A Question Of Torture

[Munchkin Man]

Greetings:

The Munchkin Man has a question to ask the participants of this Forum in regard to the use of torture.

Here goes:

If you knew for certain that Osama Bin Laden was still alive.........

And if you also knew for certain that the use of torture, including the practice known as waterboarding, of a particular terrorist suspect would result in that suspect's disclosure of the exact location where Osama Bin Laden was hiding.............

And if you also knew for certain that this information would result in the definite capture of Osama Bin Laden................

Would you approve of the torture of this terrorist suspect?

Choose one of the following answers:

A) Yes, definitely.

B) It would depend upon the level of torture.

C) No, definitely not.

If you chose Choice C, please explain why.

Munchkin Man

 

[diggin'4gold]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Greetings:

I have a question for you with regards to the use of torture.

Here goes:

If you knew for certain that George W. Bush had lied to the American public.........

And if you also knew for certain that the use of torture, including the practice known as waterboarding, of a particular Whitehouse aid would result in that suspect's disclosure of the why G.W. Bush lied.............

And if you also knew for certain that this information would result in the definite conviction of G.W.Bush................

Would you approve of the torture of this Whitehouse aid ?

Choose one of the following answers:

A) Yes, definitely.

B) It would depend upon the level of torture.

C) No, definitely not.

If you chose Choice C, please explain why.

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

This is great ....

Like the ol Crossfire with Novak and Carville

"Mr Munchkin ... your serve ..."

:+textinb3:+textinb3:+textinb3:+textinb3:+textinb3

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Greetings:

I have a question for you with regards to the use of torture.

Here goes:

If you knew for certain that George W. Bush had lied to the American public.........

And if you also knew for certain that the use of torture, including the practice known as waterboarding, of a particular Whitehouse aid would result in that suspect's disclosure of the why G.W. Bush lied.............

And if you also knew for certain that this information would result in the definite conviction of G.W.Bush................

Would you approve of the torture of this Whitehouse aid ?

Choose one of the following answers:

A) Yes, definitely.

B) It would depend upon the level of torture.

C) No, definitely not.

If you chose Choice C, please explain why.

The Munchkin Man has the following comments to make in response to your question:

1) The Munchkin Man does not believe that President George W. Bush deliberately lied to the American people.

2) If the Munchkin Man is wrong about the above, and if President George W. Bush did, indeed, deliberately lie to the American people, then the Munchkin Man believes that he did so for their own good and to protect America's national security.

3) The Munchkin Man does not believe that any staff member of the administration of President George W. Bush should be tortured in any way.

4) The Munchkin Man does not believe that President George W. Bush is deserving of any type of conviction.

5) If President George W. Bush was, indeed, guilty of one or more crimes during his administration, the Munchkin Man believes any such crimes were committed in the interests of protecting America's national security, and that he should be pardoned for any and all such crimes.

6) The Munchkin Man thanks President George W. Bush each and every day for keeping the Munchkin Man safe from any further terrorist attacks after the date of September 11, 2001 and until his last day in office.

GOD BLESS PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Munchkin Man

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

To quote Munchkin:

6) The Munchkin Man thanks President George W. Bush each and every day for keeping the Munchkin Man safe from any further terrorist attacks after the date of September 11, 2001 and until his last day in office.

I GUESS YOU ARE ALSO THANKFUL TO MR CLINTON SINCE HE PROTECTED YOUR ASS LONGER THAN BUSH 43?

Bush "keeping us safe"--no attacks on American soil--from 9-11-01 to 1-20-09

Clinton "kept us safe"--no attacks on American soil--from 2-26-93 (first WTC)to 1-20-01--SEVEN MONTHS LONGER than Bush !!!!!

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

4) The Munchkin Man does not believe that President George W. Bush is deserving of any type of conviction.

TALK TO RED CROSS AND THE HAGUE .... BUSH DID THE SAME ACTS AS
HITLER IN MANY WAYS

Sorry Charlie ... I understand that Lard Ass Limbaugh thinks torture is a way
of "blowing off steam" but that ain't how it works

Rice up first getting the living shit beat out of her would be great PPV ....

that bitch would break quicker than Munchkin Man around a Pizza Hut buffet

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Rice up first getting the living shit beat out of her would be great PPV ....

