text:
TRADITIONAL VALUES....Janet Hook and Richard Simon write today about the political price John McCain may be paying for his stance on torture and coercive interrogation, and it contains this remarkable paragraph:
"This very definitely is going to put a chilling effect on the tremendous strides he has made in the conservative evangelical community," said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, one of several conservative activists who support Bush's proposal on interrogation techniques.
Apparently an unrestricted right for the CIA to abuse prisoners is now a traditional value. Crikey.
So what's going to happen? As much as I appreciate McCain's stand on this issue, I suspect that he'll agree to watered-down language, as he did with last year's torture bill, and that this will be further watered down by a presidential signing statement that McCain knows full well will accompany the bill. So the end result will probably be: not much. But I hope he proves me wrong.
Just don't hope too hard.
Someone should grab Rev. Louis P. Sheldon by his shirt forcefully and... No, wait, that's one of the CIA's torture techniques.
I'm not sure how things will break when the public learns more details of "prisoner abuse." Will McCain look like a hero when he stands against inducing hypothermia on terrorist suspects (not even the North Vietnamese did that to him when he was a POW), or will he look silly because he thinks a belly slap is too harsh?
Yeah, don't. He isn't going to prove you wrong; we've all seen his stripes.
If you actually read the Old Testament, you'll see that violence and mayhem are actually traditional Christianist values.
A little smiting here, some child sacrifices there.
And remember fear' "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God."
This is perfectly consistent.
Apparently an unrestricted right for the CIA to abuse prisoners is now a traditional value.
Nonsense Kevin. You just don't understand the founding fathers didn't want Congress to violate the President's war-making powers. This is what the anti-"torture" law does because it restricts George W Bush's war-making powers. This is explained by Constitutional law expert John Yoo and professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law in the New York Times.
"A reinvigorated presidency enrages President Bushs critics, who seem to believe that the Constitution created a system of judicial or congressional supremacy. Perhaps this is to be expected of the generation of legislators that views the presidency through the lens of Vietnam and Watergate. But the founders intended that wrongheaded or obsolete legislation and judicial decisions would be checked by presidential action, just as executive overreaching is to be checked by the courts and Congress.
The changes of the 1970s occurred largely because we had no serious national security threats to United States soil, but plenty of paranoia in the wake of Richard Nixons use of national security agencies to spy on political opponents. Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, which purports to cut off presidential uses of force abroad after 60 days. It passed the Budget and Impoundment Act to eliminate the modest presidential power to rein in wasteful spending. The Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act required the government to get a warrant from a special court to conduct wiretapping for national security reasons.
These statutes have produced little but dysfunction, from flouting of the war powers law, to ever-higher pork barrel spending, to the wall between intelligence and law enforcement that contributed to our failure to stop the 9/11 attacks."
Christians love torture. Didn't you see Mel's movie??
You forget another crucial step in neutering legislative opposition to a Bush administration position: the House/Senate conference committee. Don't expect any McCain-endorsed positions to survive these late night, closed door meetings. Opposition legislation checks in, but it doesn't check out.
Charles, Is it really that uncommon knowledge that much of the "eye for an eye" stuff in the Old Testament was replaced by the words of Jesus? That's like first day Bible class stuff... or a couple seconds actually looking into the issue using Google.
Ah, Kelvin,
Good to see you looney libs fretting about the comfort levels of bloodthirsty terrorists who want to destroy our freedoms, but when it comes to support our boys and girls in Iraq, it's all "Let's head for the hills, abandon the military!"
"Good to see you looney libs fretting about the comfort levels of bloodthirsty terrorists who want to destroy our freedoms, but when it comes to support our boys and girls in Iraq, it's all "Let's head for the hills, abandon the military!""
Good to see you just making shit up to complain about, asshole.
My take on the Republican/ McCain endgame is pretty different from yours: after stringing this out for another week or two, Republicans cut a "compromise" deal among themselves, with Straight Talking Maverick Republican Saint John McCain , John Warner and Lindsay Graham joining hands with George Allen and every other endangered Republican and singing the national anthem on the Capitol steps while the press celebrates their courage in standing up to a White House run amok. The script has Bush backing down, not McCain.
What's it going to take for us to shake off this stupor we're in? It's painful to watch these lickspittle Republicans putting on a show of standing up to Bush, thereby inoculating themselves against the (well-deserved and otherwise devastating) charge of being Rubber Stamp Republicans while we watch it all go down like it was somebody else's business.
We may be ahead, but we should be *creaming* these guys right now. Katrina, Iraq, Abramoff, the deficit, stem cells... even the conduct of the War on Terra. There is nothing these guys are doing right, and there is no issue we need to afraid to engage them on.
same old same old.
Two words: Spanish. Inquisition.
The idea that in the year 2006 Americans are actually debating whether to write torture -- torture, the tool of the evil, perverted and weak -- into law is almost too surreal, bizarre and pathetic to contemplate. Have we truly sunk so low?
At least when the Soviets tortured people they had the good grace to deny it -- they didn't boast about it and write it into the law, as we're doing now in this sad and sickening spectacle.
Thomas1, They are? Cool!
I know, that was totally an allegory of our occupation of Iraq. A hegemonic world power occupies a middle eastern nation. One of the natives is falsely denounced by his neighbors as spreading anti-imperialist sentiment (perhaps even inspiring insurgency) and he's whisked away to the Abu Ghraib, I mean, pilate's palace, where a few bad apples maltreat and kill him.
Really, quite surprising how well the film did in the heartland considering how strongly pro-Bush voters there are said to be.
Egbert and AL- Neither one of you had a substantial agrument about HOW is it that Christian values can actually endorse the use of torture on anyone. Please give me a real example of "who would jesus torture".?
Isn't this really how the social right isn't for "values", but really "power"? there is nothing christian about it.
dj moonbat, Two words: Comfy. Chair.
BTW, the Guardian has the proposed CIA interrogation techniques for those interested. I wonder how often the "attention grab" breaks down a prisoner?
Preview is my friend.
Here's the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1874823,00.html
First of all, Bush isn't asking for the power to torture. His proposal includes using cold rooms and sleep deprivation. These aren't nice, but they different from true torture.
Second, in order to protect our troops, we need reciprocity. If we guarantee good treatment to the enemy even though the enemy treats our troops badly, then they have no reason NOT to treat our troops better.
Third, it's not a case of Bush taking dictatorial power. He's asking Congress for a law. Historically Commanders in Chief have had the power to do what they wanted to terrorists, because terrorists weren't covered by the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court made a bad decision.
Forth, the most important civil liberties step the President can take is to win the war against the terrorists. He needs to do whatever it takes to win.
You all talk about "torture", but, if you don't allow the CIA to use the interrogation techniques they are asking, what can you use?
How many lives are worth keeping a terrorist suspect from standing for a long time? Is that a winning issue?
unfortunately American chrsitians don't follow the teachings of jesus christ. They follow the teachings of the anti-christ.
Everything they do and believe in is the OPPOSITE of what jesus taught
LOVE THEY NEIGHBOR'-- American christians want to exclude, oppress, spy on and kill their neighbor
SHUN MATERIAL WEALTH - American christians worship wealth and material acquisitiveness. To them WEALTH is a "sign from God"
SHUN PUBLIC WORSHIP; KEEP GOD IN YOUR CLOSET -- Are there any people on EARTH who make such a public show of their alleged piety than American christians? I don't think so
EMBRACE THE POOR, DOWNTRODDEN, HUNGRY -- American christians sneer derisively at anyone who isnt rich and white. They regard those less fortunate as "lazy" and have no compassion for anyone whatsoever
JESUS THREW THE BANKERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE -- American christianity would not survive without MONEY which it lewdly and laciviously solitics on TV, radio, in public and every chance they get. The Church is so corrupted by money there is no faith recognizable anymore (not since the 4th century when Constantine really started corrupting the church)
JESUS SAID, IF YOU COME UPON A MAN WITH A BELIEF. . . LET HIM BE. jesus readily understood the value of freedom of worship and discouraged his followers from trying to impose their beliefs on others. American christians feel no compunction however, about pounding on your door or ringing your bell early Sunday to preach their hollow, sad values to you.
JESUS BELIEVED IN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND TAUGHT THAT TO HIS FOLLOWERS, American chrsitians use jesus as a crutch, holding to the belief that jesus' death somehow excuses their sins and allows them to continue sinning with impunity as long as they show up in church every sunday so their neighbors can see how pious they are.
JESUS WAS THE PRINCE OF PEACE -- American christians are warmongering murderers who embrace and endorse violence against all their enemies, be they abortion-performing doctors, homosexuals, or foreign "enemies"
jesus was born AFTER the Old Testament was written by Hebrew prophets and poets, etc. Jesus christ REJECTED the life style, values and false worship of the people in the old testament. He urged his followers to live a new way (HENCE THE NEW TESTAMENT)
Anyone claiming to be a christian who lives by the archaic and psychotic "gods" discussed in the Old Testament doesn't get christianity. Jesus had NOTHING to do with the Old Testament. You cant have it both ways.
JESUS REJECTED THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE TEMPLE IN POLITICS -(Render under Caeser....) American christians have done their level best to intermingle religion and politics and are now attempting to rewrite American history and turn this country into a theocracy.
has anyone checked out the New Hitler Youth???
As I said, American christians follow the anti-christ.
The Book of Revelations (which by the way says NOTHING about the "rapture" -- a completely made up NON BIBLICAL fairy tale) does predict that the faithful would be led astray by the anti-christ.
Well...it's happening right here, folks
First of all, Bush isn't asking for the power to torture.
Yes he is.
His proposal includes using cold rooms and sleep deprivation. These aren't nice, but they different from true torture.
No, they're not, pervert. They are real torture. Induced hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation are torture techniques that most every totalitarian regime, including the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Chinese Communists, used and/or use.
From Al:
"Nonsense Kevin. You just don't understand the founding fathers didn't want Congress to violate the President's war-making powers. This is what the anti-"torture" law does because it restricts George W Bush's war-making powers. This is explained by Constitutional law expert John Yoo and professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law in the New York Times."
Oh for God's sake...how much more explicit can the Founders be than THIS? From the Federalist No. 49 (note the second paragraph in particular, and BOLD type is mine of course):
"As the people are the ONLY LEGITIMATE FOUNTAIN OF POWER, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.
The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, NONE OF THEM, it is evident, CAN PRETEND TO AN EXCLUSIVE OR SUPERIOR RIGHT OF SETTLING THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THEIR RESPECTIVE POWERS; and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?
There you go, crystal clear. Two minutes with Google and he's shot down. Why are any of these people espousing exclusive executive powers given even two minutes of serious consideration in the media??
uhm Charles....there were no christians in the Old Testament, because jesus hadn't been born then.
Jesus urged people to CHANGE THEIR WAYS and stop following the Old Testament's violence and greed. Hence "Good News" and the NEW TESTAMENT.
TVA statement on this
Historically Commanders in Chief have had the power to do what they wanted to terrorists, because terrorists weren't covered by the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court made a bad decision.
The claim that "terrorists weren't covered by the Geneva Convention" is a lie, and a lie that I have exposed here time and time again, so ex-liberal cannot claim ignorance. There is no "except for terrorists" exception in the Geneva Conventions, and lawbreakers, including spies and saboteurs, are explicitly covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons.
"America´s New War Is With Faceless Enemy Who Attacks Unarmed and Innocent" TVA..
are they talking about Israel's cluster bombing of tens of thousands of unarmed, innocent Lebanese citizens
Same techniques the police use to extract confessions from Mafiosi, gangbangers, druglords, rapists, serial killers, pedophiles, kidnappers, etc. -- they talk to them. Simple interrogation and investigation. Or should we start allowing the police to torture domestic suspects as well?
Do you judge morality on whether it's a "winning issue"? For Republicans questions of good or evil may boil down to "is this helpful at election time" but for the rest of us we judge based on a higher standard.
Fundamentalism is religious fascism. Fascism is political fundamentalism.
There is cognitive dissonance, to be sure, between the message of Jesus and the behavior of totalitarians like Bush. But when it comes to the fear -- and the lack of willingness to take real responsibility for their own actions -- that rules the fundamentalists, they'll go for totalitarianism every time.
That's what Rove is counting on. That's all they have left. And you can bet the good little Fascists will goose-step to the polls in November. If the majority doesn't see it coming, and get to the polls themselves, well, they have only themselves to blame.
For frick's sake guys, Lou Sheldon and his TVC are very minor players among evangelicals and even fundamentalists.
Sheldon is closely affiliated with Bob Jones and that's about it. among evangelicals/fundies he's nowhere near as mainstream as Falwell or Robertson.
its like assuming that EarthFirst speaks for all environmentalists.
Why don't they just put Bush's picture up instead of Jesus'? They sure act that way.
they do.....check my link to the Hitler youth uhmmm i mean Jesus movie above
America was founded on the traditional human values of killing people to steal their land and enslaving people people to make that land productive. We are desperately trying to export these values to the Middle East, and McCain is hampering that effort.
I guess torture is a family value of the "Compassionate Conservative".
In other words, Bush is saying, we must behave like terrorists, in order to defeat the terrorists.
How did that golden rule thingy go again?"Stick it to others before they stick it to you."(or something like that)
If you go to Tuscany, there are a number of Torture Museums scattered about. Apparently those Renaissance chaps were quite clever with mechanical devices.
Following my trip to Tuscany, I read H. Trevor-Roper's The European Witch-Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and Other Essays. According to Trevor-Roper, through judicial torture, thousands and thousands of defendants confessed to all sorts diabolical activity. Since apparently torture is a reliable fact-gathering technique, we can only conclude that many strange things were happening in Western Europe between 1480 and 1650.
One point that - to my knowledge - no one has considered. What - exactly - is the relationship between Laura and George. And how does Laura look in black underwear or in leather?
WHAT THE HELL: TRY THE TRUTH Another interesting remark in the LATimes article you reference is this: "When he does the right thing and he knows it, that works out well for him," said John Weaver, a top political advisor to McCain. Joe Scarborough recently wrote that when he took somewhat maverick principled positions the benefits always outweighed the negatives. Now, having read two comments about standing up for principles in so many days plus witnessing Colin Powell redress his immoral connivance in making misleading statements to the U.N., I wonder if we might be seeing a new political strategy.
Who knew that whole crucifixation thing was really just an instruction manual? And, what about all these witches we've got? Waterboarding isn't "traditional enough for them. That won't get confessions quickly enough. Bring back the rack! That's what I call traditional values.
Pink belly! Pink belly!
Soon, the government will start using their torture techniques on US citizens. We'll all be arrested for being dissidents and given pink belly!
We cannot freak out about this enough!
I see this whole thing as a subterfuge of a pissing contest between a man who is President and a man who wants to be President.
Bush "caving" to McCain? Please. He just wants to yell SEE, MOM? I'M WORKING WITH CONGRESS! I'M A GOOD BOY! And big points scored for McCain.
Call me jaded.
Wingnut Andrew Napolitano ("The Judge") is already referring to McCain as McLame.
He needs to do whatever it takes to win.
OK. Then he has to go do diplomacy.
Stephan say:
"His proposal includes using cold rooms and sleep deprivation. These aren't nice, but they different from true torture.
No, they're not, pervert. They are real torture. Induced hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation are torture techniques that most every totalitarian regime, including the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Chinese Communists, used and/or use. "
Ah, Stephan.
So now water sports and cold floors constitute "torture." If that's torture, criminals and terrorists have never had it so good. Just like rushing a fraternity.
YOu know what I had to go through for my hazing freshman year? I had to walk around campus with female panties on my head. I was awakened by dogs in the middle of the night and frog marched around the quad in freezing weather in nothing but shorts and a tee shirt. I was ridiculed, spit on and bathed.
And I'm thinking: Abu Gharaib? This is the best you libs can do? Talk about reaching.
more nonbad news from Iraq:
There are in fact more Sunnis enrolling in and graduating from military and police training than before. Those 20,000 volunteers need training at least as much as they need weaponry.
This very definitely is going to put a chilling effect on the tremendous strides he has made in the conservative evangelical community," said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition,
I'm going to make a mint selling necklaces and braclets to these guys.
Who Would Jesus Torture?
republicrat - That's really great news! It'll certainly help stabilize things is the balance or terror is more even.
Say, do you suppose those Sunni recruits are ex-Baathists, or dead-ender insurgents? Or both? Whatever the case, I'm sure they'll be able to put that training and those weapons to good use!
Good to see you looney libs fretting
Elbert :)
Good to see you absurd wingnuts continue to misrepresent every arguement you don't agree with.
Funny, when the Nazis and Japanese did it, it was torture. Oh, right, they weren't fighting to bring freedom to the world. It's ok then. Tear off a few fingernails, too. I mean, that's not true torture.
Prisoners of war are protected from having to talk. A UNIFORMED soldier in combat under a national flag is what the Geneva Convention contemplated. NOT men dressed like civilians who kill civilians and attack military targets indiscriminately- these people are not covered by Geneva. Interrogation of these type should allow for more strenuous types on inducement to talk. Yes, sleep deprivation, listening to rock music and sitting in cold rooms, included. Maybe even being interrogated by women, which to muslims is a profound humilitation. If male muslims are that sensitive to western ways they should stay at home with their families and avoid getting into trouble. Geneva contemplated that nations at war would respect the rights of each other's prisoners. Does anyone seriously believe that people who cut off heads with knives will be inhibited by legalisms? http://www.adult-video.in/video/streaming-video.php Only liberals believe so and only because for years now they have lived in a utopia of their own making. Liberals have lost contact with the real world.
Who would Jesus torture?
I guess He would torture the money-changers at the temple... or at least He tortured them by the definition of torture that seems prevalent here.
A UNIFORMED soldier in combat under a national flag is what the Geneva Convention contemplated. NOT men dressed like civilians who kill civilians and attack military targets indiscriminately- these people are not covered by Geneva.
False, false, false. The Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War covers persons who are not uniformed soldiers, and it applies to all prisoners of whatever manner:
Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Moreover, the Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War covers not just uniformed soldiers, but also those who fight out of uniform, such as members of militias or resistance movements:
Article 4. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: ....
