Post #157,191
5/27/04 10:14:53 AM
|
GOP appears not to want you to read Gore "in his words"...
The "rebuttal" appears to be in response to [link|http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/26/gore_speech/index.html|this] long speech... well worth a read even if you have to watch GE ("we put the GE in Genesis") divide the light from the darkness first.
So how does tarring your opponent with experience and success in fighting terrorism undermine his points?
Giovanni
I'm not a complete idiot -- some parts are missing
|
Post #157,226
5/27/04 1:18:43 PM
|
Gore's gone nuts
Simply put.
He's either horribly boring while speaking or trying his best WWF Fight Night impersonation.
Hell, he pretty much called for the entire standing government to tender resignations for ACTUALLY DOING things that his cabinet put forward as policy.
So, talking about it is nice, but doing it is grounds for termination.
Typical.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,244
5/27/04 2:35:41 PM
|
You're over the edge.
I guess that's what happens when your heroes screw up so horribly. Only a died-in-the-wool PNAC lover could read his speech and not be overwhelmed by the deepest patriotic sentiment.
Yes, patriotic. The word does NOT belong to the Neoconderthals.
I read that speech and Gore is describing an America I wish I lived in. But I fear that far too many of your fellow Reagan Youth have reached maturity for that America to ever exist again.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,274
5/27/04 4:14:50 PM
|
Read?? You need to WATCH.
He's over the edge.
And sure he can throw stones. But the counter argument is that there were no less than 5 horrific terrorist attacks against the US ON HIS WATCH and they did NOTHING.
Again. they did NOTHING.
Now he plays monday morning quarterback and he's supremely patriotic.
You're making me sick.
This has NOTHING to do with the performance of Bush and the team. They certainly have not done everything 100% correct. BUT THEY AT LEAST HAVE DONE SOMETHING.
And Al asks for resignations of personal friends...because we need a NEW direction. He put us on that course. Him and his boss.
Now he screams like Rowdy ROddy Piper that its wrong...all wrong...and everybody needs to quit.
Puh-frickin-leeze
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,276
5/27/04 4:23:05 PM
|
Did NOTHING?
Hmmmm, wonder what Yosef would say about that?
And Gore put us on the track of trickle upon revisited/shred the BOR/the (Un)PATRIOT ACT/Invasion of Iraq "ta go ahfta that man what trahd t'keel mah daddee"/etc. ad nausem?
Monday morning quarterback's ass. When Gore was 2nd in command, we actually *caught, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced* terrorists foreign AND domestic.
Sheesh, you need to stop getting all your information from the Washington Times.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,305
5/27/04 5:51:44 PM
|
I also seem to recall a certain plot against LAX
that was broken up ON HIS WATCH (to turn a phrase). Wasn't that plot 9/11 V1.0?
Mike, when BeeP puts on his neocon hat (which, as we all know, is two sizes too small, so as to cut off all blood circulation to the part of the brain that handles logic and deductive thinking), there is no reasoning with the man.
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #157,318
5/27/04 6:56:18 PM
|
Right.
And you are the paragon of open mindedness.
Another puhleeze.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,319
5/27/04 6:59:38 PM
|
Yep
Cole? Response?
Embassies. Response?
WTC? Ohh right...we caught a guy in Jersey City...that'll really blow out the network.
Its the most serious threat we face. Nice talk. Whaddya do, cut intel funding. Whaddya do? Cut military funding.
Lose power? Now you bitch the other guys are doing it all wrong becasue we've lost the respect of the FRENCH.
