Reid: Guantanamo Detainees Should Not Be Held In U.S. Prisons
Reid: Guantanamo Detainees Should Not Be Held In U.S. Prisons
Today, Senate Democrats announced that the Senate will strip $80 million in funding for closing Guantanamo until the Obama administration devises a specific plan for transferring detainees. The move comes as conservatives are pushing the claim that Guantanamo “terrorists” could escape into Americans’ backyard if the facility is closed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared in a press conference today, “We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.” In several tense back and forths with reporters, Reid said he opposes imprisoning detainees on U.S. soil, saying flatly, “We don’t want them around the United States”:
REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.
QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.
REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.
QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …
REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.
Later, Reid repeated that he would not support Guantanamo detainees being transferred to U.S prisons:
QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say — would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?
REID: Not in the United States.
A reporter then asked, “[I]f a detainee is adjudicated not to be a terrorist, could that detainee then enter the United States?” Reid refused to answer directly, saying, “Why don’t we wait for a plan from the president? All we’re doing now is nitpicking on language that I have given you. I’ve been as clear as I can.” After being peppered by questions, Reid joked, “I think I’ve had about enough of this.”
Reid said he wants Guantanamo closed, but his claim that he would not support transferring detainees to the U.S. clashes with this goal. Currently, dozens of convicted terrorists are being held securely in federal prisons, and the U.S. has already prosecuted 145 terrorism cases in federal court. Reid’s position aligns him with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who also opposes “the transfer of the detainees to US soil.”
If not American prisons, where will detainees be sent after Guantanamo is closed?
"President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Secretary Colin Powell, President Obama and I all agree – Guantanamo must be closed. President Obama’s approach is a responsible one. [...]“The amendment Chairman Inouye has offered today recognizes that it would be premature for Congress to act before the Administration proposes its plan. I support his amendment. On two important points, however, we do not need to wait for any instruction – and there should be no misunderstanding. Let me be clear: Democrats will not move to close Guantanamo without a responsible plan in place to ensure Americans’ safety. And we will never allow a terrorist to be released into the United States.
“This amendment is as clear as day. It explicitly bars using the funds in this bill to ‘transfer, release or incarcerate’ any of the Guantanamo detainees in the United States. When the Administration closes Guantanamo, we will ensure it does so the right way.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Reid, don’t use appeasement with the GOP, they’re insatiable.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:32 pmREID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.
QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …
– - It’s a little-know fact that Harry Reid co-wrote the classic Abbot & Costello routine, “Who’s on First.”
May 19th, 2009 at 5:34 pmHarry Reid, the closeted Republican, has finally come out of the closet. He’s done nothing but allow the Democrats to be obstructed in the Senate by Republicans. I’ve wondered for a long time whose side he’s really on, but this action says it all.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:35 pmoh.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pmI said this earlier, but it bears repeating:
With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?
**eyes rolling**
May 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pmIs he saying Gitmo isnt an naval [American] prison?
May 19th, 2009 at 5:38 pmThis is how the other party stays relevant, with idiots like this. It’s not like………………. oh forget it.
RIP
May 19th, 2009 at 5:38 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
Time for Harry to go. We need new leadership in the Senate badly. All Harry is doing is undercutting the President and making it that much more difficult to get anything done. Does he really understand what his job is.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:39 pmThe other question is; he does know we won last November.
Doesn’t he?
Ugh! Welcome to the DINO Reid show.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:39 pmSo Reid did not explain why they must be released before being imprisoned in America.
Funny… Does Reid really know why he doesn’t want them imprisoned in America at all? Maybe he’s a scared of ‘em!
If he isn’t just spooked then he must explain what he means when he insists they would have to be released before being imprisoned.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pmZooey says @ 7′
May 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pmBetween Reid and the other Dinos, its like nothing has changed.
Heres the rub, OS, America pays Cuba for that land. Its an American funded prison. Isnt it, really, an American prison?
Semantics is for the foolish.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pmCan someone tell me why the hell the gutless turd that is Reid is still majority leader?
What the hell has he done to deserve the title? All he’s done is cave to the GOP at every turn, fail to force actual filibusters over idle threats, and otherwise do a crappy job of standing up for both his party and the American people.
He. Must. Go. Now.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pmReid, looking at the jaws of defeat in his home state, applies yet another mask to his jelly-like being and plays GOP moderate. I am still baffled how these “terrorists” (most of whom were falsely accused by locals to garner bounty money) could escape from prisons that more than 99% of our worst felons (actual real terror inducing people) can’t get out of?????
May 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pmSomeone please remind me where it was that we held Tim McVey…
May 19th, 2009 at 5:41 pmGosh I dislike this man. He does everything he can to block President Obama’s agenda. Check his voting record. He just votes NO alot more than you may think. Remember when he said..
May 19th, 2009 at 5:41 pm” I don’t work for Obama, I work with him” Maybe he should explore that a little better. This guy has a 38% rating in his State and President Obama is going there to campaign for him. I hope he looses. If he doesn’t, he needs to be ousted at Leader (cough) of the Senate. GRRRRRR
BTW, how is John McCain doing?
May 19th, 2009 at 5:41 pmREID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.
what the hell does THAT mean?
May 19th, 2009 at 5:42 pmJim Wolf359 Says:
Zooey says @ 7′
Between Reid and the other Dinos, its like nothing has changed.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I’m afraid that until we get rid of politicians who’ve been in office more than 10 years, very little will change.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:42 pmNew guys same as the old guys?
Can’t anyone in government anymore be honest and just do the right thing?
It appears not.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:43 pmRegarding the captives.. Why do they have to release them to imprison them?
Why does Ried object? Why does Ried object?
May 19th, 2009 at 5:43 pmAnd another thing. His children are Lobbyists. Cuba should tell us to get out. Have their military surround the base. What are we going to do then, start a war with Cuba? On Google Earth there are NO Navy ships at Gitmo. Why is that? What is going on down there?
May 19th, 2009 at 5:43 pmCFP says:
May 19th, 2009 at 5:44 pmBack under you’re bridge Troll and STFU!
I think I hear HanNewTea calling you..
May 19th, 2009 at 5:44 pmUpdate Reid made the following statement today:
“President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Secretary Colin Powell, President Obama and I all agree – Guantanamo must be closed. [...]
ok…
May 19th, 2009 at 5:46 pm1. why did he list him first… or at all…?
2. why isn’t it “FORMER Pres…”…?
3. … i’m with Tired… oh forget it…
reid you are as about clear as dirty water.
You are acting like a repug with your ridiculous answers, dumbass.
I hope the repugs turn on you soon.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Poor trollie. It tries, but…well, it’s a troll.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:49 pmSurprise! Surprise! Surprise!
When is the American public going to realize that D and R are just letters? Reid is bought and paid for. As are many members of Congress. Obama ain’t gonna change anything nor is any member of Congress. Someone other than the American public owns them all.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:50 pmMeanwhile there is an empty prison in Montana where the town itself is begging the Fed govt to send them those detainees that wont be taken by other countries. Why do our leaders think that the US prison system is incapable of holding onto a few middle eastern prisoners. Are the so put off by the word “terrorist”? I think we keep psychopathic murderers in prison in every state – but a few skinny Arabs has them in a panic.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:50 pmOh PLEASE! If you think, for one minute, that this isn’t cover for President Obama then you will forever suffer in silence as tears fall to the key board. Slowly the wheel turns. The next blow to our deteriorating emotional state will be when it is announced that Gitmo is NOT closing because of…..well….the reason will be what it is when it comes…..and thats months away. Harry said time and again..GITMO IS NOT CLOSING ANY TIME SOON…….HAVE YOU HEARD A PEEP FROM OBAMA ON THIS SUBJECT??????????? NO??? WHY??????? Oh, he might say something like blah, blah, blah, I have always said this and that and blah, blah, blah, we are working on an alternative as we speak, blah, blah, blah!
May 19th, 2009 at 5:51 pmConservativeForProgress Says: DemocRATic Party: the party that is for whatever today’s poll results favor.