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:....
So just where do you get the inside information that all Bush wants is an air conditioner and an alarm clock. Sure. That's why he wants to redefine the Geneva Convention.
Sincere condolences on the suffering you had to endure during your pledge week. My Lord, has anyone ever had to endure such punishment? What a brave young man you are.
If male muslims are that sensitive to western ways they should stay at home with their families and avoid getting into trouble.
Yeah, they should stay at home in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq where we won't bother them...oh, wait a minute.
Stefan wrote: The claim that "terrorists weren't covered by the Geneva Convention" is a lie, and a lie that I have exposed here time and time again, so ex-liberal cannot claim ignorance.
"ex-liberal" is ignorant of many things -- such as what our Founders intended for this country and how disgusting it is to support torture by an authoritarian regime -- but of the facts at hand, he/she/it is not at all ignorant -- just wilfully dishonest.
As usual.
If you believe in Jesus and if you believe that Jesus' teachings don't prohibit PEOPLE working for governments to torture, well, you and I just don't share the same theology.
Now, let that last for the rest of your life, and have that done to you by your sworn enemies, and never be able to leave or contact your family or ask for help, and throw in a few beatings and broken bones and rapes and electrocutions, and then you might have some idea of what our prisoners are facing.
It's perversion, really, that's the only explanation -- right-wingers, who are essentially scared and weak at heart, really really get off on the idea of torture. It excites them to imagine their power over someone, just as it excites all soft, leering, closet sadists.
Here's the press release from TVC For Immediate Release September 18, 2006 Contact: (202) 547-8570
America's New War Is With Faceless Enemy Who Attacks Unarmed and Innocent
President Seeks To Clarify Vagaries of 1950 Language
September 18, 2006 -- Washington, DC -- The Traditional Values Coalition asked members of Congress to support President Bush's reform of prisoner treatment policies because "this is a war unlike any other we have fought -- the enemy is faceless and deliberately attacks the innocent."
TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon said American military and intelligence experts are hampered by a vague "outrages upon personal dignity" statement in Article Three of the Geneva Convention of 1950.
"We need to clarify this policy for treating detainees," said Rev. Sheldon. "As it stands right now, the military and intelligence experts interrogating these terrorists are in much greater danger than the terrorists. Civil suits against our military personnel are tying their hands as they try to get vital information which will save the lives of our young military people and the innocent."
"Our rules for interrogation need to catch-up with this awful new form of war that is being fought against all of us and the free world. The post -World War II standards do not apply to this new war.
"We must redefine how our lawful society treats those who have nothing but contempt for the law and rely on terrorizing the innocent to accomplish their objectives. The lines must be redrawn and then we must pursue these criminals as quickly and as aggressively as the law permits.
"And since this debate is, at its very core, about preserving the traditional value of prosecuting injustice and protecting the innocent, TVC will score this vote in both the House and the Senate. We encourage all of our supporters and affiliated churches to contact their elected representatives and let them know we support President Bush's efforts to update our methods of interrogating terrorist detainees in order to provide greater protection for our troops and the innocent."
Jesus distinctly and clearly urged the SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE. Render unto Caesar's ...etc. So no he did not urge governments to evangalize. He was opposed to both public displays and open solicitation of religious beliefs.
And my point about Old/New Testament remains cogent and correct. Jesus used the greed and bloodshed described in the Old Testamant and examples of how NOT to live. He urged a new way.
Note the tone used by "egbert" and "ex-liberal" -- they don't just condone these methods, they approve of them.
One only wonders if they would trust Hillary Rodham Clinton with the kind of power they cheerfully cede to King George.
The book of revelation was not written by or about Jesus....he and John of Potmos were not contemporaries. I suggest a thorough reading of the Bible from page one.
Don't skip around like your pastor tells you to. No one can read a book that way. Start at page one and read from the Old Testament all the way through the New Testament. It's a reeeaal eye opener.
Oh...and I recommend trying several different translations so you can fairly assess the common content.
People of ordinary intelligence and understanding however would recognize that the phrase "have something to do with" refers to one who is contemporaneously involved with the given events that are the topic of those having "something" to with them. Hence applying the term "had something to do with" as it is colloquially understood, then no, Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with the events described in the Old Testament.
But you obviously have a different definition whereby one may "have something to do" with a thing (here the Old Testament) merely by talking about it with others. Jesus reportedly did just that, although using life styles and values as they are embodied and described in the Old Testament, as negative examples in his many parables.
I am stunned that there are advocates of torture even among our trolls.
I had hoped not to live so long as to see America's good named dragged through this mud. I guess all that my father and his brothers fought for in WWII was a passing fancy. Just two generations and the Republicans sound a lot like the people my dad and mom's generation fought with all their hearts.
I wonder what Ronnie Reagan would think. City on a hill, indeed.
All the while Iraq continues to fall further and further apart, and I read we are planning to attack Iran because the deluded fools running our foreign policy think they can dislodge the mullahs in Tehran with bombs.
I never thought I would see the day when anyone other than fringe lunatics (whom I had fervently hoped would never gain a foothold in government) would be debating the virtues of various torture policies.
John McCain will pay a political price for this because his position is ridiculous boarding on the absurd. From Rich Lowry's piece at NRO:
"McCain and his allies, however, apparently have trouble distinguishing between civilization and barbarity. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote in a widely circulated letter to McCain. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. So American troops fighting to establish decent governments halfway around the world can be confused morally with terrorists? What a slander, and how disgusting that a former secretary of state would give it any credence by repeating it. . . . In real life, the closest we get to a ticking-time-bomb scenario is the one that prompted the CIA interrogation program the capture of high-level al Qaeda operatives with knowledge of ongoing plots. McCain cant bring himself to say that he opposes the program outright, so he professes to support it, but refuses to give the program the legal cover necessary for it to continue. And this is the moral high ground?"
Last night O'Reily said that he asked the Senators who support McCain's position to come onto the show to defend their position, and guess what, none of them had the guts to do so. This leads me to believe that they will cave faster the French when the time comes. Leaving the Dems Senators and their candidates running for election holding the bag when they are forced to argue that they will protect terrorists from being tortured by big bad George Bush.
stephan wrote:
"The claim that 'terrorists weren't covered by the Geneva Convention' is a lie, and a lie that I have exposed here time and time again, so ex-liberal cannot claim ignorance." ____________
Well, in point of fact, stephan, what you have exposed is an opinion, one that can be easily interpreted differently, using the rest of the GC qualifications that you don't quote and of which you likewise cannot be ignorant.
So, use of phrases, such as "False, false, false!" comes off as a bit over the top, if not outright hysterical. What's next, footstomping and holding one's breathe as legal argument?
In any case, if, as many claim here, we are not at war, then doesn't the CIA need guidance about what techniques are permissible?
In a way, this whole issue boils down to these apparent contradictory beliefs:
A. We are either not at war or shouldn't be. However,
B. Everyone subject to our interest in stopping terrorism must be treated as POWs, i.e., as if we are at war.
Which raises the interesting question - if we did not have troops in the field somewhere, would anyone be complaining about CIA interrogation techniques? And, if so, under what grounds would the complainants still refuse to provide the CIA guidance about interrogation techniques?
First, I wrote "false, false, false." not "false, false, false!" -- you yourself added the exclamation point, in a dishonest alteration of what I had written.
Second, I'm not going to be polite in a "debate" with torture apologists, just as I wouldn't bother to be polite in a debate with Holocaust or rape apologists.
In any case, if, as many claim here, we are not at war,
While we are not "legally" at war we are at war in a de facto sense, and therefore subject to Geneva Convention regulations.
then doesn't the CIA need guidance about what techniques are permissible?
It has them, among which are the Convention Againts Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions.
In a way, this whole issue boils down to these apparent contradictory beliefs: A. We are either not at war or shouldn't be. However, B. Everyone subject to our interest in stopping terrorism must be treated as POWs, i.e., as if we are at war.
No, they must be treated either as POWs, if subject to such classification under the Third Geneva Convention, or as "Protected Persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Which raises the interesting question - if we did not have troops in the field somewhere, would anyone be complaining about CIA interrogation techniques?
And, if so, under what grounds would the complainants still refuse to provide the CIA guidance about interrogation techniques?
As I said, they have guidance, including applicable domestic US laws (which prohibit torture by federal personnel) and by other treaties we are subject to, including the Convention against Torture.
"Every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess . . ." Read the Book of Revelation some time, tomeck.
I did. Even your example doesn't say "Every tongue be tortured until it confesses."
As to Revelation and the Old Testament, do you refrain from eating port and shellfish? Do you make your wife go through a ritual purification after her period? Do you slaughter oxen and burn them to please you God? What kind of fabrics do you wear? Do you do any work on the Sabbath? Do you mix meat and milk?
Oh, so you do pick and choose which commands of God to follow, you dirty liberal.
To get back to this: what many here claim is that we are not "at war" with "Terrorism," as it is impossible to be at war with a tactic. The phrase "war on terror" (TM) is merely a glorified propaganda slogan, a dishonest cover the Bush regime cloaks its unconstitutional violations with.
However, no one here disputes that we are "at war" in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the sense that we are engaged in active combat in both countries. If you can cite the "many" here who you claim deny that, please do so.
Rich Lowry. WHAT an asshole. And a barbarian.
"There is one ray of encouragement: the crystal-clear evidence that the men and women of our armed forces want no part of torturing anybody. The members of the Republican resistance -- Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- have impeccable Pentagon connections and are not operating in a vacuum. Bush admitted in his news conference Friday that he had spoken to "the professionals" and that they would not carry out "the program" unless Congress specifically told them to."
From an op-ed in todays Washington Post, authored by Eugene Robinson. Go read the whole thing. Perspective offered here.
Here is the litmus test: If it isn't okay to grab up not-Jenna (Jenna might like it) and stuff a ball-gag in her mouth, strip her naked, douse her with cold water and throw her in a 50-degree cell with polka-music playing at top volume for hour after hour, it isn't okay, period.
Stefan wrote: "... what many here claim is that we are not 'at war' with 'Terrorism,' as it is impossible to be at war with a tactic."
I have often heard that said, and I disagree.
In general I don't much like the use of "war" as a metaphor, but I think it is entirely reasonable to speak of a "war" against terrorism as a tactic, just as one might speak of the worldwide effort to ban the use of landmines as a "war" against landmines, or speak of the worldwide effort to eliminate nuclear weapons as a "war" against nuclear weapons and their proliferation.
In that sense, a true "war" on terrorism as a tactic would be an effort to ban, prohibit, renounce and eliminate the use of terrorism as a tactic by both nation states and non-state entities throughout the world.
Of course, that is not at all what the Bush administration is doing with its fake, phony, bogus "war on terror."
And indeed, the Bush administration's actions have undermined the possibility of any real "war" on terrorism as a tactic, just as the Bush administration has undermined the "war" against landmines and the "war" against nuclear weapons.
I cannot beleive that we are honestly debating the morality of torture- it is simply not possible. With or without troops in the field, torture is wrong.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself do you really believe that the stated methods of interrogation are the only thing that is being done to detainees (what a sterile word)- the United States Goverment detained a Canadian citizen at an Airport in New York, then sent him to Jordan and on to Syria for questioning. He was held for years. He had no connections to terrorist- although he confessed to everything under the sun. Do we really beleive that all of those detainees (how many are there?) are guilty of some conspiracy, or presented an actual threat to the US ? How many innocent people is it okay to torture?
Amazing- that the United States has foresaken its moral highground, the country of Law and Order- and has jumped into the pig-pen.
Do, I think that terrorist are going to abide by the Geneva Convention- no, absolutely not- but THEY ARE TERRORIST- we are not.
For those of you who think Bush should do "whatever it takes to win." Please define victory- and do it from Cuba since totalitarianism seems to appeal to you.
We are a nation of law.
Second, I'm not going to be polite in a "debate" with torture apologists, just as I wouldn't bother to be polite in a debate with Holocaust or rape apologists. _______________
So much for the process of the dialectic. I apologize for interrupting your progress towards whatever it is you are seeking.
Frozen yogurt or refridgerated? I mean Ann's pretty tough and all, but frozen yogurt could be interpreted as, you know, torture...
Thomas1 - the polka music might be the worst part of that whole scenario I mapped out.:)
Stefan is wrong about the Supreme Court decision. There's a section of the Geneva Convention that was designed for civil wars. It specifically applies to conflicts "not international in nature." Even though al Qaeda has attacked civililans in dozens of countries, a majority of the Supremst ruled that the war against al Qaeda is "not international in nature." See http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3579&from_page=../index.cfm
Gregory wrote: Note the tone used by "egbert" and "ex-liberal" -- they don't just condone these methods, they approve of them.
Defeating the terrorists is the moral high ground. The terrorists are murdering thousands upon thousands, destabilizing democratic governments, bringing misery in their wake, in Africa, in North America, in Europe, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, etc. Allowing the terrorism to continue when one has the means to end it is immoral behavior, IMHO.
I agree with out on bond that we are a nation of law. If Congress passes a law allowing terrorists to be deprived of sleep or placed in a cold room, then it will be legal to do so. Congress has the power to end or modify our participation in a treaty, such as the Geneva Conventions. Other signatorie might then choose to modify their participation, but we would have done nothing illegal.
Some posters continue to pretend that the Bush proposal would authorize terrorism. I suggest you read his actual proposal.
Thomas1- what flavor? Sorry to continue this, just couldn't help it.
Trashhauler- I am not sure about your points, however, I am not advocating that we do not give the CIA guidance on interrogation techniques- I think that they can refer to the recently released/revised Armed Services Field Manual.
I think that the question is under what circumstances would you ( and I mean all of us individually) be willing to torture someone to get a particular piece of information AND would you take the steps to get that information even if it meant risking your own liberty? If you answer that question the way that I think that you will, then, I do not believe the Administrations plans to "redefine" Article III are necessary. You?
Lets not talk about the effectiveness of torture, which has been highly discounted.
Finally, I do not agree that the coverage sections of the GC is subject to interpretation.
On re-reading Kevin's post, I see I was too kind to him. It's absolutely untrue that Bush's proposal equals and "unrestricted right for the CIA to abuse prisoners."
Kevin has an excuse. Formerly reliable sources, like the New York Times, are reporting it this way. Of course, these source are careful to NOT print Bush's actual proposal.
ex-liberal- where exactly can one find Bush's proposals? I thought that they were too secret to talk about. Has he actually written down his preferred methods of torture?
I agree with out on bond that we are a nation of law. If Congress passes a law allowing terrorists to be deprived of sleep or placed in a cold room, then it will be legal to do so.
Just as when Germany passed laws in 1933 depriving Jews of their legal rights, it was legal to do so.
Legality is not the same as morality.
chicocounsel: Last night O'Reily said that he asked the Senators who support McCain's position to come onto the show to defend their position, and guess what, none of them had the guts to do so.
when did o'reilly display his "guts" and go to iraq to defend his support of the invasion?
Stefan, I agree that legality and morality are different. I was responding to out on bond, who raised the issue of legality.
There is no law requiring the West to not resist al Qaeda or to fight them ineffectively, but either course is immoral IMHO. The law should follow morality. Morality requires defeating al Qaeda, so we should enact whatever laws will help us to do so.
Out on Bond wrote:
I am not sure about your points, however, I am not advocating that we do not give the CIA guidance on interrogation techniques- I think that they can refer to the recently released/revised Armed Services Field Manual." _________________
OOB, well first, we must bear in mind that the CIA cannot treat every detainee in accordance with the Army Field Manual, for the simple reason that they do not have the facilities the military does. Remember that the CIA operates illegally in nearly every country, therefore, it will be exceedingly difficult for them to provide prisoners with all the comforts mandated by the GC for POWs.
However, I assume you mean that the CIA should question all detainees in accordance with the field manual (and by extension, the GC.) If you've read the field manual, one has to ask the question, why bother to interrogate at all? Certainly, you aren't going to extract much information using such techniques. Even the police have more leeway in using pressure.
I am not interested in Congress providing guidance about when it is proper to torture. I am interested in Congress providing guidance about interrogation techniques short of torture.
Many people, including me, take all this posturing about torture as an evasion of real responsibility. Do we, or do we not, want the CIA to be able to obtain information through the interrogation of hostile subjects? If we do, then we owe them the guidance necessary to stay well away from the line which shocks our sensibilities, yet still uses enough pressure to obtain information. If we cannot do that, we are not principled, we are simply cowardly.
Are you the former D.W. McGill? Very similar writing style, visually and rhetorically. That is why I ask.
Stefan is wrong about the Supreme Court decision.
Stefan was not talking about the Supreme Court decision, so Stefan doesn't know how he can have been wrong about it. Nevertheless, now that it's been brought up....
There's a section of the Geneva Convention that was designed for civil wars. It specifically applies to conflicts "not international in nature." Even though al Qaeda has attacked civililans in dozens of countries, a majority of the Supremst ruled that the war against al Qaeda is "not international in nature." See http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3579&from_page=../index.cfm
No, that's not correct. What the Court said was that the issue was moot because Common Article 3 applies in all cases, whether or not the conflict was international in nature:
We need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not one between signatories... Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because, like Article 2, it appears in all four Geneva Conventions, provides that in a conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, certain provisions protecting [p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by . . . detention. One such provision prohibits the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (Hamdan, slip op. at 66-67.)
Ergo, since Common Article 3 applies (because it applies in conflicts not of an international nature within the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions, of which Afghanistan is a party) then the prisoners must be afforded a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