Big deal.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,347
5/28/04 1:37:53 AM
|
That's a whole lot of nothing
Cole? Response? Investigate the immediate perpetrators while behind the scenes get Richard Clarke to form a war plan for invading Afghanistan but hold back on immediate military action because because it would interfere with the elections less than a month away. Lose the election, give the war plan to the new administration which orders the FBI to back off from al-Qaeda and invites Islamic Jihad and Hamas representatives to dinner at the White House to show the new administration's solidarity with Islam. Embassies. Response? Bomb bin Laden's residence and four of his training camps, missing him by less than an hour after he changes his dinner plans (possibly after getting warning from Pakistan). Deploy cruise missile launchers to the Pakistani coast for the next time he pops his head up. Also bomb an asprin factory that bad intel suggested it supplied VX to Iraq and Qaeda. Get denounced by the Republican Party because the Republicans don't think terrorism is as big a threat to the country as marital infidelity by a sitting President. WTC? Ohh right...we caught a guy in Jersey City...that'll really blow out the network. We caught the guys who did it and lifted the lid on the deeper movement. Unless you're going to pretend that you knew about al Qaeda in 1993 when it wasn't on the national intel groups' radar and didn't even exist two years earlier, what are you complaining about? Its the most serious threat we face. Nice talk. Whaddya do, cut intel funding. Whaddya do? Cut military funding. Whaddaya do, [link|http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/ap020199.html|increase intel funding], order the CIA to hit UBL, fund and deploy the Predator drone and JDAM programs. Lose power? Now you bitch the other guys are doing it all wrong becasue we've lost the respect of the FRENCH. Big deal. [link|http://www.ulrp2.com/rumors/images/lutjens.jpg|http://www.ulrp2.com...mages/lutjens.jpg] <-- That's what Germany thought of us in 2001. [link|http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,242831,00.gif|http://www.spiegel.d...020,242831,00.gif] <-- That's what Germany thought of us in 2003. If you can't tell, there's a big difference. If you can't tell why, you need to have your head examined. Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment.
Meanwhile, [link|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/|look who really did do nothing about a known serious terrorist threat that was easily within his grasp].
|
Post #157,370
5/28/04 9:12:43 AM
|
Better
And more appropriate a response.
Point for all. Most here disagree with the current admins policy. I'm ok with that becasue I'm no fan either.
However, having Gore do a WWF announcer impersonation demanding the resignation of the entire staff in Washington is blowhard bullshit at best. He clearly doesn't understand that there are more sections to the Geneva Convention than Section 3 dealing with Prisoners of War and that each of these classifications confer different rights to the prisoners. The right to counsel and communication is conferred onto uniformed soldiers and conscripted militia fighting under the rules of engagement. The prisoners in Iraq do NOT meet these qualifications and cannot be delared Prisoners of War under the Convention. So, while moving and passionate, that tyrade of his was factually incorrect.
Still. We in the US have a choice coming up and unfortunately for us it seems to be between cast members of a bad jim Carrey movie. (name even similar). THis is truly a dumb and dumber choice. In fact, I can't think of a less palatable set of choices since Ford/Carter (and I even liked Jimmy, though he was woefully unprepared for the economics of the time). Though daddy W and Dukakakakakis was pretty slim pickins as well.
For many its simply a matter of perception. For instance the French. I've had many conversations with many french folk about the situation in Iraq. The governmnet's stance isn't representative of the population at large from my sample group. NONE supported us invading Iraq, though they could care less about Saddam and his fate. They remember being involved in North Africa. They know what we are dealing with >politically<. They are very fatalistic about chances of success as are many here.
Anyway, rambling when I should be working.
I'm sure I've stirred the nest enough for 2 days.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,278
5/27/04 4:29:44 PM
|
What Gore did or did not do does not
disqualify him from having and stating his thoughts on the current state of affairs.
Contradict the ideas and not the speaker. Say what it is that Gore said that is wrong.
Alex
Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lost. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher
|
Post #157,309
5/27/04 6:11:04 PM
|
Naah.. not possible.
In order to do that, he'd have to first define what "liberal" means, along with "conservative".
(never mind the laughable compassionate scam.. to seem to make the word the deed)
Slogan VS slogan; factoid VS factoid - BeeP likes to agitate; the rest ya gotta pull out kickin n'screamin; takes a tedious thread or two. Hey, where's Brandioch when ya needs a slogan-macerator?
(It's so much eezier, too - just look for Opposites and arrange -->|<-- to suit)
Nice try though..
|
Post #157,320
5/27/04 7:01:27 PM
|
Shhhh.
Don't give away the secret!!!
--->hornets nest
me--->stick--->hornets nest....RUN AWAY!
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,330
5/27/04 9:05:26 PM
|
{glorp}
Why you
You
YOU vile torturer of innocent Middle-of-the-Hive insects!
(Damn, now I can't call yez an insect ..)
|
Post #157,306
5/27/04 5:56:20 PM
|
How many? How bad?