That would be torture.

The Munchkin Man thought Doc Mercer was opposed to torture.

:+clueless

that bitch would break quicker than Munchkin Man around a Pizza Hut buffet

The Munchkin Man doesn't like Pizza Hut.

Munchkin Man

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

I don't like torture

I believe in just punishment for War Criminals ....

 

[4625]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Assuming momentarily for the purposes of this thread only that the "bit" which calls itself Munchkin Man has asked a serious question rather than jumped out from under his bridge, I would point out simply that the network show "24" is complete fiction. Professional interrogators are nearly unanimous in their belief that the information derived through torture is unreliable, and in most cases is nothing more than claptrap made up to appease the torturer. I have, of course, belayed raising the most powerful arguments against torture, merely to address Munchie's bit.

 

[4625]

Re: A Question Of Torture

2) If the Munchkin Man is wrong about the above, and if President George W. Bush did, indeed, deliberately lie to the American people, then the Munchkin Man believes that he did so for their own good and to protect America's national security.

5) If President George W. Bush was, indeed, guilty of one or more crimes during his administration, the Munchkin Man believes any such crimes were committed in the interests of protecting America's national security, and that he should be pardoned for any and all such crimes.

Munchkin Man

Assuming for the purposes of the "bit" by the person who calls himself Munchkin Man that the buffoon's lies were committed "in the interest of protection America's national security," Justice Brandeis has an appropriate response: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: A Question Of Torture

To the Munchkin Man's Question.

My answer is C.

Title 18, Part 1, Section 113c of United States Code.

CHAPTER 113C?TORTURE


? 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter?
(1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from?

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) ?United States? means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

? 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense.? Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.? There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if?

(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.? A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

? 2340B. Exclusive remedies

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws on the same subject, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any civil proceeding.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: A Question Of Torture

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Under U.S. Law Torture is Always Illegal [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]By MARJORIE COHN [/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+3]W[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]hat does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all jus cogens. Jus cogens is Latin for "higher law" or "compelling law." This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a jus cogens prohibition.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The United States has always prohibited the use of torture in our Constitution, laws executive statements and judicial decisions. We have ratified three treaties that all outlaw torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When the United States ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions. He must be protected against torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment under, Common Article 3.
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument that Common Article 3 doesn't cover the prisoners at Guant?namo. Justice Kennedy [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]wrote that violations of Common Article 3 are war crimes.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We have federal laws that criminalize torture.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The War Crimes Act punishes any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, as well as any violation of Common Article 3. That includes torture, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Torture Statute provides for life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies, for anyone who commits, attempts, or conspires to commit torture outside the United States.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The U.S. Army Field Manual's provisions governing intelligence interrogations prohibit the "use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind." Brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion, including the use of drugs, are also prohibited. Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by court-martial under provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These include conspiracy, cruelty and maltreatment, murder, manslaughter, maiming, sodomy, and assault.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In Filartiga v. Pe?a-Irala, the Second Circuit declared the prohibition against torture is universal, obligatory, specific and definable. Since then, every U.S. circuit court has reaffirmed that torture violates universal and customary international law. In the Paquete Habana, the Supreme Court held that customary international law is part of U.S. law.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Constitution gives Congress the power to make the laws and the President the duty to carry them out. Yet on February 7, 2002, President Bush, relying on memos by lawyers including John Yoo, announced that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to alleged Taliban and Al Qaeda members. Bush said, however,[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva." [/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]But torture is never allowed under our laws.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Lawyers in the Department of Justice?s Office of Legal Counsel wrote memos at the request of high-ranking government officials in order to insulate them from future prosecution for subjecting detainees to torture. In memos dated August 1, 2002 and March 18, 2003, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo (Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, signed the 2002 memo), advised the Bush administration that the Department of Justice would not enforce the U.S. criminal laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The federal maiming statute makes it a crime for someone "with the intent to torture, maim, or disfigure" to "cut, bite, or slit the nose, ear or lip, or cut out or disable the tongue, or put out or destroy an eye, or cut off or disable a limb or any member of another person." It further prohibits individuals from "throwing or pouring upon another person any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance" with like intent.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Yoo said in an interview in Esquire that "just because the statute says -- that doesn't mean you have to do it." In a debate with Notre Dame Professor Doug Cassell, Yoo said there is no treaty that prohibits the President from torturing someone by crushing the testicles of the person's child. In Yoo's view, it depends on the President's motive, notwithstanding the absolute prohibition against torture in all circumstances.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Torture Convention defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering. The U.S. attached an "understanding" to its ratification of the Torture Convention, which added the requirement that the torturer "specifically" intend to inflict the severe physical or mental pain or suffering. This is a distinction without a difference for three reasons.
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]First, under well-established principles of criminal law, a person specifically intends to cause a result when he either consciously desires that result or when he knows the result is practically certain to follow.
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Second, unlike a "reservation" to a treaty provision, an "understanding" cannot change an international legal obligation.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Third, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, an "understanding" that violates the object and purpose of a treaty is void.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The claim that treatment of prisoners which would amount to torture under the Torture Convention does not constitute torture under the U.S. "understanding" violates the object and purpose of the Convention, which is to ensure that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The U.S. "understanding" that adds the specific intent requirement is embodied in the U.S. Torture Statute.