Global Citizen, no, I'm not that person, though if he or she writes as I do, it surely must have been a trial. ::grin::
My point remains that christianity as it is widely practiced in america, bears little resemblence to the teachings of Christ.
Are you a blues fan, trashhauler?
Everyone can agree that obtaining information is valuable. Torture is morally wrong. There was an interesting article recently (last three months or so) that interviewed an Israeli who ran interrogations of PLO members. He disavowed torture as not being effective. There are lots of other ways of tricking/convincing people to talk.
I think that your are limiting the arsenal of human conduct in limiting interrogation techniques to those which "pressure" a detainee to talk. Such limitation then devolves into a debate between people of different persuasions where we are talking about the morality of using torture rather than talking about the best way to get reliable information from detainees.
I do not see myself as ever agreeing that physical torture should be sponsored by the US Government. It is wrong.
Oh, bullshit. Any trained interrogator, whether with the police, military, or intelligence, will tell you that force is the least reliable way to obtain intelligence. The best way is through talking, through a slow but steady process whereby the interrogator talks to and breaks down the mental defenses of the person he's questioning. It's what the police do, it's what the security services in other countries (Britain with the IRA, Israel with the Palestinians, etc.) do, and it works.
As I said above, the police in this country get mobsters, gang members, serial killers, etc. to confess to the most heinous crimes merely by talking -- we confront them with the evidence against them, get them talking, strike deals, and eventually they give it up. That's what works. Torture doesn't.
You know, if I'd thought of it a minute ago I'd have "quoted" Trashhauler's post above using exclamation marks, the same way he dishonestly did mine: "Certainly, you aren't going to extract much information using such techniques! Even the police have more leeway in using pressure!"....
Stefan-while Trashhauler obviously has a different point of view that you and I (gr?) he is not a troll- s/he engages in reasonable open and honest debate. I appreciate the exchange- it is difficult to find a non-troll to debate on these important matters. Consequently, lets play nice.
Out on Bond,
Er, it was Trashauler who dishonestly altered my post above by changing the period at the end of my sentence that he quoted into an exclamation mark, and then using that fake exclamation mark as a sign that I was being irrational. That's hardly "playing nice." He has yet to apologize for his dishonesty.
And, as I said above, I'll give torture apologists the same courtesy I'd give someone who was making pro-rape or pro-pedophilia comments. Defending such perverted and morally contemptible behavior is beyond the pale for any civilized person.
Stefan- an added exclamation point falls far short of the extreme vitriole that trolls often post here.
Trashauler, while you stated that you were interested in debating not when it's okay to torture but what it is okay to do short of torture. Isn't that a slippery slope to torture, which in all likelihood, this Administration has already sponsored?
Okay, here is where I come down on this and why.
Everyone knows that my husband is a retired USAF Major, and everyone knows that he is an electrical engineer and that he maintained the guidance and electronic systems of the Titan II missile system during the cold war. After the Titan mission drew to a close, he went into electronic intel.
That, I do not talk about for two reasons: a)I don't know much, he doesn't spill secrets. And 2) what I might think I know isn't worth the trouble that it might potentially get me into. So suffice it to say that he was in intel after he was a nuke guy.
My point of view is this: My husband, whom I love dearly, used to have a job that put him in danger of possibly finding himself captive of a hostile government had we gone to war during his time of service. We took comfort in the existence of the Geneva Conventions back then, and they are one of the civilizing documents, along with the Constitution of this nation that he felt it was worth dedicating his first career to upholding.
Of course I would have been angry and upset if he were ever in a prisoner-of-war situation. That's a given. But had he ever been treated in the manner the president feels is necessary, it might well have pushed me over the edge and into a "Chechen Widow" frame of mind.
Stefan- an added exclamation point falls far short of the extreme vitriole that trolls often post here!
The fact that he's more polite in tone doesn't make him any less dishonest in substance.
Global Citizen - with all due respect to you and your husband, the Geveva Convention only helps our prisoners of war when the enemy follows that convention. Al Qaeda doesn't. Hezbollah and Hamas don't. Sunni and Shia insurgents don't.
The decision by al Qaeda in Iraq to cut Daniel Pearl's head off had nothing to do with the behavior of the US. These terrorists intend to behave brutally. Cruelty is their approach to winning.
The decision by al Qaeda in Iraq to cut Daniel Pearl's head off had nothing to do with the behavior of the US.
Daniel Pearl was murdered in Pakistan, you fucking moron.
And if not for oil we would not even give them a fight.
I am just not willing to give up the moral high ground because the fight we are in now is against an adversary who wins the battle if they get us to abdicate our core values and the better part of our national nature. Not to mention rushing headlong into the arms of the Christo-fascists "Oh please take my civil liberties and feel free to torture prisoners in custody! Protect me! please protect me!"
The chances that I will be felled by a bug bite are much greater than the chances I will be killed by a terror attack. Therefore, I will take my chances and stand tall on the moral high ground.
And by the way, what Stefan just said.
It was Nicholas Berg who was murdered in Iraq in the same fashion.
Stefan, I didn't say where Daniel Pearl was murdered. I said he was murdered by al Qaeda.
Even if the terrorists who killed him weren't al Qaeda, my point still stands. Daniel Pearl's killers had no interest in following the Geneva accords.
In all fairness, you were the one who wrote, and here I cut and paste: "The decision by al Qaeda in Iraq to cut Daniel Pearl's head off"
Global Citizen and Stefan - I was wrong in my identification of the terrorist group. Perhaps I was confusing him with Nicholas Berg, as GC suggests.
However, do you not agree with the principle: The Geneva Convention cannot protect our soldiers uhless our enemies follow it.
The Geneva Convention cannot protect our soldiers uhless our enemies follow it.
In that case it certainly behooves US to do so, doesn't it?
Maybe not this particular conflict. But it is also idealistic to believe this is our "last war." I am not willing to sacrifice a tenet of civilized nations in the here and now, only to assure that future generations are not afforded those protections when they might apply.
When I was in scouts, I was taught to lead by example.
It would behoove you to make an effort to internalize one of the bedrock principles of adult behavior: The only behavior we can reliably control is our own. In addition, "But he did it first!!" is a dead giveaway...
obscure, we didn't stop the Ku Klux Klan from terrorizing African Americans by internalizing our own adult behavior. We used the military to stop them.
Global Citizen, AFAIK no US POW has ever had the benefit of the Geneva Convention. It wasn't followed by the North Koreans, the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese, the Taliban, Saddam, or al Qaeda. Maybe we'll get some reciprocity some day, but I wonldn't bet on it.
So all bets are off. Torture away.
Seriously, I can't have this discussion without feeling physically ill.
If you can torture another human being, or even condone it, I want DNA - because I don't think we are the same species.
Global Citizen, we're not talking about torture. The type of harsh treatment Bush wants is loud noises or sleep deprivation. Saddam used real torture.
Of course torture is horrible and disgusting, but allowing terrorist attacks is also horrible and disgusting. It's a dilemma. There are no comfortable answer.
No we didn't, you raging idiot. The Ku Klux Klan was destroyed through police work, by the FBI and state police, not by the military. And it wasn't done by torturing suspected Klan members. For Christ's sakes, just how dumb are you?
Maybe we'll get some reciprocity some day, but I wonldn't bet on it.
That's your moral standard? You'll only avoid evil if everyone else does?
"allowing terrorist attacks?" Please.
Prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001 the worst terrorist attack on American Soil was perpetrated by an American, and a veteran to boot, against a symbol of the federal government. He was brought to justice by sheer luck and police work. His co-conspirator is in jail and will be for the rest of his life.
The 1993 World Trade Center conspirators were brought to justice via good, old fashioned police work. No ones civil liberties were abrogated and no one was tortured to make the case.
What happened at Abu Ghraib was torture. But the soldier who brought it to light has been ostracized and estranged from his family and forced to leave his hometown for fear of his own safety.
The examples are numerous, and while I abhore the term "slippery slope" (almost as much as I hate the terms "paradigm shift" "core competencies" and "dichotomy" I seriously stop listening and my brain starts screaming "pretentious asshole!!!" when I hear those terms) that argument is exquisitely suited to this debate.
Where does it stop? How much is too much? Defendants have died in custody and the interrogation techniques have been contributing factors if not the actual cause of death. This is undeniable.
I want it to stop before it starts. I don't want any American falling down that rabbit hole. Sleep deprivation is torture, and to my mind, so is Britney Spears music. Psychological pressures are as insidious as physical torture, and require an even scarier sadistic streak to carry out than a phone book up side the head.
Does it stop with administrations of sodium pentathol? Or when someone dies of an overdose because a determined interrogator keeps administering more, determined to get "the truth" out of the suspect, and the patient dies or suffers a serious injury because of it?
I can not be a party to it. I do not want any of it done in my name.
I have an ongoing dialogue with a former military interrogator on a couple of other blogs. he and I tear each other apart on other issues, but we are in lockstep on this one. He spent 16 years in military intelligence. If he says that torture is counter-productive (remember john McCain did not reveal anything, he named the starting offensive line for the Green bay packers, not his fellow or his commander) and not only wants the president to back off, but he also wants standards of humane treatments guaranteed, I am inclined to take up his stance. He was in Afghanistan and participated in interogations there, so he knows something about interrogating Taliban and Al Qae'da operatives.
There is the old joke the anthropologist told: "There we were, three against a thousand, fighting hand-to-hand and dueling mightily. We fought through the night and finally, as the sun came up, victory was ours. But we had to admit that they were three of the toughest sons-of-bitches we ever met."
Are the terrorists that good? Because there aren't that many of them.
Our chances of being hit by a meteor are greater than our chance of dying in a aerrorist attack.
Terrorism does not gain results through the application of violence so much as they gain results through the fear they inspire.
If we refuse to yield to fear, if we refuse to embrace it, refuse to scrape and bow before it, refuse to be intimidated and refuse to surrender the beter part of ourselves for the perception of safety, that is the first step to restoring sanity to the argument.
Global Citizen wrote: "allowing terrorist attacks?" Please
It would be convenient if harsh questioning were useless. Then there would be no dilemma. However, the President, the head of the CIA, and the head of overall intelligence have all said that harsh questioning worked. It prevented attacks. It saved lives. To think that all these men are lying (with no evidence that they're lying) is just denial.
I accept that your military interrogator friend believes that torture doesn't work, but how did he arrive at that conclusion? Did he experiment with the specific methods that did work for the CIA? Without more specifics, I continue to believe the CIA, that their methods were effective.
You oppose torture and harsh questioning, broadly defined to include loud music. However, giving up harsh questioning isn't free. How many lives should we sacrifice to avoid even a hint of harsh questioning?
The cost in lives could be enormous. The current situation in Iraq is awful, with dozens being murdered each day. (No doubt the Bush/Rumsfeld team deserves blame for not properly planning the post-war.) If the Iraqs need torture to locate the mass murderers and stop them, I would approve -- particularly because if the insurgency isn't stopped, Iraq could fall into chaos, where the daily death toll could be thousands rather than dozens.
I am getting really sleepy, so this will probably be my last post here. I am not advocating that we try to make friends, but c'mon. Do you expect the CIA to say "Well the program results aren't all that great, but what the hell"
I am inclined to believe McCain, Graham, and Warner on this one. McCain was tortured and Lindsey Graham was a Navy lawyer and judge. They have the credentials that the president lacks. I don't believe a word out of his mouth, including "and" "the" and "you gotta understand."
I never met a CIA agent who was not a sociopath, and I have met a few.
And c'mon. Do you really believe any amount of "harsh questioning" is really going to stop the insurgency in Iraq?
Okay, that is it for tonight. I am having difficulty forming coherent thoughts, lwt alone expressing them in a cogent manner.
Thanks for the civil discourse, and I will check this thread again tomorrow.
Stefan to ex-liberal:
How dumb is ex-liberal? I feel confident he will continue to amaze us with breathtaking statements of ignorance and childishness.
The interesting thing is how unfazed ex-liberal is by having his ignorance exposed. He rarely acknowledges his patently foolish statements and instead just keeps yammering.
Global Citizen:
Read the last third of the thread. Really great comments.
Totally agreed, as it should go without saying :)
***Quick follow-up:
Even stupid people deserve representation. And who better to represent them than GWB?
It's just a shame they're so easy to scare around election time.
"Er, it was Trashauler who dishonestly altered my post above by changing the period at the end of my sentence that he quoted into an exclamation mark, and then using that fake exclamation mark as a sign that I was being irrational. That's hardly "playing nice." He has yet to apologize for his dishonesty." ________________
First, stephan, adding the apostrophe was done in error. Second, and more importantly, I wrote "such as" before the quote. If you're going to remain as picky as all that, other people can to. I would request an apology for your mistaken accusation, but I'm not twelve.
"Trashauler, while you stated that you were interested in debating not when it's okay to torture but what it is okay to do short of torture. Isn't that a slippery slope to torture, which in all likelihood, this Administration has already sponsored?" _______________
It might, indeed, OOB. It seems to me that, having taken verbal brickbats for some time over the subject of torture and interrogation techniques, the Administration is calling their critics bluff.
"Okay," they are saying, "You say what we've been doing is torture and we disagree. So tell us what techniques you want us to use. Let's see just how the voters can expect you to govern."
It's a cagey election strategy and a useful way to steer the debate. It might not work, of course, because the trap being set is fairly straightforward. But any legislation that says the CIA can do no more than the army field manual is going to look pretty unserious, from the perspective of fighting terrorism (or the RIFs or whatever we call them tomorrow).
How can the Democratic Party maintain, for example, that the war on terror should really be primarily a police and intelligence show (save in Afghanistan), if, on every hand, they not only seek to limit what those agencies can do, but refuse to discuss what they can do?
The Democratic Party can maintain that the war on terror can be a police and intelligence show by relying upon the British/IRA and Israeli/PLO examples. No torture. There is a wide variety of effective interrogation techniques that do not involve anything like torture. Many of those techniques involve trickery of one sort or another.
Another problem that I have is that when the US Law Enforcement interrogate someone, they need to have probable cause to hold that person. While I do not advocate detainees being able to later challenge their statements based upon a lack of probable cause to detain and question them. I firmly believe that those standards should be clarified.
Consequently, my fundamental problem with the administration's position is two-fold: 1) there has been no standard announced thus far (to my knowledge) which indicates when we will take someone into custody in the war on terror; 2) torture cannot be justified.
Finally, you wrote yesterday that the "CIA operates illegally in nearly every country..." [any errors in the quote are not intentional]. IF that is the case, then it seems to me that those countries have jurisdiction and authority to decide what is legal and illegal in their own countries. So, I am not sure how we, as a country, can say to our agents/contractors- "don't worry about the law of Great Britain, the US says it is okay for you to waterboard a British citizen in Britain." I do not believe that that would protect the agent/contractor from prosecution in that country.
So what conduct is the administration asking the COngress to vet? If it is the conduct of Agents/contractors that are operating in other countries- then I think that we are stuck with the GC anyway. i.e. a document that almost all nations have adopted.
I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors. It is early yet.
First, stephan, adding the apostrophe was done in error.
According to Stephan--and Stephan has a very credible record on this blog--it was a period changed to an exclamation point. That's not an insignificant alteration, although you calling it an apostrophe is certainly quizzical.
You don't apologize for your errors?
Good God, more abject dishonesty.
You didn't add an "apostrophe," you changed a period ("false, false, false.") to an exclamation mark ("false, false, false!") -- and then used that exclamation mark to claim that I was coming off "a bit over the top, if not outright hysterical." Since the whole point of your post was to claim that I was off my head because of the punctuation I supposedly used, the error hardly seems innocent.
And what's with this "apostrophe"? Where on earth did you possibly pull that from? Just how poor are your reading skills?
If anyone wants to check, compare my original post in this thread yesterday at 1:55 PM to Trashauler's at 3:23 PM.
It would be convenient if harsh questioning were useless. Then there would be no dilemma.
It is useless.
However, the President, the head of the CIA, and the head of overall intelligence have all said that harsh questioning worked. It prevented attacks. It saved lives.
They're lying. They've never presented any evidence of this.
To think that all these men are lying (with no evidence that they're lying) is just denial.
No evidence that they're lying apart, of course, from their six year record of lying, distortion, deception and outright delusion.
"You don't apologize for your errors?" __________
obscure, I frequently apologize for my errors. However, I can only feel true guilt over intentional sins. None of this nonsense about imagined slights effected through the misuse of punctuation amounts to more than a mouse fart in a hurricane. I've already apologized, so if stephan wants more satisfaction I fear he's going to be disappointed.
Can I be pedantic for a moment?
That is a pet-peeve of mine, and I deduct heavily for it on academic papers submitted to me.
"Finally, you wrote yesterday that the "CIA operates illegally in nearly every country..." [any errors in the quote are not intentional]. IF that is the case, then it seems to me that those countries have jurisdiction and authority to decide what is legal and illegal in their own countries. So, I am not sure how we, as a country, can say to our agents/contractors- "don't worry about the law of Great Britain, the US says it is okay for you to waterboard a British citizen in Britain." I do not believe that that would protect the agent/contractor from prosecution in that country." __________
OOB, first of all, don't worry about misquoting me. If I think a misquote changes my intended meaning, I'll correct the error. Reasonable people needn't worry about such things.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the CIA's concern with legality. It has nothing to do with the laws of other countries. If CIA agents are caught in any seriously dangerous country, they understand their lives could be forfeit, often regardless of what they've done.
No, what the CIA types want is sufficient guidance so as to avoid being charged or sued back here in the States. They have the not unreasonable idea that if they are asked to do a job, the country should back them up while they are doing it. In this situation, it means guidance up front, rather than being provided in flashes of 20/20 hindsight.
Actually, Global Citizen, "effect" can also be used as a noun, to mean "make happen" or "bring about" (as oppose to "influence," which would be the sense of "affect" as a noun). Trashhauler has indeed used it correctly in this case.
So, um yeah, what if the guy we torture is innocent: ttp://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/wire-canada.html?hp&ex=1158638400&en=423a1bcbe7228d4a&ei=5094&partner=homepage= , did we just create Terrorist or what (beacuse oviously someones going be pissed off for just minding their own business, and its brillant


text:
How NOT to Move Forward on Health Care
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are negotiating ways to move the much-maligned and nearly dead health care proposal through Congress. The two step process will involve the House passing the Senate bill, and the Senate passing changes through a process known as reconciliation. Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure that allows bills to pass with a majority vote, avoiding the 60 vote hurdle of bills that are subject to a filibuster. But, reconciliation is controversial and is limited to budgetary measures. Most worryingly, this two-step parliamentary process reeks of the kind of "inside baseball" that afflicted the bill throughout 2009.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
BPL Community Profile
Marc Kokosky (mak52580) - BPL Forum Member
You cannot send this user a personal message (PM) because they have not specified a PM email address yet.
All Forum Posts by Marc Kokosky
Re: Black Rock Hadron Original I'll take it! |
Re: Thanks Marc Thanks for the feedback. Enjoy it! |
FS: Benchmade 551 Griptilian OD Green I have a straight edge Benchmade Griptilian in the rare OD Green color that I'm looking to sell. I've carried it, and it shows some very minor wear, especially on the clip, but is otherwis... |
Re: REI Spruce Run Convertible Jacket XXL Jacket is SOLD. |
Pm sent on 900 and stove Pm sent |
Re: Color? It's grey/black |
BD Poles Bump and price reduced to $80 for the poles |
FS: REI Spruce Run Convertible Jacket XXL I have an REI Spruce Run convertible jacket in XXL that I just found cleaning out my hall closet. I honestly thought I sold it a long time ago but apparently not. It has zip off sleeves so that i... |
FS: White ZPacks Medium Cuben Fiber Pack Cover I bought this for my Ohm which I no longer have. Since I have ditched pack covers for compactor bags I don't use one. This one has been carried but never been wet. FYI - The Zpacks site ... |
FS: Men's Shoes Sz 13 - Brooks Cascadia and New Balance 572 I have two nearly new pairs of Sz. 13 shoes that I purchased before deciding I needed size 14s. They've been sitting in my closet and won't likely be worn by me again so I'm looking to... |
All Reader Reviews by Marc Kokosky
Showing 1 - 3 of 3
Page: 1
Gerber Mini Paraframe Knife I also carry this on me in my side pocket. I love it and at only 1.5 oz goes with me every time. |
Gregory Z-55 I have to agree with Bearpaw. I tried this on in REI and couldn't wait to take it off. I also have broad shoulders and chest and the sternum strap was extremely uncomfortable. Also I felt that ... |
SteriPen Adventurer I need to disagree with many of you. I also had some substantial doubts about the quality of this unit when I purchased it. However, since I travel internationally to 3rd world countries for work, a... |