[...]there were no less than 5 horrific terrorist attacks against the US ON HIS WATCH[...] Care to name them? All you were referring to previously was the WTC bombing, now that has become 5?!? (The neocons really need you BeeP; with that level of "fuzzy math" we could balance the budget and supply universal health to everyone in this country). And what was the "body count" from the 5 horrific attacks? Links only, please. jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #157,322
5/27/04 7:06:57 PM
|
ok 4
and is body count necessary? If Kerry gets elected and they hit the subway at rush hour you gonna let that count?
Actually get 4 non-responded terror atacks (so I rounded up one. 2 embassies. WTC and the Cole.
I can see that their response really slowed them down...unless your will think that all the planning for 9/11 was done after election day (at which point i want what you're smoking)
Who's to say that current actions haven't hampered potential attacks? Security at LAX getting lucky isn't exactly a triumph...becasue the changes should have been made to prevent 9/11 (since they KNEW hijacking was a possibility). Were the changes made?
Nope.
Again.
They did nothing.
And its obvious several folks here liked it that way.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,403
5/28/04 10:44:52 AM
|
I don't what they were planning when
and neither do you (unless, of course you're a sleeper...in which case...Hello, Crisco Johnny...!).
But that's not the point. The point is that when the current "administration" took hold of the reins, they visibly and actively backed away from attacking ME terrorism so as to curry favor with [oil] producing states -- specifically Saudi Arabia (which is ObL's base, not Iraq, as some would have you believe). When the cat's away, the mice will play, and play they did. Whatever anti-terrorism activity this "administration" took prior to 9/11 was miniscule and perfunctory compared to that of the prior administration (assuming there was any at all; some of the black helicopter crowd believe there wasn't any).
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #157,335
5/27/04 10:37:05 PM
|
Lol
And sure he can throw stones. But the counter argument is that there were no less than 5 horrific terrorist attacks against the US ON HIS WATCH and they did NOTHING.
Again. they did NOTHING.
Now he plays monday morning quarterback and he's supremely patriotic.
LOL...that's funny. First off, he wasn't in charge. (Remember, vice-presidents *cough* usually don't have any power) Second, no response? Why do you think they picked 9/11. (Hint: it involves the trial on 9/10). Nevermind McVeigh's execution (how many more Oklahoma's have we had?) Nevermind the executions in Saudi Arabia over the Embassy, Cole and Barracks explosions. Yep, no response there, honest. Third, monday morning quarterback? Who the HELL came up with the Homeland Security Act. It sure wasn't Bush. And Gore didn't parade around in a Flight Jacket. (Parading in a U.S. Military Flight Jacket - that's supremely patriotic.)
|
Post #157,364
5/28/04 8:42:29 AM
|
So you actually believe
McVeigh acted alone, or in concert with one other white, middle aged fat man from Oklahoma.
Never mind...now I know why Clinton/Gore were/are so popular...brainwashing.
By the way, Gore needs to study the appropriate sections of the Geneva Convention. He's conveying rights unto the prisoners that they do not have.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,404
5/28/04 10:48:00 AM
|
So YOU actually believe
McVeigh was an al Qaida operative, or worked in concert with some Iraqi terrorist group.
Never mind...now I know why Bush/Cheney were/are so popular...brainwashing.
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #157,408
5/28/04 10:57:20 AM
|
Nope. I believe they had "guidance"
And even Bush/Cheney et al are sticking to the orignal story so you can't blame it on them quite so easily.
Only Jayna Davis has stuck to her guns and kept after John Doe #2 and followed all the other leads re: trips to leatn how to build fuel oil bombs, meetings with iraqi and other terrorist orgs.
Didn't believe the "acted alone" crap then, and still don't believe it now.
Even the feds have modified the charges to include "others unknown".
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,490
5/28/04 5:29:25 PM
|
I saw Bigfoot once..
OK - maaybe not quii--ite the full Conspiracy Theory of History cha cha cha
But think about -
START
Dallas, November 22, 1963
There's A Version there for everyone.. permanently, by now.
ie your suspicions (which must therefore, also contain *your* estimation of just how layers-within-layers clever this bird was) -- JUMP TO START
Hmmm - let's do "Anthrax" next, via merely
-?- Cui Bono -?-
Oooohhh, that can get as interesting as recursive multiple gamers-on-Mean Reds and nitrous.
Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist.
- Phillip K Dick
|
Post #157,513
5/28/04 10:21:06 PM
|
As fond as you are..
