wrote in message
...
On 11 Mar 2009 11:31:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:12:50 -0400, said:

Not as complicated as that. Hornbook law. The 14th Amendment applies to
States, not to the federal government.

I give up. Which states are not part of the United States?

Not sure whether I should recommend you read a basic civics book, or a
grammar book. Which part of "federal government" do you not understand?

I'm waiting for you to tell me which states are not covered by the
14th amendment.



I can answer! Gitmo! Oh wait....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:05:12 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Those who believe that waterboarding is not torture should be submitted to
it until they change their minds.

When I make a word do a lot of work like that, I always pay it extra.

(With apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Very cute, but apropos of what I have no idea. Do you have a problem with
irony?

wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
wrote:

One of the scariest, and most depressing things I've witnessed in
this country was not long after 9/11, while working to build a
facility to manufacture a new stockpile of smallpox vaccine for the
government, was a news program where 2 liberal and 2 conservative
national journalists were asked if it was OK to torture suspects *if*
it *might* save American lives. All 4 said the equivalent of "hell
yes!". I was sickened, saddened, and ashamed that we could, as a
nation, be such gutless wimps that any action against the *other*
(however defined) person is justifiable if there's even the slightest
chance that it *might* save our butts. Pitiful.

Yeah, who are we anyway?

We claim to be a nation of laws, and we claim the moral high ground on
these issues in our dealings with the rest of the world.

Then why don't we take reasonable measures to find out what we need to
find out to stop these mass murderers! The moral high ground includes
and excludes many things, but one thing it includes is putting the well
being of innocents ahead of the rights of mass murderers!

Our lives are pitiful and worth nothing!

Not even remotely implied by *any* argument presented here. Feel free
to associate yourself with that remark if you like.

yes!". I was sickened, saddened, and ashamed that we could, as a
nation, be such gutless wimps that any action against the *other*
(however defined) person is justifiable if there's even the slightest
chance that it *might* save our butts.

How dare we threaten, scare or hurt someone who is trying to hurt and
kill us?? We're not worth it!!!! We should protect murderous criminals
instead of trying to save our butts!!!

Murderous criminals who have not been even charged with a crime because
of lack of evidence? Face it Stephen, no matter how enamored or torture
you may be, it is illegal. Write your representatives and ask them to
introduce legislation legalizing torture because it's the only way to
keep you safe - see how successful you are.

I believe in the moral high ground of doing what is right over and above
any conflicting laws.

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
news
I believe in the moral high ground of doing what is right over and above
any conflicting laws.

Stephen

So we should be "A Nation of Laws," unless those laws get in our way.
Gotcha.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:59:10 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:05:12 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Those who believe that waterboarding is not torture should be submitted
to
it until they change their minds.

When I make a word do a lot of work like that, I always pay it extra.

(With apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Very cute, but apropos of what I have no idea.

More's the pity.

But no doubt at least one or two people got the allusion.

Ya, far be it from you to actually make a clear point. When you insist on
inscrutability, you can claim to be far more intelligent than those who
can't decypher your personal code. "Claim," of course, being the key word.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:11:20 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

Unfortunately, you fall into the same trap as Doug. The issue is not whether
the proper label has been attached to waterboarding. It's whether the use of
that process is acceptable under some circumstances. Labels do not help in
answering that question.

Well, at least we've finally nailed down what it is that you're arguing
about. Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some
situations? Torture that is.

I assume that remark is made tongue in cheek.

You assume incorrectly. I really would like to know your view.

Cheers
Martin

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:59:10 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:05:12 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Those who believe that waterboarding is not torture should be submitted
to
it until they change their minds.
When I make a word do a lot of work like that, I always pay it extra.

(With apologies to Lewis Carroll)
Very cute, but apropos of what I have no idea.
More's the pity.

But no doubt at least one or two people got the allusion.

Ya, far be it from you to actually make a clear point. When you insist on
inscrutability, you can claim to be far more intelligent than those who
can't decypher your personal code. "Claim," of course, being the key word.




Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.

Cheers
Martin

"Marty" wrote in message
...

Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.

Cheers
Martin

He does seem the type who would play croquet with hedgehogs.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:54:37 -0400, Marty said:

Well, when it comes to Dave's aphorisms, Alice in Wonderland provides a
reasonable contextual background.

Close, but no cigar. It's from Through the Looking-glass.

You should know, Mr. Dumpty.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:51:33 -0400, Marty said:

Well, at least we've finally nailed down what it is that you're arguing
about. Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some
situations? Torture that is.
I assume that remark is made tongue in cheek.
You assume incorrectly. I really would like to know your view.

My view is that labeling something "torture" is not going to advance the
discussion. What specific interrogation method or methods do you wish to
discuss?

Now you truly are being obtuse. I'm not labeling anything, the question
is quite clear, I'll repeat it:

"Well, at least we've finally nailed down what it is that you're arguing
about. Now, do you think it is, or isn't acceptable, in some
situations? Torture that is. " That is reasonable clear prose, I am
not asking you to define what is or is not torture.

Cheers
Martin