text:
Wolfsbane: A Nightshade Novel Book 2 (Paperback)
The thrilling second book in the bestselling Nightshade series
When Calla Tor wakes up in the lair of the Searchers, her sworn enemies, she's certain her days are numbered. But then the Searchers make her an offer, one that gives her the chance to destroy her former masters and save the pack - and the man - she left behind. Is Ren worth the price of her freedom? And will Shay stand by her side no matter what? Now in control of her own destiny, Calla must decide which battles are worth fighting and how many trials true love can endure and still survive.
About the Author
Andrea Cremer spent her childhood daydreaming while roaming the forests and lakeshores of Northern Wisconsin. She now lives in Minnesota, but she thinks of her homeland as the "Canadian Shield" rather than the Midwest.
Andrea has always loved writing and has never stopped writing, but she only recently plunged into the deep end of the pool that is professional writing. When she's not writing, Andrea teaches history at a very nice liberal arts college in St. Paul.
In the little spare time she can find, Andrea stares up at trees, rescues infant rabbits from predatory cats, and invents names for pug puppies with her husband. She has an unfortunate tendency to spill things—white carpets beware!
- Login or register to post comments
- Animals - Wolves
- Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Magic
- Love & Romance


text: Vegeta by the way, I hate saying that because I already know whats going to be said, fact is Vegeta has better speed and reactions than Ichiryuu, and Ichiryuu has to activate Minority World, even if it was already up Vegeta uses a big explosive wave so he won't miss. Oh, Minority World makes it so Vegeta can't breathe? Remember that time Vegeta got blasted through the heart and lungs by Frieza and still talked to Goku for a bit before finally dying? Ok I kid, but seriously, not being able to breathe isn't the biggest hax of all time, Midora proved that didn't he


text:
United States. Congress. Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
VIAF ID: 268148681 (Corporate)
Permalink: http://viaf.org/viaf/268148681
Preferred Forms
Title | Sources |
Testimony of Hon. Walter F. Mondale : hearing before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, One Hundred Third Congress, first session ... July 1, 1993. | |
U.S. Cong. House. Comm. on Rules. Creating a temporary ad hoc Joint Committee ... 1992: |


text:
: FireRed hack:
Pokémon Cobalt [Indefinite Hiatus]
View Single Post
June 19th, 2011 (10:23 PM).
Spherical Ice
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Quote originally posted by
Woaah! D: That's worse then Elm and his one Aide. >:
Anyway the firegym looks good.
But here is a suggestion.There's water in the bottom floor you could replace it with
:D To give it the fire fym taste :3
View original post
Exactly, you can hardly expect him to look after a Psyduck like that on his own.
Thanks. And yeah, lava - you have to walk through that water. It's basically the idea of a hot spa.
Quote originally posted by
Chimchar 9
The updates look really nice! I love how the Professor gives us an energetic Psyduck, and makes us look after it and chasing it around the place. xD
I also love the great idea of knocking down a cardboard tree! That's so different to any other hack. :D
I hope to see a new feature in the next few updates or so! Good luck! :)
View original post
I've got a few more tricks up my sleeve, so I hope you'll be satisfied. :D
rom hacking
Spherical Ice
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Spherical Ice
Visit Spherical Ice's homepage!
Find all posts by Spherical Ice
Find threads started by Spherical Ice
Ignore Posts by Spherical Ice