Hardly, bonehead. If Congress, any party, voted what the public wanted things would be different. But Congress seems to have this bought and paid for schtick going…your side and ours.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:52 pmLook, the politicians have turned this into locations of imprisonment. The issue is about holding people without a trial.
If they have the proof fine, lets have them serve time for their crimes against us. If they dont then we cannot, as good people, hold them. And this has nothing to do with the current situation but our ideals in general.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:53 pmWhy do you let your emotions rule you?
May 19th, 2009 at 5:54 pmUS soil means trials and trials means airing of Gitmo abuses. Reid would rather keep them in hell til they starve from hunger strikes. Dead men/Gitmo detainees tell no tales.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:55 pmwell, here’s some good news at least:
Senate Chief: Kennedy In Remission
Boston Channel.com – ?44 minutes ago?
BOSTON — Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s cancer is in remission and the Bay State’s senior senator will be back on Capitol Hill to work full time after the Memorial Day holiday, Democratic Senate chief Harry Reid said Tuesday.
Reid: Ted Kennedy’s cancer is in remission Boston Herald
Reid: Kennedy set to return in June USA Today
NECN – CQPolitics.com – Reuters Blogs – Newsweek
all 61 news articles »
http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ncl=drW1v3ALw-k86jMyHig72rphHGGjM&topic=n
jeez… i hope he didn’t put a hex on it…
May 19th, 2009 at 5:55 pmGitmo is no different from Levinworth.
Its a military prison.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:56 pmConservativePUNK
The RepubliSCUM party the party of getting Americans killed in warmonger wars without purpose. Starving children in the streets out of pure selfishness and hatred for the poor. Molesting children and poisoning the environment. That is as good as your stupidity. Why are you such a moron?
May 19th, 2009 at 5:56 pmI Reid religious?!?! Maybe Reid is Spoooked!?!?!
OoooOOooo scary!
May 19th, 2009 at 5:56 pmNotice that the wingnuts have NEVER called for Reids resignation.
He’s their BFF.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:57 pmoh wow – at that googlenews link:
Poll: Nearly half of Nevadans would oust Sen. Reid
May 19th, 2009 at 5:58 pmSan Jose Mercury News – ?6 hours ago?
ProudMoron
You are stupid PM. Too stupid for your brainwashed idiocy to be taken seriously by anyone here. We can actually read. YOU are a moron. Arent you ashamed to be so stupid? Doesnt it make you despondent to realize you will ALWAYS be this stupid? We really dont much care what an ignorant punkass troll like you thinks. I do thank you for the free clown show. I just love to laugh at people as stupid as you.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:59 pmYour gonna love this:
I want to set up a single family affordable housing tax credit to the tune of $2.4 billion over the next five years to encourage affordable single family housing in inner-city America. One of the things that the Secretary is going to do is he’s going to simplify the closing documents and all the documents that have to deal with homeownership. And I’m proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it’s about $440 billion over a period of time. They’ve used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we’re talking about here. It’s in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.
President George W. Bush – June 18, 2002
May 19th, 2009 at 5:59 pmSlappyMoron.
Yeah I heard him say it would close within a YEAR. So when that YEAR passes get back to us. Until THEN I have to look at the wingnut predictions at Iraq and conclude your crystal ball is broken and you dont have any idea what will happen in the future
May 19th, 2009 at 6:00 pmI think proud should change his name to scared.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:01 pmSo what exactly does he want to do with them? Leave Gitmo open? You want to tell me that The United States prisons can’t handle another 200 dangerous prisoners? It’s laughable.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:02 pmI tend to be an optimist and look for the positives in people. I have not, to this point, joined the “Reid’s-got-to-go” bandwagon. But now…
REID HAS GOT TO GO! This stance of his about Gitmo prisoners is right out of the right-wing, fear-mongering, not-in-my-backyard, export-the-problems-we-created playbook. It is obstructionist nonsense.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:02 pmding!
May 19th, 2009 at 6:02 pmI agree, PLC. It’s as if he just couldn’t hold back any longer, and finally the Harry-peepants dam broke.
I just grossed myself out…
May 19th, 2009 at 6:03 pmWhen did the US prison system become so porous? Have I been missing all the daily ‘breaking news’ reports of another escape?
Are prisoners usually released before they’re transfered?
May 19th, 2009 at 6:03 pmProudMoron you are a brainwashed idiot. A pile of dogshite that stinks up this site. She didnt survive the ACCIDENT. Neither did Laura Bush’s ex boyfriend survive HER muder of him. You are so stupid. You are led around by the nose and brainwashed with programming in a way that makes Pavlovs dogs look untrainable. You have never had an independent thought in your entire life. Your stupidity is a stench that makes the world stink. You have a cesspool between your ears and your lack of basic humanity is an embarassment to our entire species. What a soulless husk of a subhuman moron you are
May 19th, 2009 at 6:04 pmI wonder if proud has a bunch of talking point macros on his keyboard or cuts and pastes from a saved document or types each repetitive post from scratch. Regardless, proud’s posts are boring.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:06 pmIt needs to be said that this bunch of Democrats are about as heartless and cold to their voters and the American people as a whole than there has been in history. They are just plain cruel. No warnings just BAM! Right up side the head. GW was the dumbest President in history and “Dick” the Cheney was pure evil so we came to expect and predict what they would do. Bill Clinton was the best…..he could give you the worst news there was and by the time he was done everyone felt good about the decision. He could actually make bad news fun….this bunch is absolutely merciless!
May 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pmMay 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
ProudMOron
Why in the world would I waste intelligence on your ignorant trollposts? You arent trying to talk to us. You are trying to annoy us and insult us. That isnt a call for discussion that is an invitation for me to slap the stupid out of you metaphorically. Sure I am capable of intelligent analytical posts and those who can READ have seen them. I am sure you are just too stupid to have understood them but they are in response to actual attempts at a dialogue and an opportunity for a dialectic. You are a punk. You are stupid, you are a troll. You dont come here for any other reason than to BE a punkass troll. So whining like the punk you are that I treat YOU badly after what YOU say about democats and liberals is just you being stupid and the punk you are
May 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pmBob, the Us prison system is incredibly tough on drug offenders, non payers of child support, tax evaders, you know serious threats to the US.
People like Proud.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pmSlappyBastinado
Not bad Slappy. A decent point there. I am not all the way to agreeing with you but I cant say you are wrong yet either.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:10 pmC4P tell about your first waterboarding today. Are you looking forward to your next 182 waterboardings needed before you can use your 1st amendment rights to tell us whether it is torture?
Why won’t you tell us about it?
May 19th, 2009 at 6:10 pmOS Says:
I Reid religious?
Mormon…even more scary to the progressives. Wait, he’s a d, so it’s ok.
Whoopsie! Wasn’t it the RNC that made some comment about Mormonism?
Sorry OS, but most progressive types really think the religious bozos are…bozos.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:11 pmDid you start getting your 183 waterboardings yet? If so, we’d love to hear about them.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:11 pmThe largest prison population in the world can’t handle a few more? Of course, most of those are non-violent drug offenders. So we want prisoners, just not violent ones?
May 19th, 2009 at 6:12 pmYou are a piece of garbage ConservativePUNK. You are a coward and it is unseemly for Americans. As Edward R Murrow once said we are not from timid men. If COWARDS like YOU had any say we would still be part of England.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:13 pmIts another Abrahamic religion, and no, I dont fear them.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:13 pmProudMoron Says:
Do you just cut and paste, because you write the same thing in every post you put up here. Change your act, it is gettng stale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What I need to dream up exciting new and original thoughts to decribe your same old same old stupidity and reruns of the Rush Limbaugh show. I tell you what. Lets compare recommeds. Which of us do YOU think has racked up more of them HMMM? Face it you are stupid, you are a punkass troll and you are far too ignorant to be anything else. It is your DESTINY
May 19th, 2009 at 6:15 pmActually Eugene, you are spot on. Today’s Republicans would have Tories back in the late 18th, and early 19th centuries. They are the same authoritarian types who wanted to remain under English rule and actually turned their revolutionary friends and neighbors in to the British, who tortured them, imprisoned their families, and burned their homes.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:18 pmConservativePUNK
You are a liar and a fool. First it is TORTURE and NO we know no such THING as they are known terrorists. The majority of them were SOLD to us by Afghan warlords looking for bounty. You are nothing but a brainwashed lying fool regurgitating what you have been told to think because you are too stupid to think for yourself
May 19th, 2009 at 6:18 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Controlled waterboarding…
May 19th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
There is no such thing. You condone torture. How does that feel?
