Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 What are you talking about? California has had auto emissions checks for year. Many countries in Europe have higher standards than us. Goodness even just catching up to the countries around us on this would be a step forward. Ya, I'm sure if they made a law.. they'd find a legal definition for the term. What am I talking about? It's not the emmission checks that are going to cost. It's the cost associated with the R&D and changes needed to get cars and any other CO2 emitting industries to comply with the NEW starndards. If they made a law regarding green companies? And what laws are you suggesting they create? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 What am I talking about? It's not the emmission checks that are going to cost. It's the cost associated with the R&D and changes needed to get cars and any other CO2 emitting industries to comply with the NEW starndards. If they made a law regarding green companies? And what laws are you suggesting they create? They can set auto emissions as high as they want. In a few weeks, that'll only impact foreign companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 They can set auto emissions as high as they want. In a few weeks, that'll only impact foreign companies. Now the motives of their evils ways are becoming clearer. Genius, pure genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Sry I modified my post above to the legal precedent. You should have read the whole thing. They were convicted on civil rights and constitutional grounds, which the Bush administration had already established as policy did not apply to "detainees" or "enemy combattants". The really interesting thing in that article is that the administration lawyers who gave opinions completely missed that case. That's pretty shoddy work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 You should have read the whole thing. They were convicted on civil rights and constitutional grounds, which the Bush administration had already established as policy did not apply to "detainees" or "enemy combattants". Ok. In 1968 a soldier was investigated and court marshalled for waterboarding a Vietnamese prisoner. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100402005.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Torture is not a fun subject on the whole, but neither is recapping my neighbors diving out of skyscrapers so they don't burn to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Ok. In 1968 a soldier was investigated and court marshalled for waterboarding a Vietnamese prisoner. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100402005.html WTF do you not understand? vietnamese prisoner in the vietnam war are considered POW's. The people in gitmo and other non-status are not subject to the same rights. Is that really that !@#$ing hard for you to !@#$ing get through your little pea brain? And stop posting crap from liberal print papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 It doesn't say anyone was court marshelled. It says the army investigated, maybe It says "The picture reportedly led to an Army investigation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Torture is not a fun subject on the whole, but neither is recapping my neighbors diving out of skyscrapers so they don't burn to death. We have met the enemy, and he is us. I am religious somewhat, I do think we should behave like civilized people, yet I do not find water boarding truly evil. It is however on the cusp of being so and the sheer number of supporters scares me. The ironic bit, many of these are the ones complaining about "fascism" or "socialism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Ok. In 1968 a soldier was investigated and court marshalled for waterboarding a Vietnamese prisoner. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100402005.html And yet, the article says that a picture led to an investigation, not that a soldier was investigated and court-"marshalled" [sic]. Is English even your first language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 And yet, the article says that a picture led to an investigation, not that a soldier was investigated and court-"marshalled" [sic]. Is English even your first language? No it says reportedly. That means maybe, maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 We have met the enemy, and he is us. I am religious somewhat, I do think we should behave like civilized people, yet I do not find water boarding truly evil. It is however on the cusp of being so and the sheer number of supporters scares me. The ironic bit, many of these are the ones complaining about "fascism" or "socialism". Im sorry, I cant consider ANYTHING "torture" where thirty seconds after the action starts, the subject is unharmed, unmarked and as if it never happenned. Pulling someones fingers out their sockets it torture. Making someone "think" something (in this case, that they are drowing) is not. I love this....making someone "feel uncomfortable" is now "torture." What a bunch of pussies we have become. And lets get this right...the few people who endured this masterminded one of the most terrible slaughters ever. Not in this Country's history. Ever. Whats next? I gotta feel sorry for Hitler becuase he was a bit chilly in the bunker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Why do you argue with this ignoramus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 And yet, the article says that a picture led to an investigation, not that a soldier was investigated and court-"marshalled" [sic]. Is English even your first language? Dude it's a message board. If my grammar/spelling is the best you can attack me for.. I think I'm doing a very good job. That's like attacking obama for using a teleprompter. Anyways.. regardless of that article, the fact of the matter is that soldier was curt-murshalleed whether I spell it right or not, and whether that article was informative or not. You can do your own research to verify it. And he was cart-mortalled for waterboarding a POW. How can you assert that waterboarding is not illegal in this country in the face of these three precedents (japan, texas, and the soldier)? Name one time someone has been found waterboarding and not been punished for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Dude it's a message board. If my grammar/spelling is the best you can attack me for.. I think I'm doing a very good job. That's like attacking obama for using a teleprompter. Anyways.. regardless of that article, the fact of the matter is that soldier was curt-murshalleed whether I spell it right or not, and whether that article was informative or not. You can do your own research to verify it. And he was cart-mortalled for waterboarding a POW. How can you assert that waterboarding is not illegal in this country in the face of these three precedents (japan, texas, and the soldier)? Name one time someone has been found waterboarding and not been punished for it. Still not getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 How can you assert that waterboarding is not illegal in this country in the face of these three precedents (japan, texas, and the soldier)? Name one time someone has been found waterboarding and not been punished for it. I dunno? Because there's no law that outright bans it. One would wonder why there hasn't been a peep in the first 100 days to end this debate, as apparently all it would take is a 10 minute Congressional action and a Presidential autograph. Any day now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Dude it's a message board. If my grammar/spelling is the best you can attack me for.. I think I'm doing a very good job. That's like attacking obama for using a teleprompter. Actually, I was attacking your complete lack of reading comprehension. Thanks for demonstrating the point. How can you assert that waterboarding is not illegal in this country in the face of these three precedents (japan, texas, and the soldier)? Name one time someone has been found waterboarding and not been punished for it. Ok. In 1968 a picture of a soldier waterboarding a Vietnamese prisoner was investigated and did not lead to a court martial, according to the below article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100402005.html Learn to read, bonehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Ok. In 1968 a picture of a soldier waterboarding a Vietnamese prisoner was investigated and did not lead to a court martial, according to the below article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100402005.html Learn to read, bonehead. Come on. Really man? Just do a quick google search. That soldier really did get court-martialled. This is not a point we can argue about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 List of waterboarding cases and their outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Come on. Really man? Just do a quick google search. That soldier really did get court-martialled. This is not a point we can argue about. I did. And the only articles I found that agreed on events all quoted the same unnamed source. Most of them disagreed (he was court-martialled in February - no, wait, March...maybe April. He was enlisted...or an officer. He was convicted...well, maybe not...or maybe he was, but of something else.) I don't suppose you can find a actual record of the court martial and conviction, and not just apocryphal third-party statements about it, can you? Because until you do...pretty damned arguable. Once you manage to jump that little hurdle, we'll discuss the difference between the UCMJ, domestic law, and international law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts