Torture

Mottleydude said:
Ahh actually it does. Torture is prohibited by the 8th ammendment. Enhanced interrogation is just a euphamism for torture so it to is prohibited by the 8th ammendment. Due to that, these cowards can only legally advocate torture against non-US Citizens so thank God we have an 8th ammendment or these cowards would be torturing us.
Click to expand...

By the way, the 8th ammendment also supports my point that torturing is un-American.
 
Damocles said:
Here is the last time I warn you for this Southern Man. No descriptions however phrased, however listed, for whatever reason, of sex with minors is acceptable on this site. Even if it is imaginary, of the past, of the future. It doesn't matter who it is toward, if that person is no longer a minor, or if it is phrased in some way to give you a sguiggle out of it not directly mentioning they were a child...


It simply isn't acceptable and will not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Damocles said:
Here is the last time I warn you for this Southern Man. No descriptions however phrased, however listed, for whatever reason, of sex with minors is acceptable on this site. Even if it is imaginary, of the past, of the future. It doesn't matter who it is toward, if that person is no longer a minor, or if it is phrased in some way to give you a sguiggle out of it not directly mentioning they were a child...


It simply isn't acceptable and will not be tolerated.
Click to expand...
I never said maineman was a minor when these events took place. Do you know something that I don't?
 
Southern Man said:
I never said maineman was a minor when these events took place. Do you know something that I don't?
Click to expand...
Do not argue, read the post you quoted. It doesn't matter how it is couched, even if it gives you some sort of squiggle room to claim it wasn't about a child.

I don't give a damn what your excuse is, this is a line I will not let you cross on this board. I have seen where that sick crap will take us and we never want to travel there.

And for your info. It does go the other direction too, and just as strongly and with as much vehemence. It is illegal, and I would be liable for it and most of all I just don't want those ideas running in my mind.
 
Southern Man said:
Since you admit that I don't have secrets the only reason to water board me would be to satisfy your sadism. So you must be lying about not being one.
Click to expand...

Well wait a second. If it's not torture how could I be a sadist? You said your self it's not torture. Which is it? Is it torture or is it not? I'm just asking you to walk the talk since you say it's not torture. How can I be a sadist if waterboarding isn't torture?
 
leaningright said:
This makes a whole lot of sense.......we'll detain you and your car (and possibly your family) while we get a warrant to search it. This could take a few hours depending on which judge is available. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Read the Fourth Amendment. It makes no exception for cars. And most car searches that take place now would NEVER meet the probably cause requirement.
 
maineman said:
I don't bear false witness to anything. I have never said that I was not a sinner. I am. So are you. I ask myself all the time what would Jesus do...what would Jesus think of me... obviously, you don't engage in such reflection.

By my reading, Roosevelt disapproved of waterboarding and, in fact, ordered an American general court martialled for allowing it.

And my point was: I certainly do not think that Teddy Roosevelt would have approved of waterboarding if, in his day, it had been a violation of the supreme law of the land.

Clearly... you do. Like I said... your approval of waterboarding in the face of the UN Convention against torture shows me your disrespect for the constitution as well as your moral deficit in being perfectly happy with the United States of America torturing captives. I stand apart from you on both points.
Click to expand...

waterboarding at this point has not been defined as torture...as you admitted earlier, no one has been convicted, so you are dead wrong that the UN convention outlaws waterboarding. it has not been determined by a court of law whether the waterboarding done a few years ago is in fact torture...

your opinion is not fact

a word of advice, instead of lying, simply not answering might be more beneficial....
 
Damocles said:
Do not argue, read the post you quoted. It doesn't matter how it is couched, even if it gives you some sort of squiggle room to claim it wasn't about a child.

I don't give a damn what your excuse is, this is a line I will not let you cross on this board. I have seen where that sick crap will take us and we never want to travel there.

And for your info. It does go the other direction too, and just as strongly and with as much vehemence. It is illegal, and I would be liable for it.
Click to expand...
If I meant that he did it as a child, then I would have used the term "pedophilia" rather than "homosexuality". Are you suggesting that these terms are somehow related?
 
Mottleydude said:
Well wait a second. If it's not torture how could I be a sadist? You said your self it's not torture. Which is it? Is it torture or is it not? I'm just asking you to walk the talk since you say it's not torture. How can I be a sadist if waterboarding isn't torture?
Click to expand...
You think it's torture, and you want to do it so that makes you a sadist. It doesn't matter what I think of the act. We could be talking about tickling toes. :)
 
Yurt said:
waterboarding at this point has not been defined as torture...as you admitted earlier, no one has been convicted, so you are dead wrong that the UN convention outlaws waterboarding. it has not been determined by a court of law whether the waterboarding done a few years ago is in fact torture...

your opinion is not fact

a word of advice, instead of lying, simply not answering might be more beneficial....
Click to expand...


read the definition of torture in the UN Convention and then tell me, with a straight face, that waterboarding does not clearly fit that definition.

do I need to post it for you AGAIN?
 
maineman said:
read the definition of torture in the UN Convention and then tell me, with a straight face, that waterboarding does not clearly fit that definition.

do I need to post it for you AGAIN?
Click to expand...

you already admitted that no court of law has ruled it is torture...and that is why you want hearings, investigations etc...so now you're, as usual, changing your tune and saying it is in fact torture when you previously said, yurt, you're right, no court has said it is...

i'm not a judge and my opinion will not determine the reality...unlike you i accept that my opinion is not fact. unlike i am truthful.
 
maineman said:
read the definition of torture in the UN Convention and then tell me, with a straight face, that waterboarding does not clearly fit that definition.

do I need to post it for you AGAIN?
Click to expand...
It could say that tickling was torture and it would not supersede the Constitution, because the actual Supreme Law of the Land is based on plain English. In spite of your effort to usurp it by lying.
 
Yurt said:
you already admitted that no court of law has ruled it is torture...and that is why you want hearings, investigations etc...so now you're, as usual, changing your tune and saying it is in fact torture when you previously said, yurt, you're right, no court has said it is...

i'm not a judge and my opinion will not determine the reality...unlike you i accept that my opinion is not fact. unlike i am truthful.
Click to expand...

so... until Judge Ito's court ruled on the Simpson case, Simpson and Goldman had not been murdered?

Just because no court has recently ruled that waterboarding was torture... does not change the wording of the definition of torture that is the supreme law of our land:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."


I ask you again...can you honestly say, with a straight face, that waterboarding does not, IN YOUR OPINION, fit that definition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top