...to imply grand conspiricy to this government, I'm surprised that you so easily dismiss this to Loch Nessdom.
Ms Davis has compiled quite a list of evidence. You should read it.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,523
5/29/04 3:30:23 AM
|
What "conspiracy" with this government?
The
\ufffd Invade Iraq.
has been on the PNAC Master Plan forever, predating 9/11 by some years.
s/bafflegab/conspiracy - nicely covers the actual propaganda, "reasons" shifting daily as the previous were shot down.. from the very first use of crusade, "with US or against US" and the rest of the dance, culminating in,
Fuck Off, Euro: We Can Do It All Ourselves\ufffd
Pshaw.
I have no information of any substance re the associations of this now dead Yahoo, but I can imagineer as many possibilities as anyone. Been there, done that re 11/22. And if you believe that there *is* substance to be supported -- and the Feds didn't act on that -!?-
Then you've as good as confirmed that the present Cabal are experts in Disney imagineering and real klutzes at making any of their fantasies Happen.
"The Iraqis will welcome US in the streets"
Rove-o-witz et al cha cha cha
..and about that Anthrax -
So which of us is the more cynical about Murican 'justice', this Cabal and its amateurish machinations to date?
|
Post #157,504
5/28/04 8:37:03 PM
|
Um..where did I claim that?
So you actually believe
McVeigh acted alone, or in concert with one other white, middle aged fat man from Oklahoma
You claimed that "they did NOTHING". I countered with a public execution. Never mind...now I know why Clinton/Gore were/are so popular...brainwashing.
ah yes...personal attacks. How quaint. Come on BP...I know you're better than that. By the way, Gore needs to study the appropriate sections of the Geneva Convention. He's conveying rights unto the prisoners that they do not have.
Hey, one I can agree with you on!
|
Post #157,349
5/28/04 2:13:16 AM
|
"Nothing"?
Evidence?
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #157,717
5/30/04 1:59:46 PM
|
I finally saw excerpts.
The talking heads this morning were hand-wringing about it. 'This really hurts Kerry', etc. Consensus on the morning 'news' shows was that Gore had "done a Howard Dean impression" and had hurt the Democratic Party.
What really sucks is that displaying any passion for the almost forgotten principals upon which this country is supposed to stand is now seen as a bad, almost unforgiveable thing.
If Beep is in the mainstream on this, perhaps we should all vote for Bush. If the majority feel the way Beep does, $DEITY knows we deserve four more years.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,734
5/30/04 4:05:30 PM
|
Theres a difference between passion and lunacy
He was frothing. It doesn't show "leadership" or "patriotism". It smacks of blind hatred. If defeats their cause.
I'm surprised you don't see this.
I have no issue for someone showing passion. Lord knows we could use some of that. But what Gore did wasn't passion. It was out of control.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,867
5/31/04 3:57:50 PM
|
If you think that was "frothing",
you should see me in person when I'm reading drivel like you just posted.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,892
5/31/04 8:03:31 PM
|
Well thats too bad.
Since it makes it obvious that you cannot see through yourself to what >most people< will see.
In which case, you have every right to think I'm "way out there". While I have a crowd gathered around me, way out by where your standing I certainly am some distance away.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,911
5/31/04 11:05:07 PM
|
Forgot the sarcasm tag.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,917
5/31/04 11:27:14 PM
|
Should've been obvious
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,957
6/1/04 8:31:45 AM
|
No! I forgot it. ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,744
5/30/04 5:35:29 PM
|
Well, if they're like Meet the Press....
they're reading things into the speech that aren't there.
But mostly what you're seeing is a response...any response...to attack a man who has told the truth. BP's sole argument against Gore is that the prisoners of are not prisoners of war. That Gore is not telling the truth.
And BP is correct. Those prisoners are not prisoners of war and they don't have the right not to be tortured.
The question, in effect, that Gore asks is "Do we as Americans want to be torturing people?"
|
Post #157,750
5/30/04 6:16:23 PM
|
I dont define what happened as "torture"
unless they cranked up the generator on the guy with the electrodes on him. I dont say it was right because it would not elicit the response needed. It was a gross violation of the human condition and should be punished for that alone, but torture it was not.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,779
5/30/04 9:59:12 PM
|
Not even close.