[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Nevertheless, Yoo twisted the law and redefined torture much more narrowly than the definitions in the Convention Against Torture and the Torture Statute. Under Yoo's definition, the victim must experience intense pain or suffering equivalent to pain associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in loss of significant body functions will likely result.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Yoo wrote that self-defense or necessity could be used as a defense to war crimes prosecutions for torture, notwithstanding the Torture Convention's absolute prohibition against torture in all circumstances. There can be no justification for torture.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]After the exposure of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and the publication of the August 1, 2002 memo, the Department of Justice knew the memo could not be legally defended. That memo was withdrawn as of June 1, 2004. A new opinion, authored by Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel, is dated December 30, 2004. It specifically rejects Yoo?s definition of torture, and admits that a defendant?s motives to protect national security will not shield him from a torture prosecution. The rescission of the August 2002 memo constitutes an admission by the Justice Department that the legal reasoning in that memo was wrong. But for 22 months, it was in effect, which sanctioned and led to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]John Yoo admitted the coercive interrogation ?policies were part of a common, unifying approach to the war on terrorism.? Yoo and other Department of Justice lawyers, including Jay Bybee, David Addington, William Haynes and Alberto Gonzalez, were part of a common plan to violate U.S. and international laws outlawing torture. It was reasonably foreseeable that the advice they gave would result in great physical or mental harm or death to many detainees. Indeed, more than 100 have died, many from torture.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]ABC News reported last month that the National Security Council Principals Committee consisting of Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft met in the White House and micromanaged the torture of terrorism suspects by approving specific torture techniques such as waterboarding. Bush admitted, "Yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]These top U.S. officials are liable for war crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act and torture under the Torture Statute. They ordered the torture that was carried out by the interrogators. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, used at Nuremberg and enshrined in the Army Field Manual, commanders, all the way up the chain of command to the commander in chief, can be liable for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them, and they did nothing to stop or prevent it. The Bush officials ordered the torture after seeking legal cover from their lawyers.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]But Yoo and the other Justice Department lawyers who wrote the enabling memos are also liable for the same offenses. They were an integral part of a criminal conspiracy to violate our criminal laws. Yoo admitted in an Esquire interview last month that he knew interrogators would take action based on what he advised.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The President can no more order the commission of torture than he can order the commission of genocide, or establish a system of slavery, or wage a war of aggression.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]A Select Committee of Congress should launch an immediate and thorough investigation of the circumstances under which torture was authorized and rationalized. The high officials of our government and their lawyers who advised them should be investigated and prosecuted by a Special Prosecutor, independent of the Justice Department, for their crimes.

[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]John Yoo, Jay Byee, and David Addington should be subjected to particular scrutiny because of the seriousness of their roles in misusing the rule of law and legal analysis to justify torture and other crimes in flagrant violation of domestic and international law.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This essay is adapted from Marjorie Cohn's testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
of the House Judiciary Committee[/SIZE][/FONT].

​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and author of Cowboy Republic.
[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn05062008.html
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: A Question Of Torture

6) The Munchkin Man thanks President George W. Bush each and every day for keeping the Munchkin Man safe from any further terrorist attacks after the date of September 11, 2001 and until his last day in office.

