VABills Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Details... details. That article was from 2003. The other was a patent application from 2007. Th technology has progressed. And those aren't even the top secret government developed units. Put it in their face. They never shave; therefore, they'll never see it. Or arm pit - no one's gettin too close to one of those guy's pits. Simple. The only thing I don't understand is why they're not doing this. You ignored my original arguments. How are you going to implant them with these magic beans without them knowing? And what do you say to the media when they find out? And they will find out because they always find out. I know you'll magically say that Bush ordered it and forgot to tell the Messiah. Therefore since there wasn't an order to countermand it went forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 And I don't usterstand how you're so willing to just crumple up the writs of the Geneva Convention and toss them in the trash because you think there's a more efficient way to get people to talk. We can get information and intelligence from terrorists without selling our soul to do it. I'm not concerned about the health of these "people." I'd be more worried about your family than our so-called image and some silly Geneva convention... there is nothing conventional about this "new" kind of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I'm not concerned about the health of these "people." I'd be more worried about your family than our so-called image and some silly Geneva convention... there is nothing conventional about this "new" kind of war. That "silly Geneva Convention" set international laws for treatment of prisoners of war and we ratified it...which means we should abide by it. Call me old fashioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You ignored my original arguments. How are you going to implant them with these magic beans without them knowing? And what do you say to the media when they find out? And they will find out because they always find out. I know you'll magically say that Bush ordered it and forgot to tell the Messiah. Therefore since there wasn't an order to countermand it went forward. A little anesthesia and it's a simple and quick procedure. Those guys would think it's just some new form of torture or something and just be glad it didn't involve water. Where's the evidence? It's all destroyed when the "bombs" land. Great plausible deniability... I like it. Bush ordered it. But we've decided in the interest of bi-partisanship that we're not investigating or looking into criminal charges. Obama has already said that. So, it all wraps neatly up. Good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Correct 'most' and 'should not' because there are no absolutes in life. Good. You are capable of learning. My brother doesn't plan to or intend to fly planes into skyscrapers and if he did I expect another country to look for him halfway across the world and put him away for life. And whatever consequences befall him whether it is torture or tea-time at noon will be his problem. I assume you expect America to provide tea time to appease the savages. So which person currently incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay has actually flown or intended to fly a plane into a skyscraper? You don't actually know, nor does anyone else because our government isn't telling anyone. They're simply taking people into custody and not letting them out. But when your gang of thieves was in charge, you trusted that they wouldn't take people into custody who don't deserve it Is your thought process the same now that Nancy Pelosi could be the one signing the order? Are you liberals from another planet? Are you pod people--is your body just a shell for something else that exists inside? I really really don't understand you. Not trying to be insulting I just don't understand you. Now I'm a liberal. That's just awesome. You're a friggin' idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Good. You are capable of learning. So which person currently incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay has actually flown or intended to fly a plane into a skyscraper? You don't actually know, nor does anyone else because our government isn't telling anyone. They're simply taking people into custody and not letting them out. But when your gang of thieves was in charge, you trusted that they wouldn't take people into custody who don't deserve it Is your thought process the same now that Nancy Pelosi could be the one signing the order? Now I'm a liberal. That's just awesome. You're a friggin' idiot. You're right. I am a friggin idiot for thinking I would get anywhere talking to someone who worries about detained terrorists. Yeah..let's all be humanitarians (violins playing) and release them. Those poor prisoners--they did nothing wrong..I'm sure they're completely innocent. I know...let's give them those construction jobs and full benefits the whites can't have. Maybe we can have one of them White House balls for them..I'm sure the Hollywood ilk will show up and want to party with them. The theme--Hate Bush and love my terrorists! Yup, I'm an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 That "silly Geneva Convention" set international laws for treatment of prisoners of war and we ratified it...which means we should abide by it. Call me old fashioned. Not this crap again :lol: They are NOT POWs and therefore ARE NOT UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Not this crap again :lol: They are NOT POWs and therefore ARE NOT UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION. That's what i said...but I'm the friggin' idiot. Maybe every lib who wants them freed should have them stay at their house as one of them European student-nanny types--you know those pretty 19 year old girls visiting for a few months (what do you call them?). Mother: So Ahib-ALi Kalil, I'm going to run some errands, would you watch my twin two-year olds? I should be back soon. If they cry, just sing them Yankee Doodle Dandy...they like that song. By the way, do you like snacks? People magazine? I just have to say, it is so nice to have some one from another culture sharing my home with us. It's so enlightening! (Mother leaves). Ahib: DEATH TO AMERICA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 That's what i said...but I'm the friggin' idiot. Maybe every lib who wants them freed should have them stay at their house as one of them European student-nanny types--you know those pretty 19 year old girls visiting for a few months (what do you call them?). Mother: So Ahib-ALi Kalil, I'm going to run some errands, would you watch my twin two-year olds? I should be back soon. If they cry, just sing them Yankee Doodle Dandy...they like that song. By the way, do you like snacks? People magazine? I just have to say, it is so nice to have some one from another culture sharing my home with us. It's so enlightening! (Mother leaves). Ahib: DEATH TO AMERICA! Yeah, all liberals want them freed. That's what we said. Apparently, "not tortured" is synonymous with "set free"...and that little dialogue of yours is soooo clever and apropos to the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yeah, all liberals want them freed. That's what we said. Apparently, "not tortured" is synonymous with "set free"...and that little dialogue of yours is soooo clever and apropos to the conversation. You have been deceived by Obama and his minions. And while