Humiliation possibly.
Torture, not.
At least not in the things I have seen to date.
HOWEVER, that does not make it acceptable. That does not minimize the fact that it should not have occured and it does not reduce or eliminate the fact that it probably will become the one single aspect that lost the battle for the minds of the Iraqi people.
Did we film brutal amputations of hands? Did we subject these people to tests of chemical agents. No. But we did not treat them as >Americans< should have treated them.
The punishment and public flogging af all up through the generals rank should have been swift and painful. It wasn't.
Still...the press has latched onto this and will not let it go. we get a week tops for a beheading. 5-6 weeks and counting for underwear modeling and naked twister.
[link|http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040607/opinion/7john.htm|Pew knows what they are talking about.]
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,823
5/31/04 2:37:20 AM
|
They beat people to death.
-drl
|
Post #157,843
5/31/04 10:27:39 AM
|
Close to the core problem.
Did we film brutal amputations of hands? Did we subject these people to tests of chemical agents. No. But we did not treat them as >Americans< should have treated them.
The issue isn't "Were a few prisoners sexual assaulted?" The issue is "why we didn't treat them as >Americans< should have treated them." That's the core question that Gore was addressing. That a system of checks and balances should exist in the Government to prevent certain actions from occuring. Blaming a 'few solders', as this admistration has done is to duck responsibility. To quote from his speech: Those pictures of torture and sexual abuse came to us embedded in a wave of news about escalating casualties and growing chaos enveloping our entire policy in Iraq. But in order to understand the failure of our overall policy, it is important to focus specifically on what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison, and ask whether or not those actions were representative of who we are as Americans? Obviously the quick answer is no, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that.
There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have lead us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations more than the people any other nation.
Our founders were insightful students of human nature. They feared the abuse of power because they understood that every human being has not only "better angels" in his nature, but also an innate vulnerability to temptation -- especially the temptation to abuse power over others.
Our founders understood full well that a system of checks and balances is needed in our Constitution because every human being lives with an internal system of checks and balances that cannot be relied upon to produce virtue if they are allowed to attain an unhealthy degree of power over their fellow citizens.
Listen then to the balance of internal impulses described by Specialist Charles Graner when confronted by one of his colleagues, Specialist Joseph M. Darby, who later became a courageous whistleblower. When Darby asked him to explain his actions documented in the photos, Graner replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the Corrections Officer says, 'I love to make a grown man piss on himself."
What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.
And that's why the RNC is up in arms about it - they're willing to compare Gore to Jerry Springer, Dean, anyone...rather than look at the issue and see if the guy screaming is telling the truth. Still...the press has latched onto this and will not let it go. we get a week tops for a beheading. 5-6 weeks and counting for underwear modeling and naked twister.
Certainly not. And it's not going anyway anytime soon. Because it's not about a few mistreated prisoners. It's a question of whether or not the policies that allowed the prisoners to be mistreated are flawed.
|
Post #157,848
5/31/04 11:07:28 AM
|
Bob Herbert of the Times says...
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/opinion/31HERB.html|http://www.nytimes.c...inion/31HERB.html]
We routinely treat prisoners in the United States like animals. We brutalize and degrade them, both men and women. And we have a lousy record when it comes to protecting well-behaved, weak and mentally ill prisoners from the predators surrounding them.
Very few Americans have raised their voices in opposition to our shameful prison policies. And I'm convinced that's primarily because the inmates are viewed as less than human.
Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, represented several prisoners in Georgia who sought compensation in the late-1990's for treatment that was remarkably similar to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. An undertaker named Wayne Garner was in charge of the prison system at the time, having been appointed in 1995 by the governor, Zell Miller, who is now a U.S. senator.
Mr. Garner considered himself a tough guy. In a federal lawsuit brought on behalf of the prisoners by the center, he was quoted as saying that while there were some inmates who "truly want to do better . . . there's another 30 to 35 per cent that ain't fit to kill. And I'm going to be there to accommodate them."
On Oct. 23, 1996, officers from the Tactical Squad of the Georgia Department of Corrections raided the inmates' living quarters at Dooly State Prison, a medium-security facility in Unadilla, Ga. This was part of a series of brutal shakedowns at prisons around the state that were designed to show the prisoners that a new and tougher regime was in charge.
