCain was a POW, but I have to disagree with him here. If there are means of obtaining vital information from a captured enemy combatant, than every possible avenue should be explored to extract that information, including torture.

I have to disagree. It is wrong for us to sink to their level, those animals, scum. How would we solve anything if we sink to their level? How would an "eye for an eye" solve anything?

Plus,
Amendment VIII of The U.S. Consitution states:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I don't think torturing them back is the answer.
They behead us, they torture us because they're savage radical maniacs. I don't think we are.

Ok, so here you have it. Two people from both sides of the political spectrum agreeing that the bottom line here is that this whole thing is being politicized by their attaching this ammendment to a more important bill that needs signing. Politicizing the whole defense bill and the issue. No matter what, when the smoke clears, it always comes down to playing politics and how those in office can do things for their own political gain. No matter what the cost.


Don Cardi

Keep in mind the constitution is relevant only to U.S. citizens, not enemy combatants.

Again, apparently no one here feels that extracting intelligence that could saves the lives of hundreds of troops and potentially Americans here at home is worth kicking the shit out of a terrorist.

Double-J, its phrases like "kicking the shit out of ..." that expose you as a narrow-minded thug. Although I'm hesitent to label you since you seem to revel in your role as bit of nasty judging by your signature.

God willing, someday you will become Single-J, and then Half-J, and then innumerable other fractions of your former self until you disappear.

Double-J a real hawwd thug, G! Know what I'm sayin'? A little sometin' sometin'? JJ my homie! What up thug?

Dr. Lucy wants you to disappear... Uh oh! :rolleyes:

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. I am terribly sorry, Dr. Lucy, but you're failing in the insult column. Narrow-minded has already been used (and thug could be a term of endearment in today's society!). But thanks for playing the game. Perhaps I could change my nick to Triple-J? That would be something, wouldn't it?

Next time, try to be a little bit more original with your insults, okay? It's getting sad when you guys keep recycling the same ones over and over (and ignoring the argument at hand).

Cheers,
Double-J

BTW Since I've been exposed - to paraphrase Dr. Peter Venkman...

"YOU WOULDN'T WANT US EXPOSING OURSELVES!"

When did this become the Double J and Dr. Who fixed Lucy Topic?

Why don't you two do us all a favor and take it to PM.


Don Cardi

Funny, I was actually trying to debate the topic at hand, when he decided to openly insult me.

Not to be an arse, but why don't you do us a favor, DC, and reprimand him for his actions?

Best,
Double-J

Double J, I was not reprimanding either of you. All I asked, from the BOTH of you, was that the BOTH of you either stick to the topic or take it to a PM.


Don Cardi

The problem is that I haven't veered offtopic whatsoever (with the exception of the last two posts, obviously).

Yet someone deliberately flames me, and it is ignored.

I'm failing to see how taking "this" to a PM (whatever this is) is going to do anything. I would like to get back to the topic at hand. However, apparently, an opponent in this debate (Dr. Lucy) would rather attack me than respond with his argument.

Millions for PM's, but not one cent for enforcement of the rules.

Best,
Double-J

When did Double-J insult Dr. Lucy? This is pretty one sided stuff. Dr. Lucy called Double-J a narrow minded thug and JJ replied asking for more original stuff. I don't see how JJ is insulting Dr. Lucy.

Where did I say that Double J insulted The Dr.?

All I asked was that the both of them take their arguement to a PM.

Didn't take sides at all. Just sick of having good topics closed down because of the personal arguements and insults that seem to fly back and forth.


Don Cardi

Inquiry - any thoughts on my question? [/quote]I'll resort to something I've rarely done - self quoting - in the name of getting back on-topic.

Cheers,
Double-J

1.) There isn't an argument.
2.) If you are sick of insults flying about, reprimand him.

To me, it did sound like it was getting rather personal between the two of you. Just thought I'd let you know.

And, no, I don't care what information is obtained from torture. It's a moral call. I don't believe in it. I know that if torture could've prevented the deaths of September 11th, then it would be worth it to some. But as much as I would've wanted to stop those towers from falling that day, I can't believe in torturing another human. It makes us as low as they are. It puts us on the same level of subhuman. I want to believe that we're better than that.

I respect what you are saying SB, and yes, to torture another human being is animalistic, and inhuman. But then again, can you seriously say, with all your heart, that if a known and proven terrorist like Usama Bin laden is caught, that he is really a human being? Isn't there a part of you that would like to see him suffer?


Don Cardi

Trouble usually doesn't start single-handedly. I haven't read the whole thing, but just will say this: Dr Lucy, DJ, and everyone else is warned to stop calling each other names like we're in kindergarten. Read the rules, and pay the consequences if you break them. And that's all I gotta say about that.

Starting..... now!

Now if you don't mind, I'd like to go to my daughter's wedding.

I know in a dark part of my mind I would wish him the worst and hope he'd get the worst inhumane type torture possible. (Osama Bin Laden, that is, and other responsible.)

Of course there's a part of me that would like to see him on a big ol' rotisserie, roasting slowly for a very long time. And each person who got out of the towers and the Pentagon alive, and each family member of those who didn't, get to slowly add a charcoal briquette to the fire. HOWEVER, that is the part of me that must be suppressed. That's what separates us from those that would kill or rape or torture.

Yes, you are right, those thoughts do come from the dark part of our minds. A part that I think we all have. But I'll be honest, I don't know that I could think with the logical side of my mind if I ever had that bastard in front of me.


Don Cardi

Of course there's a part of me that would like to see him on a big ol' rotisserie, roasting slowly for a very long time. And each person who got out of the towers and the Pentagon alive, and each family member of those who didn't, get to slowly add a charcoal briquette to the fire. HOWEVER, that is the part of me that must be suppressed. That's what separates us from those that would kill or rape or torture. [/b][/quote]Very true.

So we are all in agreement then. It is not right to torture a human being.

But if the three of us were ever given the opportunity to spend 15 minutes with Bin Laden, then I would go first, SB would stop me, and tell me that I need to take control of myself and remind me that we don't act like that. Then she would step in and bust his ass, and then Don Andrew would intervene and remind her that we do not do things like that, and then he would step up and kick the shit out of Bin Laden, and I would have to calm him down and make him realize that his dark side is taking control over him. And then I would jump back in...... etc. etc.

As long as we keep reminding each other that we should NOT be doing this.


Don Cardi

Yes, but then again while we beat him up we will have images of the Towers on fire and continue.

You assume that the prisoners are all insurgents/terrorists. I've seen no evidence for that belief. It seems more likely to me that a lot of these guys were caught for dubious reasons, and their friends and family are more likely to join the resistance if they are mistreated. If an innocent man wasn't a terrorist before all this, he sure will be afterwards.