Dismissed.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:20 pm- – It’s a little-know fact that Harry Reid co-wrote the classic Abbot & Costello routine, “Who’s on First.”
I didn’t know it but….I believe it!!!
May 19th, 2009 at 6:20 pmI thought you wanted to be taken seriously when you use your 1st amendment rights to inform us about waterboarding. The only way you can do that is to be waterboarded 183 times. Then, if you live, we will believe you if you tell us it is not torture.
Otherwise, your opinion on the subject isn’t worth dogsh!t.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:21 pmThis is ridiculous. Reid is playing with words in legalese here to satisfy who? Repugniscum? The ones who would stab him in the back without a second thought? Even though he acts more like one of them than he acts as a Democrat.
IMHO, when the White House comes up with a specific plan detailing the handling of these prisoners, Reid left himself enough wiggle room to get on board. What I don’t understand is why he spoke now. Keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re an idiot, rather than speaking and proving it.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:23 pmReid’s office released the following statement:
“President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Secretary Colin Powell, President Obama and I all agree – Guantanamo must be closed. President Obama’s approach is a responsible one. [...]
May 19th, 2009 at 6:24 pmThis is ridiculous. Remember the Daily Show? When Jon Stewart claims he would rather bunk with a suspected Gitmo Detainee then the guy who eats people faces. High security prisons would be able to house detainees. Haven’t you heard of solitary confinement?
May 19th, 2009 at 6:25 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Controlled waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique designed to elicit information from known terrorists, shoeless. It is not for use on people with which you have a simple, civil, political disagreement. I’m surprised you can’t see the difference.
Define “controlled.”
183 is hardly controlled.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:25 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Controlled waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique designed to elicit information from known terrorists, shoeless. It is not for use on people with which you have a simple, civil, political disagreement. I’m surprised you can’t see the difference.
Which is why we have an American who bought this piece of crap justification who was prosecuted for using it?
May 19th, 2009 at 6:27 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
“Controlled waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique designed to elicit information from known terrorists, shoeless.”
It’s also illegal. Do you believe that we whould continue to hold terrorists to higher standards than officials in our own government?
May 19th, 2009 at 6:27 pmIf we don’t close GITMO then Bush was correct, if we just move the detainees to another facility that means they are stll bad people and once again Bush was right.
Except we wouldn’t be breaking the law, as Bush was.
Slight difference.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:28 pmI will help you. The most important thing is we maintain OUR values as a civilized country. That means giving them TRIALS if they are going to be punished as criminals. Including keeping them incarcerated. Your thinking is simplistic. It is entirely possible in fact PROBABLE that SOME of them are bad guys we need to keep in prison in which case bring them to Supermax prisons in the US there is virtually no risk in that. When is the last time anyone here heard of an escape from one, while OTHERS, are found to NOT be a threat and are allowed to go home or to another country. Bush IS wrong by trying to make a black hole where no law applies. We are a nation of laws. HERE the law is king. THAT is what is important that we not eschew our values due to the snivelling of cowards. It is NOT the false dichotomy of either keep them at Gitmo forever without trial or let them all go. Surely even YOU know this.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:30 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
The 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was not waterboarded 183 times, by the way. Rather, there were 183 pours, some lasting no more than a few brief seconds.
“The water was poured 183 times — there were 183 pours,” the official explained, adding that “each pour was a matter of seconds.”
And each on of these pours was in violation of US and International law.
Sorry, CFP, but it is still illegal.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:30 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
84. The controls are defined in the legal memos in question. How many sessions, how long each lasts, breaks between sessions, medical attention, etc… It was not the type of uncontrolled waterboarding employed by the Japanese in WWII, for example.
Except for those videos that were destroyed, you’d have a case for believing the CIA’s version. They have proven that they are only interested in CYA.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:30 pmuhhh gawd… please don’t argue with brick walls…
it’s ILLEGAL. nothing else matters. it is ILLEGAL.
we need to help reid find his way… to SOMEwhere…
May 19th, 2009 at 6:31 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
The 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was not waterboarded 183 times, by the way. Rather, there were 183 pours, some lasting no more than a few brief seconds.
“The water was poured 183 times — there were 183 pours,” the official explained, adding that “each pour was a matter of seconds.”
May 19th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
You despicable wretch. That. Is. Waterboarding.
You are arguing semantics, you insufferable fool.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:32 pmReally, after this mess, they should officially change their name from CIA to CYA.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:32 pmConservativeForProgress Says: The controls are defined in the legal memos in question. How many sessions, how long each lasts, breaks between sessions, medical attention, etc… It was not the type of uncontrolled waterboarding employed by the Japanese in WWII, for example.
Oh please, I just want to torture the silly bastards. I’m controlled, I haven’t crapped my pants in thirty minutes.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:32 pmDo you love how people who advocate waterboarding don’t have the guts to undergo it themselves? I love how Jesse Ventura has the balls to call these ‘Conservatives’ bluff.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:32 pmConservativeForProgress,
Haha!!! See ya, chickensh!t…
May 19th, 2009 at 6:33 pmCFP, there is not one mention in the various laws about controlled or justified or anything. It says, torture is illegal.
Get your jollies elsewhere.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:33 pmReid is acting like a right wing pansy
He needs to grow a set or switch parties
May 19th, 2009 at 6:33 pmbarfly Says:
——————————————————————————–
ConservativeForProgress Says:
Controlled waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique designed to elicit information from known terrorists, shoeless. It is not for use on people with which you have a simple, civil, political disagreement. I’m surprised you can’t see the difference.
Define “controlled.”
183 is hardly controlled.
183 is the amount of times water was poured on his face in a month, not the amount of times he was waterboarded.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:34 pmC4P sure puts a lot of stock in that “controlled” aspect of waterboarding.
Here’s an excerpt from the testimony of one of the American soldiers who were victims of the practice at the hands of the Japanese in WW2:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
Sounds pretty “controlled” to me, C4P.
By the way, those Japanese guards were convicted of torture.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:35 pmReid needs to join the other cowards with the R by their name if he thinks America is too weak to imprison a few ragtag terrorist criminals
May 19th, 2009 at 6:36 pmToo bad our friend C4P can’t say the same thing.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:36 pmPlease state what laws were being broken, and since nothing has changed, then is Obama breaking the same law.
International law – like the laws against intellectual piracy. Perhaps we should just ignore all treaties, since the Geneva Conventions are now considered quaint.
Except then we have no standing for calling for sanctions against Iran. We should also withdraw from the UN Security Council, since all international laws are now passe’.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:36 pmRanting@103, You got that right. Reid has been in too long. I think most of them have been in too long. It’s time for a serious overhaul.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:36 pmProud Says:
This is wonderful, talk about the gang who can’t shoot straight. Lot of good it did for you to have control of both houses and the White House. The Dems couldn’t run an ice cream shop let alone the Gov’t. Thank you Harry for showing the country what a huge mistake it was to give Dems the majority, enjoy it while you can, just don’t screw things up too much before we retake control. Wait let’s talk about torture then maybe America will overlook what idiots the dems are.
Problem with your analogy [besides being ludicrous] is that the R’s DO NOT NOW, AND AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, WILL NOT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, have enough VOTES [since the electorate in leaving your party in droves] to do anything other than what they are currently doing – whining and crying over the fact that they are SORE LOSERS. So, what’s your point? No time in the foreseeable future will this country see neocons RETAKE CONTROL of this country! Keep on dreamin’ cause it ain’t happenin!
May 19th, 2009 at 6:36 pmDefine “controlled.” (waterboarding)
– - Easy, it’s just like “sorta pregnant.”
May 19th, 2009 at 6:38 pmTracy@111, There are States willing to take them. But MSM doesn’t want you to know that.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:39 pm183 is the amount of times water was poured on his face in a month, not the amount of times he was waterboarded.
I’m sorry, I don’t see the distinction. Do you mean they counted the times he washed his face?
May 19th, 2009 at 6:39 pmGet rid of all the cowards that think America is such a punk nation that getting smacked once by some terrorist criminals is enough to make us freak out and stomp all over everything like an elephant scared of a mouse.
WTC attacked under Clinton: perps arrested, tried, convicted, still in prison
WTC attackd under Bush: freak out, war, torture, infringment on rights
Right wingers are a bunch of sissies
May 19th, 2009 at 6:39 pmI’ve been trying to figure out exactly what Reid is getting at and I think the point is that bringing prisoners from Gitmo to prisons on US soil changes their legal status, so that they must be given actual trials rather than military tribunals or kangaroo courts. They have to be extended the same rights extended to anyone charged of a crime in this country. Hence, they are being “released” from Gitmo into the US; it doesn’t mean that they’re sent to a halfway house in Reno.
Of course, I could simply attempting to make sense of a truly stupid comment by Reid.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:41 pmbarfly Says:
——————————————————————————–
183 is the amount of times water was poured on his face in a month, not the amount of times he was waterboarded.
I’m sorry, I don’t see the distinction. Do you mean they counted the times he washed his face?
Read this and you will understand.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
May 19th, 2009 at 6:42 pmStill in prison??? Within the US? But how could that be?? How could they not have been released to run wild in our communities by now????
May 19th, 2009 at 6:43 pmRight wingers are a bunch of sissies
And hypocrites. Before 9/11, they were always opposed to big government, and just throwing money at problems. But get ‘em scared, and they forget all about their cherished conservative ideals, and throw money at anyone who promises to make them feel safe.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:43 pmSo let me see if I have this straight:
1) We can take suspects – some only being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or was in trouble with a powerful tribal chief – and take them off the planet for as long as we wish. Then if they are innocent – which many of them are – we cannot release them back to their country for fear of being tortured. We tortured them! But nobody else can?
2) Then once the President closes the horror that is Gitmo, the US government is too scared to let them into a maximum security facility – some which are on a US Army base (Levinworth)? What about the other terrorists housed in those facilities; or the murderers? Are we not safe from them too?
Doesn’t that sound as though we are the most frightened group of people in the world? We set the world on fire, but turn our backs on those we have hurt. Jeebus would not be happy.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:43 pmMethinks all of the Guantanamo prisoners, and all others with habeus corpus denial problems, should be released immediately to the streets of Las Vegas or Washington DC or in George Bush’s neighborhood.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:46 pmLet’s see how fast the fraidy cats run.
Torture is not the way to facilitate cooperation with other countries. The U.S. should focus more on soft power and increase the strategic foreign aid.
The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:50 pmRead this and you will understand.
Equivocation. The Geneva Conventions regards each individual act of pouring water on a prisoner as torture, regardless of the Bush administration’s attempts to redefine it.
They make the rules up as they go, to support a desired outcome. They fix the facts around the policy, and dupes think it’s legit, because it’s printed on a government letterhead.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:50 pmAnd JohnM arrives, bringing up the rear — literally — for C4P.
F uckwit.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:51 pmDino = A Republican who pretends to be a Democrat. Example: Harry Reid.
Time to get rid of this punk.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:55 pmThey have to be extended the same rights extended to anyone charged of a crime in this country. Hence, they are being “released” from Gitmo into the US; it doesn’t mean that they’re sent to a halfway house in Reno.
Of course, I could simply attempting to make sense of a truly stupid comment by Reid.
I heard Tony Blankley mention this on NPR, and it was because of the classified evidence that would be needed, to present a standard criminal case against them – but they could have their cases adjudicated before they left Gitmo, with the proper sentencing instructions for the State’s correctional agency, and remove that problem.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:58 pmhelp!
i’m confused – watching ed schultz, david ignacius on -
when nancy said the CIA was misleading her and congress,
wasn’t she talking about the BUSH/TENET CIA???
now, it’s about how she offended the PANETTA CIA?
arg!
May 19th, 2009 at 7:00 pmBush convinced us that the US courts were not the place to determine the guilt of his new ‘enemy combatants’. Bush needed to guarantee the guilty verdicts to validate his invasion and power grab. After all this time, how many were convicted in Bush’s new and improved courts? I can think of nobody significant. I mean tried, convicted and sentenced – not just hung out to dry in limbo land.
So Bush’s way brought no justice to us, and Bush won’t let the ‘real’ courts attempt to accommplish the same thing. We have tried and convicted many persons thoughout history with state secrets and classisfied evidence. We have very capable courts which do this thing all the time.
Bush tricked the entire country into being scared of every shadow. That is how fascists work their magic – generate fear from a non-existant scary enemy, then step up and proudly say “I am here to save you!”. Too bad Bush was a crook.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:04 pmAnd JohnM is here. Cue his theme music:
Heartless by Kanye West
May 19th, 2009 at 7:04 pmbarfly Says:
——————————————————————————–
Read this and you will understand.
Equivocation. The Geneva Conventions regards each individual act of pouring water on a prisoner as torture, regardless of the Bush administration’s attempts to redefine it.
They make the rules up as they go, to support a desired outcome. They fix the facts around the policy, and dupes think it’s legit, because it’s printed on a government letterhead.
What does the geneva convention say about waterboarding?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:05 pmThe Dems couldn’t run an ice cream shop let alone the Gov’t.
——-
Oh yes and the Republicans did such a wonderful job. Two wars, destroyed economy… shall I go on?
CFP seriously just condoned torture. If it’s so controlled why don’t you try it? I’m sure those 183 “pours” won’t be so bad!
I have to say I’m sort of proud of OS today. He didn’t use any much phrases yet! Still ignorant but whatever :)
May 19th, 2009 at 7:08 pmkaty Says:
help!
i’m confused – watching ed schultz, david ignacius on -
when nancy said the CIA was misleading her and congress,
wasn’t she talking about the BUSH/TENET CIA???
now, it’s about how she offended the PANETTA CIA?
arg!
As long as the distraction continues, the powerful and culpable will win – and we will lose.
Harry Reid also says he needs 60 votes to seat Obama’s cabinet picks, but he forgets the many, many cabinet posts Bush had put forward and they were seated with less than 60 votes. I think Harry is a weak loser. When he stands there with Hoyer and Pelosi I can see where the right side can get a laugh from our congressional leaders. Dems just don’t know how to fight a good fight. That will be our shame.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:09 pmHey, JohnM, if you’re going to attempt to converse with us here, how about giving those formatting tools a go and just try to differentiate between the text you’re responding to and your own response, okay?
Your comments are confusing enough without further muddying them with other’s words in the same format as your own. Just try to make a clear distinction between what someone else wrote and what you wrote.
It’s common courtesy.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:12 pmHitchens allowed himself to be waterboarded, and he says it’s torture. Look how little water is on his shirt — still torture.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:12 pmJohnM Says:
What does the geneva convention say about waterboarding?
Also how does an Al Queda member qualify under article 4 of the Geneva Convention?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:12 pmJohnM Says:
Also how does an Al Queda member qualify under article 4 of the Geneva Convention?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Al Qaeda does not have to “qualify” for anything — WE SIGNED THE TREATY. We are bound by it.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:13 pmLet’s say they gave the captives weekends off. that’s 183 drownings divided by 20 days of torture at eight hours a day is 160 hours, or 1.14375 per working day hour. that’s eight drownings per day.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:14 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
Hey, JohnM, if you’re going to attempt to converse with us here, how about giving those formatting tools a go and just try to differentiate between the text you’re responding to and your own response, okay?
Your comments are confusing enough without further muddying them with other’s words in the same format as your own. Just try to make a clear distinction between what someone else wrote and what you wrote.
It’s common courtesy.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:14 pmThanks for the tip, will do.