What followed, according to the lawsuit, was simply sick. Officers opened cell doors and ordered the inmates, all males, to run outside and strip. With female prison staff members looking on, and at times laughing, several inmates were subjected to extensive and wholly unnecessary body cavity searches. The inmates were ordered to lift their genitals, to squat, to bend over and display themselves, etc.
One inmate who was suspected of being gay was told that if he ever said anything about the way he was being treated, he would be locked up and beaten until he wouldn't "want to be gay anymore." An officer who was staring at another naked inmate said, "I bet you can tap dance." The inmate was forced to dance, and then had his body cavities searched.
An inmate in a dormitory identified as J-2 was slapped in the face and ordered to bend over and show himself to his cellmate. The raiding party apparently found that to be hilarious.
Either no one knows, or worse, no one cares, or worse, they actually want this to happen. The underbelly of America is crawling with maggots.
-drl
|
Post #157,863
5/31/04 2:34:12 PM
|
It would be interesting..
...but in true fashion he makes a sweeping statement about how "this administration has destroyed the constitution" without any grounding or basis.
Its sensationalism.
Its WWF.
And he delivered it that way.
Its starting to get disturbing. Anyone that says anything critical of this administration is heroic and patriotic..regardless of whether or not there was actually any CONTENT and regardless of whether or not the content was actually accurate.
Oh to have a real choice.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,816
5/31/04 12:40:01 AM
|
Torture comes on a spectrum
With the key stuff being all mental, not physical. You don't have to seriously hurt someone to really fuck him up.
And the treatment of those prisoners was definitely on that spectrum. At least in my books.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #157,849
5/31/04 11:13:48 AM
|
Nope ben, wrong
mental abuse is not torture in any way shape or form. I dont care what the touchee feely UN sez either.Torture is physical pain inflicted br removing body parts, toenails, teeth eyes eyelids scalp etc. Repeated beatings upon the kidneys soles of the feet and testicles. Rape repeated in exchange for imformation instead of just because. Otherwise it is abuse of civil rights, no self respecting roman inquisitor would accept that as torture.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,899
5/31/04 9:24:44 PM
|
And I beg to disagree
Torture is a systemic attempt to break a person. Now perhaps you don't consider a calculated plan of sleep deprivation, degredation and starvation to be a form of torture, but you'd sing a different tune if you were going through it.
I don't know what the Romans would have thought about it otherwise, but the Church inquisition understood this fully. So fully that they counted as part of the torture just telling people what would happen to them and letting them stew in that knowledge for a while.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #157,924
5/31/04 11:35:17 PM
|
disagree all you want you are wrong :-)
torture is a part of a systematic attempt to break a person down. If you think any attempt to "break a person down" is torture then ask some of Uncle Sams Misguided Children who are older what boot camp was like.
thanx.
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,932
5/31/04 11:50:10 PM
|
Oh, I know what boot camp is
And yes, it is a form of brainwashing. It is hardly the only one accepted in our society. Another is medical residency.
But there is a difference between attempting to mold a person into a shape they weren't, and attempting to destroy that person. The distinction may be subtle, but it is there.
Some of the techniques (eg sleep deprivation) are necessarily similar. But the goal makes such a difference.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #157,966
6/1/04 11:06:01 AM
|
so its not the means that count only the ends?
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #158,008
6/1/04 2:38:09 PM
|
Mean ends matter...
That is, torture could well be part of brainwashing. A similar example, standard training in some branches of the forces includes a couple of weeks of being tortured.
In both cases even though the ultimate goal isn't to leave a person broken, it was a goal for a significant episode, and that episode is torture. (In my books.)
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #158,056
6/2/04 3:32:29 AM
|
Re: Mean ends matter... {cackle} nice wordplay
|
Post #158,100
6/2/04 11:21:46 AM
|
Intended wordplay at that - glad someone noticed :-)
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #158,113
6/2/04 12:33:46 PM
|
ObDyslexicLRPD
People don't kill guns...
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #158,163
6/2/04 4:24:03 PM
|
..they hug them
and polish them and put them in sheepskin cases .. tenderly
..in hopes they won't Turn On Them, next
-but-
|
Post #157,608
5/29/04 5:43:46 PM
|
"It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, . .
.. because there was no sense in what he said."
[link|http://www.lone-star.net/mall/literature/warpray.htm|Link]
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
|