When were YOU ever the victim of a terrorist attack?

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Clinton protected the MM longer than Bush yet I don't ever see him
thanking Mr Clinton ....

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

I don't like torture

Then why does Doc Mercer advocate the physical torture of Condoleezza Rice?

As Doc Mercer wrote in his very own words in Post #6 of this thread:

Rice up first getting the living shit beat out of her would be great PPV ....

Why does Doc Mercer advocate the use of torture for America's leaders and oppose the use of torture for America's enemies?

I believe in just punishment for War Criminals ....

The Munchkin Man believes in just punishment for terrorists and all other enemies of America, both foreign and domestic.

Munchkin Man

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Clinton protected the MM longer than Bush yet I don't ever see him thanking Mr Clinton ....

It was Bill Clinton who assisted in causing the tragic terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, by allowing Osama Bin Laden to get away, during his administration.

Read all about it here:

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Munchkin Man

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

When were YOU ever the victim of a terrorist attack?

Although the Munchkin Man was not directly or physically victimized by a terrorist attack, the Munchkin Man was deeply traumatized by the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, and the Munchkin Man had to seek out and receive psychiatric treatment.

Munchkin Man

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: A Question Of Torture

The dirty little secret about torture is that it works and has kept Americans safe from another Islamofascist attack.

But hey, we're the Obambi administration: empirical facts must not get in the way of our unhinged far left ideology.:doh1

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

To the Munchkin Man's Question.

My answer is C.

Title 18, Part 1, Section 113c of United States Code.

CHAPTER 113C?TORTURE

>>Rest Snipped<<

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

Greetings Road Dawg:

The Munchkin Man would like to commend you and thank you for being the first poster on this Forum to have the honesty and the courage to answer the Munchkin Man's question.

The Munchkin Man also thanks you for providing the legal documents and references to support your answer, as well as the article by Marjorie Cohn.

In contrast, the Munchkin Man is not always a legalistic moralizer.

The Munchkin Man believes that there are instances when it is appropriate to go outside of the law in order to take the right course of action and the best course of action.

Accordingly, the Munchkin Man believes that the torture of a terrorist suspect who gives up the location of Osama Bin Laden, resulting in the capture of Osama Bin Laden, is one of those instances.

His capture could very well prevent another terrorist attack and save thousands of American lives.

The Munchkin Man believes that the torture of a terrorist suspect is well worth the prevention of another terrorist attack and the saving of thousands of American lives.

Simply put, the Munchkin Man's answer is Choice A.

Best Wishes,

Munchkin Man

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

The dirty little secret about torture is that it works and has kept Americans safe from another Islamofascist attack.

Right On!

Munchkin Man

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

The Munchkin Man questions this finding.

Munchkin Man

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Assuming for the purposes of the "bit" by the person who calls himself Munchkin Man that the buffoon's lies were committed "in the interest of protection America's national security," Justice Brandeis has an appropriate response: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

Such as Barack Obama and the anti-Capitalist policies he has recklessly engineered, resulting in what is now appears to be a runaway train headed down the destructive path of Socialism?

Munchkin Man

 

[Mr. Sanderson]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Although the Munchkin Man was not directly or physically victimized by a terrorist attack, the Munchkin Man was deeply traumatized by the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, and the Munchkin Man had to seek out and receive psychiatric treatment.

Munchkin Man

You are a true dope. Give it a rest, with the pussy-ass BS.

:doh1

 

[Mr. Sanderson]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Greetings:

The Munchkin Man has a question to ask the participants of this Forum in regard to the use of torture.

Here goes:

If you knew for certain that Osama Bin Laden was still alive.........

And if you also knew for certain that the use of torture, including the practice known as waterboarding, of a particular terrorist suspect would result in that suspect's disclosure of the exact location where Osama Bin Laden was hiding.............

And if you also knew for certain that this information would result in the definite capture of Osama Bin Laden................

Would you approve of the torture of this terrorist suspect?

Choose one of the following answers:

A) Yes, definitely.

B) It would depend upon the level of torture.

C) No, definitely not.

If you chose Choice C, please explain why.

Munchkin Man

C. No

If we as citizens must follow the rules, so should we as government and military.

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: A Question Of Torture

C. No

If we as citizens must follow the rules, so should we as government and military.

Wrong.

Most citizens don't even need to think about the "rules" of war, thanks to our glorious military who do all the dirty work and heavy lifting.

Newsflash: There are no "rules" when your enemy has sworn to kill you and thousands of your citizens.

You libs still cling to the naive Mr Rogers see-no-evil-hear-no-evil mindset that terrorism is a police matter, don't ya?

 

[diggin'4gold]

Re: A Question Of Torture

The Munchkin Man believes that there are instances when it is appropriate to go outside of the law in order to take the right course of action and the best course of action.

Some real sound logic in the above statement, as long as he thinks it's OK, then it's OK?

At least he acknowledges that torture is illegal.

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Contrarian yapping on this issue is about as funny as Palin yapping on
Foreign Policy issues ...

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

You are a true dope. Give it a rest, with the pussy-ass BS.

:doh1

As long as freedom, justice, truth, morality, and the American way remain as targets of destruction by the Obama administration, the Munchkin Man will never "give it a rest."

The Munchkin Man shall carry on the good fight.

Perhaps, the following song will inspire you to join:

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/YJgt2ktRJME&hl=en&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

The Munchkin Man hopes you will be deeply moved by this song and its message, as well as by the Christian righteousness that shines through the sparkling eyes of these fine young children.


GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Munchkin Man

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

As long as freedom, justice, truth, morality, and the American way remain as targets of destruction by the Obama administration, the Munchkin Man will never "give it a rest."

YOU MUST HAVE HAD 8 RESTLESS YEARS UNDER BUSH THEN ....

 

[4625]

Re: A Question Of Torture

I wish to point out the obvious:

Internet troll

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search
<!-- start content -->
On the Internet, a troll is a person who posts messages that create controversy or an angry response without adding content to the discussion, often intentionally, merely as a ludibrium. Though technically different from flaming, which is an unmistakable direct personal attack, trolls often resort to innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objective, which is to create controversy for its own sake, discredit those with whom they disagree, or sabotage discussion by creating an intimidating atmosphere.



Motivation

Internet trolls tend to have inferiority complexes and difficulty with authority. Unable to confront their troubles offline, these sociopaths turn their efforts to an Internet environment. The environment allows them the luxury of complete or relative anonymity. The environment also prevents other users from responding with physical violence or intimidation.
The internal sense of inferiority held by Internet trolls stems from lack of power in their own lives.



Examples

Common types of troll messages or activities:

• off topic messages ? "Can anyone help me make a webpage?" "No, this is a music forum."
• inflammatory messages ? "You are an idiot for including this type of message in your list."
• messages containing an obvious flaw or error ? "I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
• absurdly naive or politically controversial messages -- "I think George W. Bush is the best President ever"
• posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error.
• unable to walk away from an argument.
• makes loud claims to be on the defensive, but the claims are a guise for their aggressive maneuvers.
• passive aggressive name calling, in which no names are mentioned, but are implied.

An example of a troll message in the newer sense would be one that denounces a particular religion in a religion newsgroup -- though historically, this would have been called "flamebait".
A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting content obviously severely contradictory to the focus of the group or forum- for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum, or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET group alt.fan.dragons.



Dealing with trolls

There is some generally-accepted wisdom about dealing with Internet trolls: "Don't feed the trolls, that will only encourage them." That is, do not respond to them, that is the attention they desire. Or, at best, one will be drawn into dialogues that waste your time. Somebody who does respond to them is likely to hear "YHBT. YHL. HAND." from other members of the group, which means "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day."

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

I wish to point out the obvious:

Internet troll

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search
<!-- start content -->
On the Internet, a troll is a person who posts messages that create controversy or an angry response without adding content to the discussion, often intentionally, merely as a ludibrium. Though technically different from flaming, which is an unmistakable direct personal attack, trolls often resort to innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objective, which is to create controversy for its own sake, discredit those with whom they disagree, or sabotage discussion by creating an intimidating atmosphere.



Motivation

Internet trolls tend to have inferiority complexes and difficulty with authority. Unable to confront their troubles offline, these sociopaths turn their efforts to an Internet environment. The environment allows them the luxury of complete or relative anonymity. The environment also prevents other users from responding with physical violence or intimidation.
The internal sense of inferiority held by Internet trolls stems from lack of power in their own lives.



Examples

Common types of troll messages or activities:

• off topic messages ? "Can anyone help me make a webpage?" "No, this is a music forum."
• inflammatory messages ? "You are an idiot for including this type of message in your list."
• messages containing an obvious flaw or error ? "I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
• absurdly naive or politically controversial messages -- "I think George W. Bush is the best President ever"
• posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error.
• unable to walk away from an argument.
• makes loud claims to be on the defensive, but the claims are a guise for their aggressive maneuvers.
• passive aggressive name calling, in which no names are mentioned, but are implied.

An example of a troll message in the newer sense would be one that denounces a particular religion in a religion newsgroup -- though historically, this would have been called "flamebait".
A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting content obviously severely contradictory to the focus of the group or forum- for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum, or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET group alt.fan.dragons.



Dealing with trolls

There is some generally-accepted wisdom about dealing with Internet trolls: "Don't feed the trolls, that will only encourage them." That is, do not respond to them, that is the attention they desire. Or, at best, one will be drawn into dialogues that waste your time. Somebody who does respond to them is likely to hear "YHBT. YHL. HAND." from other members of the group, which means "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day."

Greetings 4625:

The Munchkin Man would like to thank you for the public service you have provided by posting the valuable information about trolls.

The Munchkin Man hopes that Doc Mercer will be able to recognize himself and take corrective actions.

Best Wishes,

Munchkin Man

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Greetings Road Dawg:

The Munchkin Man would like to commend you and thank you for being the first poster on this Forum to have the honesty and the courage to answer the Munchkin Man's question.

The Munchkin Man also thanks you for providing the legal documents and references to support your answer, as well as the article by Marjorie Cohn.

In contrast, the Munchkin Man is not always a legalistic moralizer.

The Munchkin Man believes that there are instances when it is appropriate to go outside of the law in order to take the right course of action and the best course of action.

Accordingly, the Munchkin Man believes that the torture of a terrorist suspect who gives up the location of Osama Bin Laden, resulting in the capture of Osama Bin Laden, is one of those instances.

His capture could very well prevent another terrorist attack and save thousands of American lives.

The Munchkin Man believes that the torture of a terrorist suspect is well worth the prevention of another terrorist attack and the saving of thousands of American lives.

Simply put, the Munchkin Man's answer is Choice A.

Best Wishes,

Munchkin Man

Not as long as the LAW says it's not. Mark it down that the Munchkin Man has NO RESPECT for American law.

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Wrong.

Most citizens don't even need to think about the "rules" of war, thanks to our glorious military who do all the dirty work and heavy lifting.

Newsflash: There are no "rules" when your enemy has sworn to kill you and thousands of your citizens.

You libs still cling to the naive Mr Rogers see-no-evil-hear-no-evil mindset that terrorism is a police matter, don't ya?

Mark it down, Joe C, the Canadian, has no respect for American LAW.

 

[Munchkin Man]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Not as long as the LAW says it's not. Mark it down that the Munchkin Man has NO RESPECT for American law.

It isn't that the Munchkin Man has NO RESPECT for American law.

It would be more accurate to say that the Munchkin Man has MORE RESPECT for human life and national security.

Munchkin Man

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

Dawg:

:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO

 

[Doc Mercer]

Re: A Question Of Torture

I bet ol Munchkin wouldn't mind getting tortured by Coulter or Malkin ...

"Ohhhh yesssss .... Mommy ... I am a Muslim ... spank me again !!!"

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: A Question Of Torture

It isn't that the Munchkin Man has NO RESPECT for American law.

It would be more accurate to say that the Munchkin Man has MORE RESPECT for human life and national security.

Munchkin Man

If America is to be a nation of LAWS, then those laws MUST be observed and followed.

 

[Mr. Sanderson]

Re: A Question Of Torture

If America is to be a nation of LAWS, then those laws MUST be observed and followed.

I thought this was fairly obvious observation. I didn't know it had anything to do with being "a lib" like Joe Canadian suggested.

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: A Question Of Torture

I thought this was fairly obvious observation. I didn't know it had anything to do with being "a lib" like Joe Canadian suggested.

Joe Canadian illustrates the "MAIN" difference between D's and R's... by the LAWS they pick and chose to observe and the ones they want to IGNORE.