How sad that the only conservative argument is to parse the meaning of the word torture, to stretch it to its limit to find some sort of ground where they don’t have to look in the mirror and see what they really are: tribalist barbarians that’ll resort to anything for an illusion of safety by dominance.
Probably even more sad is the objective fact that no pertinent information was even gained by the use, and that there’s stong evidence that it was just Bush/Cheney trying drive home whatever lies they wanted to tell everyone.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:14 pmJohnM Says:
What does the geneva convention say about waterboarding?
Waterboarding is torture, which is banned under the Geneva Conventions. They did not sit down and list every single imaginable form of torture just so they could specify it as a prohibited act. You should have enough sense to know that.
And before you go there, the Geneva Conventions cover everyone picked up on a battlefield, no matter what your buddy John Yoo thinks.
Are you a Republican, JohnM? If so, I’ve got your theme song right here.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:15 pmZooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Also how does an Al Queda member qualify under article 4 of the Geneva Convention?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Al Qaeda does not have to “qualify” for anything — WE SIGNED THE TREATY. We are bound by it.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, I will allow you to read the rest to see if they qualify.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:18 pmNoncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3’s protections exist even though no one is classified as a prisoner of war.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:19 pmCFP
If it exists, please post the case that definitively states that carefully controlled waterboarding constitutes “torture” under the applicable law. I’ll read it when I can tomorrow. GTG.
No one has to find anything for you, because you’re framing of the question is deceptive. Waterboarding is internationally recognized torture.
Instead, please find the cases where carefully controlled waterboarding is legal. You’re awful good at the cut and paste, so please cite your sources.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:19 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
What does the geneva convention say about waterboarding?
Waterboarding is torture, which is banned under the Geneva Conventions. They did not sit down and list every single imaginable form of torture just so they could specify it as a prohibited act. You should have enough sense to know that.
And before you go there, the Geneva Conventions cover everyone picked up on a battlefield, no matter what your buddy John Yoo thinks.
Are you a Republican, JohnM? If so, I’ve got your
If it is in fact banned by the Geneva Conventions, which I don’t see anywhere. Under article 4 how does Al Queda qualify?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:20 pmJohnM doesn’t appear to be a big fan of The Google.
Here’s a quick Q&A:
It includes this concise passage:
Torture is defined by the 1949 UN Convention against Torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person…” in order to get information.
The US is signed up to the Convention. The eighth amendment to the US Constitution banning “cruel and unusual punishment” is also held to prohibit torture.
The US legal code defines torture as an action “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”.
And for those of you who think that torture is cool as long as it’s effective, we have these two contradictory statements:
According to ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou, al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah “broke” within half a minute. Abu Zubaydah said later that he had made things up to satisfy his interrogators.
AND
a Justice Department memo revealed that CIA interrogators used the waterboarding technique … 83 times on Abu Zubaydah.
If he “broke” within half a minute, why did they need to go back 82 more times?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:20 pmAccording to heartless JohnM, gouging someone’s eyes out is cool b/c it’s not specifically mentioned in the Geneva Conventions.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:21 pmJohnM Says:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, I will allow you to read the rest to see if they qualify.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I repeat: THEY do not have to “qualify.”
Is that how you live with yourself, JohnM? — Playing semantics?
How will you feel when an American citizen is captured and tortured — but isn’t a prisoner of war? It will happen.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:22 pmDrowning a man is torture, dolt.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:23 pmJohnM Says:
What does the geneva convention say about waterboarding?
Also how does an Al Queda member qualify under article 4 of the Geneva Convention?
John, I am assuming you are an American. I am assuming you read your history and some of the reasons we declared our independance from Mother England. I am assuming you studied our involvement in WWI and WWII, as well as Korea and Vietnam. I am assuming you consider yourself a patriotic person. I can probably assume all those things to be true.
Now, 8 years after Bush stole the POTUS, our entire American history and purpose needs to be tossed away because of fright and cowardice? How can that be? Our history taught us we are better, stronger, and more clever than all of our enemies – but still you feel we need to break our treaties so you can extract a pound of flesh from these suspects?
That doesn’t sound like a strong, brave, and patriotic person to me. It sounds like a bedwetter who really never believed in American ideals and values. A coward who will follow along behind the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’reilly.
I am assuming you are not proud of your countries heritage, as you so easily discard it when you are frightened. Please try and be brave. America needs you right now.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:23 pmZooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, I will allow you to read the rest to see if they qualify.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I repeat: THEY do not have to “qualify.”
Is that how you live with yourself, JohnM? — Playing semantics?
How will you feel when an American citizen is captured and tortured — but isn’t a prisoner of war? It will happen.
The Geneva Convention lists who qualifies as a POW and who is protected by the treaty. Al Queda is not protected, they do in fact need to qualify as it clearly states.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:23 pmI think what JohnM is really asking is: how do Al Qaeda members qualify as human beings?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:24 pmspring heeled jack Says:
According to heartless JohnM, gouging someone’s eyes out is cool b/c it’s not specifically mentioned in the Geneva Conventions.
No, no, no, if you detain them while they’re wearing an uniform they’re protected.
If you pick them up without an uniform, or if you buy them from a local warlord, then you’re free to gouge their eyes out. Just remember to delete the videos and promise everyone there will be an investigation afterwards, as soon as the War on Feeling Scared Over Foreigners is over.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:24 pmSo your argument is anything goes, right tough guy Johnny?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:25 pmJohnM,
You are the perfect example of how the right has completely lost its soul. You don’t even know what you’re arguing, you’re lost in a battle of semantics and technicalities trying to create a grey area for TORTURE. I understand the discomfort of not accepting realities that put us in a critical light, but mistakes are made and countries need to make amends. Your argument appears almost hysterical in its twists and dodges of obvious reality.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:25 pmI’m curious, JohnM… what specific categories of individual are exempted from coverage under the Geneva Conventions?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pmAccording to ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou, al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah “broke” within half a minute. Abu Zubaydah said later that he had made things up to satisfy his interrogators.
The CIA officer recanted this claim about two weeks ago. It did not happen.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pmAccording to JohnM, Al Qaeda are post-human and should be liable to any torture or human experimentation.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:27 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
What does the geneva convention say about waterboarding?
JohnM doesn’t appear to be a big fan of The Google.
Here’s a quick Q&A:
It includes this concise passage:
Torture is defined by the 1949 UN Convention against Torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person…” in order to get information.
The US is signed up to the Convention. The eighth amendment to the US Constitution banning “cruel and unusual punishment” is also held to prohibit torture.
The US legal code defines torture as an action “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”.
And for those of you who think that torture is cool as long as it’s effective, we have these two contradictory statements:
According to ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou, al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah “broke” within half a minute. Abu Zubaydah said later that he had made things up to satisfy his interrogators.
AND
a Justice Department memo revealed that CIA interrogators used the waterboarding technique … 83 times on Abu Zubaydah.
If he “broke” within half a minute, why did they need to go back 82 more times?
This is not the Geneva Convention. People here are stating that waterboarding is banned on Al Queda members by the Geneva Convention.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:27 pmJohn M, I have a question for you. Your wife, who is an American civilian like yourself is captured by Islamic militants and is waterboarded by the same militants. Would you still say the same bile you regurgitated in this thread? Would you still justify torture then?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:28 pmJohnM Says:
The Geneva Convention lists who qualifies as a POW and who is protected by the treaty. Al Queda is not protected, they do in fact need to qualify as it clearly states.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Saying the same thing over and over again does not make it true, dumb ass.
Torture is illegal. It’s illegal to torture anyone. Do you understand that?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:29 pmI see. And the 1949 United Nations Convention against Torture does not apply to us?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:29 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
If it is in fact banned by the Geneva Conventions, which I don’t see anywhere. Under article 4 how does Al Queda qualify?
I’m curious, JohnM… what specific categories of individual are exempted from coverage under the Geneva Conventions?
People that are not prisoners of war.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:30 pm——————————————————————————–
Zooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
The Geneva Convention lists who qualifies as a POW and who is protected by the treaty. Al Queda is not protected, they do in fact need to qualify as it clearly states.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Saying the same thing over and over again does not make it true, dumb ass.