we are at it why should we close the prision at Gitmo ? Gitmo is ours we own it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yeah, all liberals want them freed. That's what we said. Apparently, "not tortured" is synonymous with "set free"...and that little dialogue of yours is soooo clever and apropos to the conversation. I thought it was clever. Although not exactly like how you made fun of the last president for the last eight years...you know in that vindictive humorless way that your kind breeds. I was not a huge supporter of Bush..but I respected the title and the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Not this crap again :lol: They are NOT POWs and therefore ARE NOT UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION. In 2006, the supreme court ruled (Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld) that the detainees at Gitmo were protected by Common Article 3 of the G.C. That includes torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yeah, all liberals want them freed. That's what we said. Apparently, "not tortured" is synonymous with "set free"...and that little dialogue of yours is soooo clever and apropos to the conversation. Tortured? I think most frat houses do worse.True torture is when you maim someone for life, and I don't think playing Jimi Hendrix all night qualifies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 In 2006, the supreme court ruled (Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld) that the detainees at Gitmo were protected by Common Article 3 of the G.C. That includes torture. Hamdan Rocks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Tortured? I think most frat houses do worse.True torture is when you maim someone for life, and I don't think playing Jimi Hendrix all night qualifies. Oh yea? How about waterboarding? I know my frat didn't do that to me when I pledged. And yes, sensory/sleep deprivation DOES qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You're right. I am a friggin idiot for thinking I would get anywhere talking to someone who worries about detained terrorists. I'm not worried about detaining terrorists. I'm worried about detaining innocent people. If they're terrorists, charge them, try them, convict them, sentence them. That's what AMERICA does. Yeah..let's all be humanitarians (violins playing) and release them. Those poor prisoners--they did nothing wrong..I'm sure they're completely innocent. I know...let's give them those construction jobs and full benefits the whites can't have. Maybe we can have one of them White House balls for them..I'm sure the Hollywood ilk will show up and want to party with them. The theme--Hate Bush and love my terrorists! Yup, I'm an idiot. If that's what you're basing your "process" on, then you absolutely are an idiot. I love how everything has to be completely devoid of reality. That's right, everyone who wants Guantanamo Bay closed certainly wants to offer citizenship, "full benefits that whites can't have", etc. And we all love terrorists. It's not because I've studied history and I realize how dangerous it is to give ANY government the ability to put people in prison forever without charges. That's almost never led to abuse. Try some Midol. Maybe then you'll be able to step back and actually look at the situation without the stupid goddamn rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I'm not worried about detaining terrorists. I'm worried about detaining innocent people. If they're terrorists, charge them, try them, convict them, sentence them. That's what AMERICA does. If that's what you're basing your "process" on, then you absolutely are an idiot. I love how everything has to be completely devoid of reality. That's right, everyone who wants Guantanamo Bay closed certainly wants to offer citizenship, "full benefits that whites can't have", etc. And we all love terrorists. It's not because I've studied history and I realize how dangerous it is to give ANY government the ability to put people in prison forever without charges. That's almost never led to abuse. Try some Midol. Maybe then you'll be able to step back and actually look at the situation without the stupid goddamn rhetoric. If they were on the battelfield then that's where they should have stayed ...DEAD. And yes you are a bleeding heart liberal. Their countries do not want them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 If they were on the battelfield then that's where they should have stayed ...DEAD. If? You mean all of them weren't? Oh, you don't know the answer so you're posing hypotheticals. And yes you are a bleeding heart liberal. You hear that Debbie? I'm just like you! Their countries do not want them back. I'm glad you're able to speak for them. Or is this an example of a conservative believing what the "liberal media" is telling them because it suits your ridiculous position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 In 2006, the supreme court ruled (Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld) that the detainees at Gitmo were protected by Common Article 3 of the G.C. That includes torture. Actually, that's not what the decision was. The decision was that the military tribunals as established didn't meet the requirements of the UCMJ and Geneva Convention, specifically pertaining to detainees being brought up before a tribunal before their POW status was determined (both the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions require a detainee of indeterminate status to have their status as a POW established, positively or negatively, before any other proceedings take place.) It's also a complete rat's nest of a decision, particularly when combined with Rasul v. Bush and thus simultaneously AND ILLEGALLY providing the contradictory protections of habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention. Both decisions combined nicely outline the simple fact that no one knows who or what laws or treaties have any jurisdiction over these gomers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I'm not worried about detaining terrorists. I'm worried about detaining innocent people. If they're terrorists, charge them, try them, convict them, sentence them. That's what AMERICA does. If that's what you're basing your "process" on, then you absolutely are an idiot. I love how everything has to be completely devoid of reality. That's right, everyone who wants Guantanamo Bay closed certainly wants to offer citizenship, "full benefits that whites can't have", etc. And we all love terrorists. It's not because I've studied history and I realize how dangerous it is to give ANY government the ability to put people in prison forever without charges. That's almost never led to abuse. Try some Midol. Maybe then you'll be able to step back and actually look at the situation without the stupid goddamn rhetoric. Darin, who did you learn your history from--Bill Ayers, and all those 'wack job' college professors MSNBC trudges on their lunatic broadcasts? Wasn't Gitmo around for Bill Clinton too? I didn't hear the libs worrying about detainees then? Why does it become a problem only after 3000 dead New Yorkers and few hundred others in PA and DC? Is it because your ilk likes terrorists and you want America destroyed? That's why you hate Bush! Because he protects Americans...you fukking traitor! Breshnev was right..the enemy is inside America--it's the fukking liberals and their alien (as in pod people) thinking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts