On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:13:35 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

Whatever anyone wants to call it, it is repatriation.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

I am asking for your definition of torture? I don't want someone else's
definition I want your definition.

Is putting someone in handcuffs torture? Is locking them in a cell
torture? Just what is torture?



Reading this thread.

Eisboch


LOL!
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned
to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

Whatever anyone wants to call it, it is repatriation.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at
someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but
it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

I am asking for your definition of torture? I don't want someone else's
definition I want your definition.

Is putting someone in handcuffs torture? Is locking them in a cell
torture? Just what is torture?



Reading this thread.

LMAO



Eisboch

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:59:15 -0500, JohnH wrote:


I did. I found many articles. I looked at several. All the ones I read
referred to the same individual, Maher Arar, who says he was tortured in
Syria.

Are there other cases which ring with some truth, or are there just
umpteen stories about this one guy?

Geez John, what no "Clinton did it, Clinton did it"? If you truly had
done a search on "extraordinary rendition", you would have seen that the
program was developed with the approval of the Clinton administration.
And of course, I'm sure that will "ring with some truth" to you. Bush
simply expanded the program, and didn't limit it to foreign soil.

As the program was covert, there is no way for us to know how many times
it has been used, but I have read estimates that it has been used over 100
times since 9/11. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan seem to be the leading
contenders for the torturer du jour.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:33:26 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:59:15 -0500, JohnH wrote:


I did. I found many articles. I looked at several. All the ones I read
referred to the same individual, Maher Arar, who says he was tortured in
Syria.

Are there other cases which ring with some truth, or are there just
umpteen stories about this one guy?

Geez John, what no "Clinton did it, Clinton did it"? If you truly had
done a search on "extraordinary rendition", you would have seen that the
program was developed with the approval of the Clinton administration.
And of course, I'm sure that will "ring with some truth" to you. Bush
simply expanded the program, and didn't limit it to foreign soil.

As the program was covert, there is no way for us to know how many times
it has been used, but I have read estimates that it has been used over 100
times since 9/11. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan seem to be the leading
contenders for the torturer du jour.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

Frankly, thunder, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for terrorists. I think Clinton had a good
idea, now that you mention it. Even this article uses Maher Arar as its starting point.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Tamaroak wrote:
But the Monika incident did?

Capt. Jeff

Hey! That was S*E*X!


Sex is scary stuff to righties.



Actually perjury and lying to a Grand Jury does. ;-)

He's commited more than one impeachable offense in my book. But because
of the balance of power in the House and Senate these days it won't
happen, of course. Can you imagine these same legislators up in arms had
Clinton done anything like this? Spent untold billions, killed untold
hundreds of thousands, committed these same war crimes? One would have
heard the hue and cry on Mars.

As it is, our boys and girls will continue to die, our country will
continue to be sold to the Japanese and Chinese, our environment and
status in the world will continue down the drain and all these
brown-shirters will continue to sing his praise. Was Hitler in the army
or was he also a draft dodger/AWOL/deserter? Juast wondering how else
they compare....

Capt. Jeff

But the Monika incident did?

Capt. Jeff

"Tamaroak" wrote in message newsIWdna90rPsimTreRVn-

But the Monika incident did?

No, the "Monica incident" may have more appropriately met the misdemeanor
test. Clinton's impeachment had naught to do with sex. That was just the
vehicle, despite what the left would love the history books to record. What
hit the High Crime button was the 17 separate instances where the President
looked Congress and the Grand Jury, (and the American people) square in the
eye and lied through his teeth. Even if you ultimately can prove that Pres
Bush lied re intelligence with knowledge aforethought, none of his
performances can match Pres Clinton's for sheer, arrogant balls.