Torture is illegal. It’s illegal to torture anyone. Do you understand that?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:31 pmUnder what treaty?
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
This is not the Geneva Convention. People here are stating that waterboarding is banned on Al Queda members by the Geneva Convention.
I see. And the 1949 United Nations Convention against Torture does not apply to us?
If you want to move past the Geneva Convention and admit that Al Queda does qualify under article 4 we can move on to the UN Treaty.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pmSo JohnM, you are arguing for unlimited torture of these detainees?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pmCan you please cite the language specifically exempting this category of individual?
Thanks.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pmIn re: Al Qaeda
From the Geneva Convention of 1949
May 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Not everyone in Gitmo is Al Qaeda.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pmJohn M. You are a civilian visiting a foreign country and their government captures you and holds you in custody. While in custody, the government in the country you are visiting declares you as a terrorist suspect and an enemy combatant so they transfer you to one of their facilities where torture is being commenced. You are brought into a room where interrogators waterboard you for information. Would you still say the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists then?
You dodged my first question on #159. Please answer this and the one on 159.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:36 pmJohnM needs to cite legal precedent before knowing it’s immoral to mistreat someone in custody. You are pathetic, JohnM.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:38 pmJohnM Says:
People that are not prisoners of war.
Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention:
“Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.”
May 19th, 2009 at 7:39 pmI don’t know if anyone has mentioned this, but, why would mostly Republicans and Conservative Dems want to leave a Terrorist who is determined to “destroy us” in the hands of a foreign Country that may not have our best interest at heart?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:40 pmAre International prisons that much better than our own Supermax system?
If a Terrorist escapes from a foreign prison, can we be sure that they will do everything in there power to capture that individual?
Would that Terrorist’s friends and cohorts have a harder time breaking him out “over there” or “over here?”
I’m just asking.
Why should I have to admit something that is in dispute just to move on to a different treaty to which the US is bound?
If we’re bound by a treaty, we’re bound. I’m sure you’re aware that international treaties are considered the law of the land, right?
And the 1949 UN Convention Against Torture pretty clearly defines torture, and waterboarding pretty clearly fits within that definition as a form of torture, which is forbidden. It doesn’t qualify who can be tortured. It doesn’t provide exceptions in the case of a “ticking time bomb”. It bans the practice.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:40 pmIntrepid Says:
——————————————————————————–
John M, I have a question for you. Your wife, who is an American civilian like yourself is captured by Islamic militants and is waterboarded by the same militants. Would you still say the same bile you regurgitated in this thread? Would you still justify torture then?
Yes, I would argue that they are not protected under the Geneva Convention because they are in fact not.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:41 pmNicely done, Luis.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:41 pmInternational Humanitarian Law (The Geneva Conventions), page 16:
a) International armed conflicts (see p. 5)
In such situations the Geneva Conventions and Additional protocol I apply.
Humanitarian law is intended principally
for the parties to the conflict and protects
every individual or category of individuals
not or no longer actively involved in the
conflict, i.e.:
• wounded or sick military personnel in
land warfare, and members of the armed
forces’ medical services;
• wounded, sick or shipwrecked military
personnel in naval warfare, and members
of the naval forces’ medical services;
• prisoners of war;
• the civilian population, for example:
- foreign civilians on the territory of parties
to the conflict, including refugees;
- civilians in occupied territories;
- civilian detainees and internees;
- medical and religious personnel or civil
defence units.
Suck it, troll.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:43 pmLet me emphasize a critical sentence from the paragraph Luis cited above:
“Outside the law” is exactly what JohnM is arguing for with these detainess.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pmJohnM Says:
Intrepid Says:
——————————————————————————–
John M, I have a question for you. Your wife, who is an American civilian like yourself is captured by Islamic militants and is waterboarded by the same militants. Would you still say the same bile you regurgitated in this thread? Would you still justify torture then?
Yes, I would argue that they are not protected under the Geneva Convention because they are in fact not.
So you obviously have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
Your wife, presumably, would fall into this category, no?
And I’ve already noted that you’ve failed to read Article 5.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pmJohnM Says: Yes, I would argue that they are not protected under the Geneva Convention because they are in fact not.
So you would justify torture even if it happens to your wife while falsely claiming SHE does not apply to the Geneva Convention? Some husband you are not giving a fck about your own spousal figure.
Now answer the question in #169.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:45 pmJohnM is a robot.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:46 pmYou are sick John M. Seek both mental and medical help fast!
May 19th, 2009 at 7:46 pmJohnM apparently got his legal advice from john yoo.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:47 pmGumble Bee Itch says: Your wife, presumably, would fall into this category, no?
According to John M., No. I have already covered this.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pmSo the US is not bound by any Law—Anything goes!!!!!
Human experimentation, John?
Where do you draw the line?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pmJohnM is pwned.
AGAIN.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pmOk..Somebody has alot of explaining to do.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:50 pmJohnny M…. I am still awaiting for your answer to post 169.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:50 pmoops, Somebody has some explaining to do. The CIA never used the term enhanced interrogation techniques until 2004.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/source_eit_term_wasnt_in_use_when_pelosi_was_brief.php
May 19th, 2009 at 7:51 pmIntrepid Says:
Gumble Bee Itch says: Your wife, presumably, would fall into this category, no?
According to John M., No. I have already covered this.
But then again, John M is probably a wife beater anyway.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:51 pmWhen can we get Shelden Whitehouse as the Senate leader? Man that guy kicks ass!
May 19th, 2009 at 7:53 pmReprise to 169 Johnny……..John M. You are a civilian visiting a foreign country and their government captures you and holds you in custody. While in custody, the government in the country you are visiting declares you as a terrorist suspect and an enemy combatant so they transfer you to one of their facilities where torture is being commenced. You are brought into a room where interrogators waterboard you for information. Would you still say the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists then?
Still waiting for your answer.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:54 pmPlease explain to us how they do not qualify as prisoners of war? I have news for you hun, I was in the military at the time of the attacks. They were from that point considered enemy combatants (Bushie’s words not mine) and therefore engaged in war. Logically one would conclude that should we capture them, they are indead Prisoners of War. They were captured as a consequence of war moron.
Didn’t Bush even say god know how many times that we were at war with terrorists? Hence, you know, the war on terror.
Regardless, however, of their status torture is wrong. Period. No one deserves to be waterboarded because they don’t “qualify”.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:55 pmI have to wonder what kind of real threat that these “terrorists” would pose on American soil. Maybe that they could be interviewed? Why aren’t they being paraded around like trophies in the WOT?
May 19th, 2009 at 7:55 pmJohnM…?
He must be finished stealing time from his employer…
May 19th, 2009 at 7:57 pmExcuse my spelling. I meant indeed at 192 :)
May 19th, 2009 at 7:57 pmIt’s a good thing we’re going forward with stem cell research. Because Reid is in definite need of a backbone graft.
Cheers,
May 19th, 2009 at 7:58 pmZooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
International Humanitarian Law (The Geneva Conventions), page 16:
a) International armed conflicts (see p. 5)
In such situations the Geneva Conventions and Additional protocol I apply.
Humanitarian law is intended principally
for the parties to the conflict and protects
every individual or category of individuals
not or no longer actively involved in the
conflict, i.e.:
• wounded or sick military personnel in
land warfare, and members of the armed
forces’ medical services;
• wounded, sick or shipwrecked military
personnel in naval warfare, and members
of the naval forces’ medical services;
• prisoners of war;
• the civilian population, for example:
- foreign civilians on the territory of parties
to the conflict, including refugees;
- civilians in occupied territories;
- civilian detainees and internees;
- medical and religious personnel or civil
defence units.
Suck it, troll.
This is not the Geneva Convention it is the international humanitarian law. This includes the Genvea Convention is part of the international humanitarian law but what you posted is not part of the Geneva Convention. I still state that the Geneva Convention does not protect Al Queda members, which you obviously cannot prove differently.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:59 pmIntrepid Says:
——————————————————————————–
John M. You are a civilian visiting a foreign country and their government captures you and holds you in custody. While in custody, the government in the country you are visiting declares you as a terrorist suspect and an enemy combatant so they transfer you to one of their facilities where torture is being commenced. You are brought into a room where interrogators waterboard you for information. Would you still say the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists then?
You dodged my first question on #159. Please answer this and the one on 159.
Yes because it was created for that purpose.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:00 pmI see John M does not answer hard lined questions when put on the spot. Even when the question requires a yes/no answer. Sorry Johnny……You lose. And I noticed the carnage the others in here laid on your owned anus. And to imply that even your own wife is not protected under the Geneva Convention proves how sick and ignorant you are as well as how much you don’t give a flying crap-ola about her. Others have pointed out flaws in your rhetoric (I hardly call it a talking point), which it amounts to in this thread. I bet you beat her.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:01 pmJohnM,
This may possibly be the last time I respond to you directly.
You, sir, are being willfully ignorant (just like Bill O’Reilly) and being deliberately obtuse. You refuse to accept facts presented to you and insist that your own opinion (completely unsupported by links or facts) is right and that we are wrong. We have proven to you that we are the ones who are right and you are the one who is wrong.
You keep repeating the same discredited arguments as if saying them again makes them more valid. It doesn’t.
I have decided you are not worth the effort, as you have no desire to learn or even to prove to us that you are right. You are here simply to waste our time.
Good day, Sir.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:02 pmJohnM Says:
This is not the Geneva Convention it is the international humanitarian law. This includes the Genvea Convention is part of the international humanitarian law but what you posted is not part of the Geneva Convention. I still state that the Geneva Convention does not protect Al Queda members, which you obviously cannot prove differently.
Typical troll, simply ignoring any evidence he doesn’t want to admit to.
You don’t get to be the “competent tribunal”, troll. Neither does Dick Cheney.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:03 pmIt has been fun everybody, but I urge each of you to actually read the geneva convention before saying we are in violation of it. Just because it is repeated many times on sites like this that do not do any research it does not make it true.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:03 pmShould any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
There is no doubt, they don’t qualify. Have a great night.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:04 pmIntrepid Says:
John M. You are a civilian visiting a foreign country and their government captures you and holds you in custody. While in custody, the government in the country you are visiting declares you as a terrorist suspect and an enemy combatant so they transfer you to one of their facilities where torture is being commenced. You are brought into a room where interrogators waterboard you for information. Would you still say the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists then?
JohnM Says: Yes because it was created for that purpose.
Hey Everyone: John wants to get waterboarded. Who’s in???
May 19th, 2009 at 8:04 pmJohnM is still clinging to his imaginary security blanket.
He pretends that because waterboarding is not specifically banned under the Geneva Conventions (simply the broad category of “torture” under which waterboarding clearly and traditionally fits) and because he argues that al Qeada fighters are not covered under the Conventions (this is absurd), that none of the other international treaties mentioned here today are relevant.
He goes so far as to try to make a distinction between the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Law, which is another absurd claim:
The Geneva Conventions: the core of international humanitarian law
The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are international treaties that contain the most important rules limiting the barbarity of war. They protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).
I gotta say, JohnM is putting up a spirited fight here, but not a very effective one. As is JohnM’s style.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:05 pmIntrepid Says:
John M. You are a civilian visiting a foreign country and their government captures you and holds you in custody. While in custody, the government in the country you are visiting declares you as a terrorist suspect and an enemy combatant so they transfer you to one of their facilities where torture is being commenced. You are brought into a room where interrogators waterboard you for information. Would you still say the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists then?
JohnM Says: Yes because it was created for that purpose.
Article 3
In the case of armed 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, the following provisions:
1. Persons 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 sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
YOU, presumably, would fall into this category, no?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:06 pmJohnM Says:
There is no doubt, they don’t qualify. Have a great night.
If they don’t qualify as POW’s, then they’re civilian prisoners who have been denied their legal rights. Also, they’re still covered by the 1949 Convention against Torture.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:10 pmJohnM obviously skipped the excellent post by Luis in post 171, so I’ll repeat it for him:
“Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law</em>
I see nothing in there that exempts a category of individual that could include al Qaeda.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:11 pmJohnM Says:
This is not the Geneva Convention it is the international humanitarian law.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
The four treaties of the Geneva Conventions set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns.
They are one and the same.
You are wrong.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:14 pmIf you’re going to be in an armed conflict and you get caught, you want to be considered a prisoner of war. If your enemy considers you something other than, like a war criminal, all bets are off. Making those Al Quaeda boys Enemy Combatants is our answer to the complexity of their capture and it works. If you actually get captured by an enemy who follows the Geneva Convention, HAHAHAHA, you live like they did in Hogans Heroes. Most U.S. enemies only care about manipulating and leveraging the U.S. We called John McCain a POW, but his captures called him a war criminal and so they treated him any ol way. We put those AL Quaeda boys up with 3 hots and a cot, daily prayer, yard time, a copy of the Quran, full medical care, and then call enemy combatants because it’s good for both sides. Of course President Barry, the name he used before he was AFRICAN AMERICAN, thinks that that is too harsh a word. Now Uncle Reid is confounded with the fact every European Nation has said NIMBY to helping us house these ticking timebombs, who were already timebombs well before their capture.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:15 pmR.I.P MIKE SPANN
Sheepdog Says:
We put those AL Quaeda boys up with 3 hots and a cot
…except those who went on hunger strikes because they felt like less than humans…
daily prayer,
But not daily sleep, so it’s a tie.
yard time,
Unless they were locked up in a cell.
a copy of the Quran,
(Sure, the military pissed on it, but you could still kinda read it, so it’s ok, right?)
full medical care,
Right up to the point where they died by torture… I mean, by extreme happiness.
and then call them enemy combatants because it’s good for both sides.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:29 pmThey get to be away from their pesky families, the US gets to waterboard them at their leisure. It’s a win-win situation!
After reading this thread it reminded me – bush and cheney… what a couple of stink balls.
Think of this as a learning, growing experience – America produces it’s first federal criminal cabal and almost sucomes to it, before the party is broken up and the CIA is reformed.
The alternative is unthinkable…
May 19th, 2009 at 8:30 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
JohnM obviously skipped the excellent post by Luis in post 171, so I’ll repeat it for him:
“Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law
I see nothing in there that exempts a category of individual that could include al Qaeda.
John M….. You have been owned.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:36 pmoy… had to scroll through… brickwalls are so boring…
i think sickos like johnm need to have that “uniform” thing spelled out… and that “uniform” needs to have epaulets and shiny buttons…
that middle eastern garb just won’t qualify…
May 19th, 2009 at 8:37 pmAccording to John Moron’s logic, the Nazis should’ve been excused for torturing US soldiers and civilians. The Japanese should be excused as well as the Pol Pot regime, the Chinese and the Soviets should be excused for torture.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:46 pmReid you Fu(kin’ moron, your @ss is getting voted OUT. Replaced by someone who has some cajones meng!
May 19th, 2009 at 8:51 pmShould any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
There is no doubt, they don’t qualify. Have a great night.
ralph the wonder locust Says:
“Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.
There you go John Moron. This point from wonder locust sums it up for you thus making your RHETORIC irrelevant. Consider your anus kicked brutally. YOU HAVE BEEN OWNED. Have a good night bandaging up the scars of the wounds that have been inflicted on you by the righteous who bludgeoned you with FACTS in this thread. Again, have a good night, troll.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:52 pmIt’s not even whether they “qualify” or not. John ditched my question too :(
I want an explanation based in fact with proof.
But back to my original point. NO ONE deserves to be tortured. Screw the Conventions or whatever crap you’re trying to use to justify this John. You seriously must be disturbed. Take it from this psychologist :)
May 19th, 2009 at 8:53 pmkdgamergirl @ 218……Would you consider John Moron to be suffering from a socialpathic or psychopathic order? What would you subscribe to in his case?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:56 pmI mean disorder. Sorry for the typo.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:57 pmCommon sense is not common. Harry Reid needs to go. Most of the above is drivel. I am sick of all the games being played by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, the RNC, the DNC, and the media. I really thought Obama would lead. Instead, he is trying to persuade congress to DO SOMETHING. That appears to be impossible. So four more years of the same crap, no common sense, no change.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:30 pmWhenever I see a thread over, say, about 150, I know the trolls are stomping about within it.
Now, Harry, Harry, Harry. We know that Nevada is not “really” a blue state. That said, you are now too old to be a Democrat. You have now proved that you’re out-of-touch with the majority. Time to go. GO!
OS, as I said before, please go find a loaded gun to play with. Thanks.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:49 pmConservaPUNK BITE ME
I have no reason to be respectful to ignorant trolls like YOU who want to talk about the DemocRATic party. You are a punk, you ACT like a punk you should expect to be TREATED like a punk. When you come to what you KNOW is a liberal website to treat liberals with contempt then snivel like the PUNK you are when we treat YOU with contemp you are just being a moron again
May 19th, 2009 at 10:09 pmI think we need to change the word “terrorist” to “Enhanced Fear Creator“.
This’ll help the Chickenhawks (like Harry now) swallow the FACT that we need to do “something” about this mess.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:15 pmJohnM Says:
How many times do we have to go through this. The GC has protected categories besides prisoner of war and says directly that NO ONE can be put beyond the law like the Bush administration tried to do.
From http://www.icrc.org:
This assertion promotes the argument that persons who fail to qualify for prisoner of war status under Geneva Convention III are categorically outside of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, Geneva Convention IV, Article 4 provides protected status to persons “who find themselves . . . in the hands of a party to the conflict”, unless they fail to meet certain nationality criteria or are covered by the other Geneva Conventions. Detainees not protected by those other Conventions, and who do meet the nationality criteria for coverage under Geneva Convention IV do, indeed, ‘have a label in the law of war conventions’. That label is “civilian”, or “protected person” under Geneva Convention IV – even if they are definitely suspected of activity hostile to the security of the detaining State or of being “unlawful combatants”. Persons who do not meet the nationality criteria are covered by Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This article forms part of customary international law.
Basically EVERYONE who finds themselves…in the hands of a party to the conflict is protected in one way or another by convention or by the rule of law. No one falls outside of some protection. NO ONE is an animal that can be treated however a soulless being like Cheney WANTS to treat them. We show this you cons slink away then come back a couple of days later and make this same tired already debunked point. I KNOW Rush told you to think this and you wingnuts are used to thinking what you are told to think but this talking point is just plain stupid.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:19 pmJohn 62
Well you are flat out wrong about that. What WERE the chances
May 19th, 2009 at 10:21 pmSheepledog Says:
Sheepledog you ARE a moron and of COURSE you are wrong. You in fact NEVER seem to have any idea what you are talking about. The GC says that IF there is a dispute that a competent tribunal will decide if someone is a prisoner of war or not. This is just one more way the Bush administration ignored the GC. It also says directly that no one is beyond protection. You are stupid Sheepledog. A moron who spouts propaganda and blatant stupidity.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:25 pm@33
This is way back but isn’t this like Bush declaring November martial law?
Now whether the powers are the same, well… but the election did happen and the inauguration. And no assassination.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:51 am.
Shorter Reid:
.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:54 am.
Of course what Reid is tacitly admitting is that to place them in our prison system, it WILL require a TRIAL. And of course we all know, coerced evidence obtained through TORTURE is not permissible in a Court of Law and will implicate a larger series of investigations of the WHO, WHEN, and WHERE the TORTURE TOOK PLACE…
… And enablers can’t open that curtain.
.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:58 am.
Dear Harry Reid (D-NV),
Life sentences keep people off the streets, too.
.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:59 am.
TO DATE: No one can point where in the Law, either U.S. or International, does it say that the agreed to party(ies)(read signatories) may violate the signed agreement.
Until then, the trolls loose.
.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:08 amArtist color mixing quiz: If you mix equal parts unbridled greed, horrific hate, ruthless manipulation, filthy lies, and a glob of religion with sprinkles of legal advice – what color do you get? A color so evasive you need a truth commission to see it!
May 20th, 2009 at 3:46 amThis “fear” of detainees is so rediculous. First, there are a group of detainees who are completely innocent and have been improperly imprisoned for years. They deserve outright release if not some form of repatation. Second, any of the people who are hardened terrorists will be in prison, they won’t be living next door.
Anyone in Congress who does not want detainees imprisoned in their districts or states is weak. Reid is the weakest of the weak.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:08 amrightwing-leftwing Says:
Whenever I see a thread over, say, about 150, I know the trolls are stomping about within it.
Hey right-wing left-wing – just trolling around. My screen name says all I need to say. Have a nice day!
May 20th, 2009 at 8:25 amConservativeForProgress Says:
The 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was not waterboarded 183 times, by the way. Rather, there were 183 pours, some lasting no more than a few brief seconds.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:37 am“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Isn’t it funny how after failing to catch Bin Laden, the Bush administration labeled KSM as “the real” mastermind behind 9/11.
Was it because they captured him and tortured him to admit he was the mastermind behind 9/11 much like they attempted to torture insurgents to admit that there was a link between Al Qaida and Iraq to justify war with Iraq?????
The only terrorists I fear, the ones who can really destroy our country (And have almost succeeded) are the American Taliban within the republican party.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:39 amMe thinks Reid needs a reality check!! We have so-called “terrorists” serving time already in U.S. prisons. This is all so political, in my view, since Reid is running for reelection. If only the Democrats in Congress would have stood up to Bush when he was in White House, like they are standing up to this Democratic President!
May 20th, 2009 at 9:55 amOf course, the REAL motive behind this hyperbole and fear mongering has NOTHING to do with any real or proven threat. By continuing this fantasy that the “terrorist” are the most dangerous and ruthless humans on earth they provide additional legal and moral traction to treat them illegally AND deflect any criticism. Who would oppose torturing the devil? We know he’s extremely dangerous! He can pass through walls!. He can fly in the air!. He can live in fire!. He can chew through hydraulic lines!. And yet our troops wipe them out with relative ease. But perhaps that’s also a fantasy. Perhaps our real mistake was not capitalizing on this situation. We could have these Islamic Uber-soldiers train our rather modest troops so no nation on earth would ever oppose us! Or allow them in a domestic prison. Flights of fantasy indeed.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:49 pmfreemind is working on its creative writing assignment for its 9th grade english class. Good work – I give you a C.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:52 pmWhat a spineless tool. When do we get rid of this pretender?He is anti-change and the party should call him on it NOW!!
May 20th, 2009 at 3:26 pmI think Reid is really calling for his own release from the confines and responsibilities of being Senate Majority Leader. The Republicans have been kicking his ass for how many years now?
Goodbye already.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:51 pmI said this earlier, but it bears repeating:
With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?
izle
May 21st, 2009 at 5:31 amvideo izle
vidyo izle
teknoloji
Harry Reid, please, has there ever been a bigger majority leader loser in my lifetime? Uh, no. The guy is a joke by any standard. Whenever he speaks, just do the opposite. You will get it right then.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:07 pmSee if I get this straight. We want the detainees released because we do not consider them dangerous or terrorists. They can’t go back to their original countries because they do. Other countries won’t take them because they also consider them dangerous and/or terrorists. We can’t legally hold them in federal prisons because they have not been convicted of any crimes and would have to be released.
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 pmWhy don’t we just label them POW’s and send them back home? Oh right, we can’t because…
Do you see a dog chasing his tail?
If we really wanted them released, they could move next to Obama’s aunt, or next door to you.
sesli chat
sesli sohbet
seslichat
seslisohbet
thank you admin
May 24th, 2009 at 5:05 amit is legal to shoot people caught on the battlefield not in uniform. they can be considered spies and treated as such. maybe we should give them a last meal, a blindfold and a cigarette. at least then they wont be sleep deprived or have someone say mean things to them.
May 24th, 2009 at 10:00 amyeaa right, With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?
magturka
May 26th, 2009 at 12:30 pmcazibe
kizkiza