Canada puts U.S. on torture watch list
Omar Khadr’s lawyers say they can’t understand why Canada is not doing more to help their client in light of new evidence that Ottawa has put the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on a watch list for torture.
Khadr — a Canadian citizen who was just 15-years-old when he was captured in Afghanistan more than five years ago and taken to Guantanamo — has claimed that he has been tortured at the prison. Now, CTV News has obtained documents that put Guantanamo Bay on a torture watch list.
Khadr’s U.S. military lawyer says the new documents contradict Harper’s assurances that his client is receiving fair treatment.
#31, bobbo,
Damn you !!! Are you purposely trying to give me a headache?
I’ll get back on this after a bit of thought. And maybe some ibuprofen.
#31 – Bobbo…
You have the same problem that Bill Clinton had…
Like Bill, you are so wrapped up in the enjoyment of the debate that you will easily take debates in any direction to have the debate.
I want discussion to lead people to act or vote or whatever in ways that lead to real solutions to real problems.
You might want discussion to do that to, but you get sidetracked by your sheer joy of debating.
#33—OFTLO—Now, I think I have been very polite to you, and you decide to INSULT ME like this??? I’m like Bill Clinton? Jeesh! He is a liar, I tell the truth. All I do is discuss issues within my range of comfort. I have many personal preferences, but don’t need many of them to be enshrined in law in order to require other people to act as I would. I am comfortable within a large range of behavior for the law to be that which I disagree with. Few things are important enough to justify a hernia or a heart attack.
Don’t sweat the small stuff, and know that it is all small stuff. and other similar Vonnegut type nihilisms.
I get irritated when debates don’t progress. YOU are good at progressing the debate when you have time. Mustard (where is Mustard?–banned???) often irritatingly would go in circles and deny the obvious. CATSHIT, has approached the circular, then veered-off into straightness. Or maybe I actually also just want everybody to agree with me because I am right, and everybody else is wrong.
Thats what we all think—-right? Or, maybe we are willing to talk it out. Hard to say.
Here’s what I find to be problematic:
1. The U.S. has the most open and free media. In fact, allegations of torture at Gitmo began in the U.S. media. The likelihood of torture occurring in America without coverage is minimal, as opposed to say a country where the media is controlled by the Gov’t (e.g., Venezuela).
2. You are assuming the word of a 15-year old individual caught in Afghanistan with Al-Qaeda is the truth. Is anyone here familiar with training or directives terrorists (or “freedom-fighters” if that’s your flavor) receive if they’re captured by a military that abides by the Geneva Convention?
Think about all angles, here.
#34 – #33—OFTLO—Now, I think I have been very polite to you, and you decide to INSULT ME like this??? I’m like Bill Clinton? Jeesh! He is a liar, I tell the truth.
I happen to like Bill Clinton, and trust him to boot.
All I do is discuss issues within my range of comfort. I have many personal preferences, but don’t need many of them to be enshrined in law in order to require other people to act as I would.
I don’t need people to act as I do. I need people to not need me to act as they do. And that does need to be enshrined in law. In fact, it is.
I am comfortable within a large range of behavior for the law to be that which I disagree with. Few things are important enough to justify a hernia or a heart attack.
The only thing that will ever give me a heart attack is my job, which I am effectively slacking at now. I may write like I’m frothing at the mouth… but if you were here witnessing me, you’d see that it produces a Zen like calm.
Don’t sweat the small stuff, and know that it is all small stuff. and other similar Vonnegut type nihilisms.
Vonnegut made a living doing what made him happy. I’m a wage slave. Perspective is everything and its all big stuff.
I get irritated when debates don’t progress. YOU are good at progressing the debate when you have time.
I get irrated because Usenet is de facto dead and web forums are not nearly as effective. John’s recent upgrade is nice because now you can see latest posts over on the right and so you know whens something new is added to a thread that slid off the front page.
Mustard (where is Mustard?–banned???) often irritatingly would go in circles and deny the obvious. CATSHIT, has approached the circular, then veered-off into straightness.
Yeah… the cast all changed over the Holiday break. Who are these strange new people frolicking in my garden?
Or maybe I actually also just want everybody to agree with me because I am right, and everybody else is wrong.
When you are right, I’ll tell you that you are right.
Thats what we all think—-right? Or, maybe we are willing to talk it out. Hard to say.
First Amendment issues are easy. Everything else requires reasoned debate.
#35 – 1. The U.S. has the most open and free media.
The US has the worst media in the “free” world.
http://tinyurl.com/ytaumn
If you can see your way to getting past Micheal Moore’s very brief appearance in the intro, this link from Democracy Now! does a great job at revealing the failure of our media to inform the public.
#38
Is acceptable to kill in self defense? What about a situations like 1936-1967 Germany or 1770 America? Viewed more generally, is there any situation under any circumstances where killing is acceptable? There is no one answer that fits every situation and thus the only reasonable answer is, “it depends”. However, those situations do exist.
It has always been accepted that “acts of necessity” may give a defense to breaking the law. In previous arguments over the past few days I have suggested that cannibalism after a plane crash in a remote area, speeding to get your wife to the hospital before she delivers, or killing an armed intruder. These examples are all dependent upon the immediacy of the situation and what alternatives are available.
Cannibalism wouldn’t be acceptable if there were rations available. Speeding to the hospital isn’t acceptable if you have to pass three other hospitals to get there. Shooting an intruder is still wrong if he is trying to leave and is shot in the back.
It is only a defense only to use “self defense”, it is never a waiver or abrogation of the law.
***
I have no idea what you are referring to about 1936-1967 Germany or 1770 America. I suppose there is some expert Micro Economic rational for them.
#40
> I have no idea what you
> are referring to about
> 1936-1967 Germany or
> 1770 America.
So, the fact that you know absolutely nothing about economics is equally matched by your lack of knowledge about history. Fantastic. You chose your moniker well. Clearly quality assurance does not extend to self evaluation.
#41, Tommy,
#40
> I have no idea what you
> are referring to about
> 1936-1967 Germany or
> 1770 America.
So, the fact that you know absolutely nothing about economics is equally matched by your lack of knowledge about history.
I have no intention of writing a multi volume book for you. The period of 1936-1967 Germany encompasses at least six different political/economic areas.
FYI, there was no “1770 America”. There were something in the order of 40 colonies of five separate European countries in what is now referred to as “the Americas”,
*Sigh*…You really need to stop talking of your catbox about stuff you clearly know nothing about.
In 1770, the “America” was widely used to refer to the colonies where as “Americas” typical encompassed all of the British colonies including the Caribbean and South America. For example, I’m in the process of reading Ben Franklin’s Compleated (sic) Autobiography which starts in 1757. On numerous occasions, including during his argument to repeal the Stamp Act, he *and* Parliament refer to the colonies using the singular “America”.
Since you clearly did not understand the reference to 1936 Germany, I’m not going to continue hammering a nail into concrete. We have learned that on top of microeconomics, your knowledge of 19th and early 20th century history is entirely lacking.