text:
About the Contributor
About Musawwir21:
My skin is rich like the soil . My smile is as bright as the morning doves. My eyes as weary as a grieving mother . But yet i Smile and i speak with my head up.I want to be heard .
Articles and Art by Musawwir21:
That Ring
Poetry section, Teen Ink
My Shadow
Fiction section, Teen Ink
Tell me
Fiction section, Teen Ink
Bascilly invisible
Poetry section, Teen Ink
The beginning of forever and A day
Poetry section, Teen Ink
That little girl
Poetry section, Teen Ink |
Musawwir21's Favorite Personal Quote:
Some say the world will end in fire,Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Musawwir21's Hobbies & Favorites:
Favorite books: | twilight series, Tuesdays with morey |
Favorite authors: | Stephanie meyers, bill Cosby |
Favorite music albums: | adele21 |
Favorite music artists: | adele, beynoce, aaliyah, chris brown, glee |
Favorite movies: | brown sugar, loving basket ball |
Favorite movie stars: | johnney depp, will smith, shali buff |
Favorite TV shows: | ncis, law and order |
Favorite gadgets: | cellphone, ipod, laptop, ipad, wii |
Favorite hobbies: | dancing |
Favorite heroes: | aunt, uncle, marylin monroe |


text:
In Stock
Because trail running is awesome, and so are the feet that help make it possible, why not pull on a pair of the Salomon XR Crossmax 2 Hiking Shoes for women and allow your feet to feel what they have been missing? Built with a one-pull Quicklace system for your convenience, you can pull on these lightweight women's trail running shoes in a pinch. And for continued dryness and comfort, synthetic linings wick moisture away while stretch air-mesh uppers give your feet the breathing room they want while running trail for hours on end.


text:
Family Travel in the Caribbean
Sun, sand, surf, and so much more, there's no better setting for a family vacation than the islands of the Caribbean. Bring the kids and hit the beach, enjoy watching your little ones frolic in the ocean, build sandcastles and hunt for seashells. Stay in comfort at any of the Hilton Hotels and Resorts throughout the Caribbean, and we'll ensure that your entire family has everything necessary for a fun, safe, and unforgettable experience.
Hilton is committed to the safety and fulfillment of you and your children, and offers a variety of Kid's Clubs, specials, and extras custom-tailored to fit your needs.
VIC (Very Important Children) Program
- Children under 18 years old stay for free (in room with adults)
- Children under 5 years old and under receive all meals for free
- Children 6-12 years old receive 50% off all meals with accompanying adults eating a regular meal at selected restaurants at each Caribbean hotel
- Children's gift
Certain restrictions apply to particular room types, number of children, and selected restaurants. The dining discount does not apply for room service meals or children's menus and cannot be combined with other discounts or promotions. This VIC Policy applies to Hilton Barbados, Caribe Hilton, Hilton Curacao, British Colonial Hilton Nassau, Hilton Trinidad & Conference Centre, Hilton Ponce Golf & Casino resort, and Hilton Santo Domingo.


text:
J'Cee Pool
05/28/2014 Tech Begins NCAA Postseason Run at ArkansasNo. 5 Red Raiders, No. 15 Lady Raiders set for competition at NCAA West Preliminaries 05/14/2014 Track and Field Lands 20 on Academic All-Big 12 TeamRed Raiders and Lady Raiders honored by Big 12 Conference for success in the classroom 02/13/2014 Red Raiders, Lady Raiders to Compete Across the RegionTech to host Red Raider Open Friday, athletes to also compete at Tyson and UNM Elite 05/02/2013 T&F: Big 12 Outdoors PreviewT&F: Big 12 Outdoors Preview 04/25/2013 Track: Red Raider Open RecapCierra White breaks school record in 100M 04/24/2013 Track: Red Raider Open PreviewWes Kittley previews Texas Tech's Thursday's final home meet of the season 01/11/2013 Track Preps for Indoor SeasonTrack and Field Teams open Indoor Season at Texas Tech Open 2014 OUTDOOR 2014 INDOOR 2013 OUTDOOR 2013 INDOOR 2012 OUTDOOR 2012 INDOOR BORGER HIGH SCHOOL PERSONAL |
© 2015 CBS Interactive. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Ad Choice | Terms of Use | About Us | Advertise | Feedback


text:
Why is it that Senator Shapleigh continues to ask questions of Austin High School, but Senator Shapleigh FAILS to go to the school to get real answers. Could it be that Austin HS is successful and the senator fails to seek real answers. The real failure is in Shapleigh's media stunt because Shapleigh does not seek the truth.
Get out of your office, get the facts right and then let people know you were not accurate with your scores.
teacher 101 el paso


text:
Should This Guy Be Able To Fight With Metal Hands? A man with metal hands knocks out fighters with ease. Should this be... 5/2/2014 12:51:25 PM 19,336 81
Why NOT To Punch a Guy Holding a Bat! Pro Tip: Don't punch the guy holding a bat. 5/2/2014 12:51:24 PM 33,845 36
Man Throws 1 Year Old After Fighting With Others WTF is wrong with this world??? 5/1/2014 10:57:34 AM 28,552 45
Russians Like To Drink and Fight Just another day in Russia. Drinking vodka and fighting with each other! 5/1/2014 10:57:34 AM 14,020 39
Old Guy Starts Fight On Subway, Gets Knocked Out A grumpy old man started something he couldn't finish. 4/30/2014 11:07:46 AM 21,132 43
Harry Potter vs Star Wars It's Harry Potter vs Star Wars Jedi Knight, who will win? 4/29/2014 12:52:43 PM 6,989 47
Skinhead Fights 10 Hispanics On Vegas Streets One white guy takes on ten Hispanics on the streets of Las Vegas. Watch to... 4/28/2014 9:49:10 AM 23,983 76
Kid That Can't Fight, Knocked Out With a Falcon Punch After basically losing the whole fight, insult just gets added to injury... 4/23/2014 10:49:28 AM 20,087 81


text:
Celadon Toadstool was delirious.
The funny bituproariously funny, it seemed to herwas that she knew she was delirious. The world was billowing around her. It looked as if someone had meticulously painted the inside of a cottage on silk, and then hung it in a gentle breeze. The corners floated inward and collapsed back out again with a sigh.
That someone would go to all that trouble, painting a cottage on silk, was hilarious.
She knew she was wounded. She couldnt quite remember how shed been wounded. Imagine not remembering a thing like that!
This also struck her as hilarious.
Her name, in Orcish, was Urrsharruk-gah, and she had skin the delicate gray-green of the gills of cave mushrooms, and eyes the color of stolen gold. Her hair was thick and dark and she wore it tucked under her helmet to keep enemies from being able to grab it, which was problematic, because shed lost her helmet somewhere along the way, and she wasnt in the best of shape anyway.
Even in her immense good humor at the moment, the lack of her helmet struck her as a bit unnerving.
She couldnt remember quite where shed lost it. Thered been a battleyesthat was pretty clear. Someone had hit her. Well, it was a battle, people tried to hit you a lot. Nothing unusual about that.
The great truth of this observation sent her off into gales of laughter, which was a bad idea, because her shoulder flared up with a heat that rapidly ceased to be pain and became something else altogether.
She still couldnt stop laughing. It was the unstoppable, shaky-bladderd laughter that came over you sometimes, and there was just no stopping it, despite the pain. The agony was breathtaking, and she couldnt remember why, and it was sodamnfunny!
Celadon couldnt get enough air in her lungs to sustain that for very long. Her head lolled back and she wheezed. Her eyes opened again.
A worried face was staring back at her. It didnt look right at all. The silk painter had obviously run out of green pigment, and left it at just a pale underpainting. He was probably off getting more paint. Celadon felt smug at having caught this unknown artist out. Once he got back, she was going to say something really snide.
One pale hand came out and laid across her forehead. The fingers were like bars of ice across her skin.
Come to think of it, she was feeling a bit hot.
More than a bit, actually. Had she gone into battle wearing a parka? That didnt make any sense.
The owner of the fingers was frowning. The artist had gotten the expression down pretty well, even if it was rendered in ghosts of color.
The unpainted person said something in a language she didnt recognize, all liquid clicking vowels, and then something else in another language. She didnt think she spoke that one, either. Then he said You have a fever.
Then he said it again, only in Glibber, the goblin language, except that in Glibber what he said was You blood-heat-sick.
That makes sense, Celadon thought absently. I really am quite hot.
Shed written a poem about fevers once. Heat of Battle, or something stupid like that. One of her early poems, before shed gotten over herself and stopped thinking that she was the only person on earth whod ever thrust words in the fire and hammered.
She wondered if hed read it. She hoped not. It would be embarrassing to be hovered over by someone whod read your dreadful early work. She wanted to ask him, but when she tried to talk, her voice came out in a weak, breathy rasp, like an asthmatic baby bird, and that was so funny she lost it again.
And where the hell was her helmet, anyway?
Shed taken it off. She remembered that fairly clearly. Shed taken it off on the battlefield.
Was she still on the battlefield? She didnt remember leaving.
The silk billowed around her again, bringing shouting and the clang of metal on metal with it, and the underpainting of a person leaned forward, his frown deepening even farther.
Losing your helmet in the middle of a battle is never a good idea, and she normally would no more have removed her helmet during combat than her underwear (and granted that her underwear had little protective value, she would probably have sacrificed it first.) But a stray mace coming up from below had missed her face by the width of a hair, caught her nose guard, and pushed it up sideways so that it was completely blocking the left side of her vision. Celadon hadnt even seen what had happened, and had halfway believed shed lost an eye. She still couldnt quite believe it, when she had half a moment clear and pried the helmet offthe force of the blow must have been extraordinary, and shed gotten away with a gouge across her cheekbone that was oozing blood down the side of her nose. Given the choice between vision or a helmet, shed reluctantly chosen vision, but it was a near thing.
The battle was nearly over now. The first few minutes had passed in the kind of mad daze of screaming and noise and hammering and stupid luck and stupider accidents that characterize battles, and now it was down to a last few pockets of fighting. In a way it was a lot worseyou could actually see what was happening, and notice the blows that were coming your way and feel sick when they just missed you, or a lot sicker when they didnt.
Their side had won, but that wouldnt matter for a few more minutes yet.
A great blond brute, six feet tall if he was an inch, and also missing his helmet, appeared in front of her. He roared something. She roared something backthe great grim gods only knew what. They both knew what it meant, anyway, no matter what the words saidLets try to kill each other! Yes, lets! and then they fell on each other, hammer and tongs. He bent her shield into weird shapes with his hammer, and she carved his thighs up like a ham. At the end of it, her left arm was limp and the shoulder felt like water, and he was dead.
It went on like that, a couple more encounters. She would have lost count, if shed bothered counting to begin with. The last one was a whippy redhead with a broken nose who realized that her shield wasnt worth much any more, and kept going for her left side. She would have been in serious trouble, but Thrugguk, her eighth cousin a few dozen times removed, wandered by and broke the mans collarbone, and after that it was butchery.
She stood and tried to catch her breath. She was very, very hot. Battle was hot work, but this was worse than usual.
She couldnt see out of her helmet. She took it off. The nose guard was pushed out of position. She should have lost the eye. A cut leaked blood down her cheek.
wait. Didnt I do this already?
Where was her helmet, again?
She turned around. The world was rippling. There was someone standing there, one of the elves, except that he wasnt wearing armor. This was so stupid, not to be wearing armor on the field of battle, that Celadon didnt immediately attack him. You didnt cut down lunatics or holy men, and he might have been either. It wasnt always possible to tell the difference.
But then he reached for her, his face so pale and angular, like a white fox, and his fingers were coming towards her face, and she raised her sword against him.
where was her sword?
And where the hell was her helmet?
He was still reaching for her. Deprived of weapons, Celadon did the only thing she could think of. One of her arms didnt seem to be workinghad she been wounded? She couldnt rememberbut the other one worked just fine, and she reached out and wrapped her hand around his throat.
No sword. No helmet. He didnt have a sword or a helmet either. What were they doing on a battlefield with no swords and no helmets? Were they both mad?
This, too, struck her as hysterically funny, and as her fingers dug into the elfs windpipe, all she could do was laugh and laugh and laugh.


text:
Comprehensive Medical Care
The doctors at Warrandyte Road Clinic have been providing family medical care of the highest standard for over 100 years.
We are a fully accredited general practice in Ringwood, located just minutes from Eastland Shopping Centre. Our experienced and friendly team provides a full range of medical services.
Call us on 9870 9000 to book an appointment.
Clinic Opening Hours
Monday to Friday | 8am - 6:30pm (by appointment) |
Saturday | 8:30am - 11:30am (no appointment required) |
Sunday and Public Holidays | Closed |


text:
RepairPal's independent, master mechanics track down the best of the best in auto repair. Learn more »
Get the latest advice about your car
Model Year Affected: 2006
If the brakes are squealing, there's a good chance it is the brake pad wear sensor. A new design was implemented in January 2006 and can be identified by its green color.
Q&A > BMW > 2007 BMW 550i
Q&A > BMW > 2006 BMW 550i
Common Problems > BMW 550i


text:
33MD for March 9, 2009
POSTED: Monday, March 9, 2009 - 5:24pm
UPDATED: Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 10:57pm
If you've ever though the weather has caused your headache, you're not alone and no researchers say there might be something scientific to that theory.
For headache sufferers, there may finally be some fact behind the folklore. Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston say the weather really can cause headaches. Experts looked at the cases of more than 7,000 patients who came into the emergency room with headaches. Then, they found out what the weather was doing in the days before the hospital visit.
Dr. Kenneth Mukamal says, "It was consistently warmer on the days that individuals came in with headaches than on similar days of month." In fact, they found the risk of getting a headache was about 7.5% higher for every 9 degrees warmer it was and that was true in summer and winter. "There is clearly things going on in our autonomic nervous system, and that part of our nervous system that affects regulates our internal organs."
Researchers also found slightly lower pressure in the atmosphere on days before some hospitalizations. In the past, scientists have found that higher pressure in the atmosphere has caused headaches, so more studies are needed.
This might surprise you, but researchers found pollution in the air seemed to have no effect on headaches. The study is published in the journal, "Neurology."


text:
to page content
to site navigation
The Resource Center has all the info you'll need From content to user feedback, the resource center has the information you need for every level of the entrepreneurial process.
This document is a sample of an actual filed patent, and includes key sections such as product abstract, diagrams, and detailed description of the invention.
This document is a sample legal agreement covering non-disclosure of intellectual property in the context of a potential company sale between two parties.
A due diligence checklist can provide a comprehensive assemblage of company information an entrepreneur needs in advance to negotiate effectively. This checklist is used by Corey Schwartz, entrepreneur and finance expert, in his negotiations to buy and sell companies.
Use this criteria to evaluate prerequisites for an SSL VPN, which is used to provide authorized and secure access for end users to an organization's Web, client/serve, and file sharing resources.
A SWOT analysis helps identify Strengths and Weaknesses and examine the Opportunities and Threats you or your competitors may face. This tools helps you learn more about your competition gain greater insight into the market.
This article provides several looks at simple depreciation, including one entrepreneur's example.
There are six primary legal forms of doing business. This article will help you understand the basics and better communicate your needs with your attorney and accountant.
This tool features lists of sample key questions to ask and to avoid in an interview, a form for taking notes as you interview each potential employee, and a matrix to help you objectively compare candidates.
This tool will help you be prepared to present your Unique Selling Proposition in 20 seconds or less.
This tool will help you develop and practice giving a compelling venture presentation.
Want to get connected? Sign up to receive regular news, polls and updates from The Kauffman Foundation.
A robust online curriculum for entrepreneurs. Explore Founders School >
Top of Mind Blog providing the latest in entrepreneurial news. Go to the TOM Blog >
A network of U.S. cities facilitating a weekly entrepreneur education program. Go to 1 Million Cups >
Whether you are starting or growing a company, FastTrac will help you live your dream at each stage. Go to FastTrac >


text: People who think they are concealed with just a T-shirt are just fooling themselves as far as I am concerned. I work very hard to conceal my carry gun. That has meant many hours of standing in front of a full length mirror wearing different types of clothing bending over, sitting and squatting to determine how badly the gun will protrude during all these activities. I have found that a heavy shirt worn open at the waist is pretty darned good for me but I even take extra precautions beyond that. I always wear a T-shirt between me and the cover garment. Since my carry guns are dark, I have found that wearing a dark t-shirt makes them less likely to be seen should my shirt open up. I have a friend of mine who is has been carrying proffesionaly for a long time who told me he could tell that I was carrying, this conversation was over the phone. I ran into him a few days later and, after several minutes of talking to him about other things, I asked him if he could tell. He said no even after looking hard. I showed him that I was and he was pretty surprised.


text:
For Google, China remains closed commercially, too
Since launching in 2006, Google's China search engine has struggled to attract users. Homegrown competitor Baidu enjoys twice the US firm's market share.
Jason Lee/Reuters
As news spread on the Chinese Internet that Google is threatening to close its Chinese website because of censorship, a band of Twitterers organized a bold show of solidarity.
At lunchtime, a group of them arrived at Google's headquarters bearing flowers, in token of their support for the search-engine giant's stand against government control of the Web.
"Respect Google for: 1) Doing what you should, even if it is not easy. 2) Protecting your heart and your clients," read one tweet.
"There is clearly a constituency that appreciates the message that Google is sending, that it finds the Chinese government's attitude to the Internet and censorship unacceptable," says Rebecca MacKinnon, who is writing a book about the Chinese Web.
It was a rare display of sympathy for a company that has struggled against official and commercial pressure to make Google.cn a success in the four years since it launched.
The Chinese language search engine had a 31 percent share of the market in the third quarter of 2009, the last period for which figures are available, according to the Chinese Internet consultancy firm Analysys. The market leader, homegrown Baidu, had more than double that, with 64 percent.