Calax

PPOOOOOORRRRRR QQQQUUUUEEEEE!!!!?????

that's how it is with EVERY MMO.

She's contrary, that's for sure. I think the higher your relationship with her is the more likely she's gonna ignore what you say and get what she wants from you. ... Is she based on Catherine the Great?

Yeah, it may stay for one more week or two in the top five but then it starts going up against other nerd properties... Like Xmen and Green Lantern.

For more, see teamfourstar.com and yugiohabridged.com

Strangely... even though I'm not depressed or on bipolar... I started turning over the "It's a wonderful life" theme on myself. Nooot a pretty picture when one does it to themselves.

Ok... so KKKAAAAANNNNEEEEEDDDDAAA!

Can I ride that?

If they ban porn they may get more womens rights >.>

You mean the same CIA director who basically said that he's not sure if the torture was the cause of people getting the intelligence? (As in he's not sure if the intel couldn't have been gotten as easily or easier via non-torturous means)

http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek/video/round...actics-13555984

I'm a pirate ninja instructor. In my spare time I do legal research for the Brazilian ladies' beach volleyball team, when I'm not test-driving Ferraris. And I'm Buddha. I hear that pays terrible too. But it's got a great health plan.

when he first appeared, he was interesting.... then he became scimitar Jesus with Thor being his underling and things went downhill.

Neither. Also think about the number lost because of the recruits that joined the various terrorist organizations specifically because of the fact that we use torture.

Either their soldiers in a war, or civilians engaged in a criminal action, not between.

I know that both are afforded basic rights of a criminal, under any circumstances and referring to them as "enemy combatants" and keeping them off US soil denies them protections that they would have received either as a domestic criminal, or as a soldier fighting in a war. Even if they're not soldiers in the conventional sense of working under the auspices of another country, they should then be treated as domestic criminals, and put through the american court systems. Both of these routs would enforce protection against torture, and water boarding (if you decide it's not torture), and make those two actions a crime. Was the Unabomber a terrorist? If so, why was he then tossed into the American legal system? Same with Tim McVeigh. Sure, they were technically US citizens, but then why does the fifth and sixth amendments specifically say Note that neither of these uses the word "citizen" to denote who the rights apply to. Same with the eighth and ninth amendments in reference to "cruel and unusual punishments" and the "protection of rights not specifically enumerated within the constitution". In any case, Water boarding is torture and/or Cruel and Unusual punishment. In either case illegal and unconstitutional. And (to yank this sucker back to my original point) has not been shown to be beneficial by a study by the CIA itself, and it's possible it was detrimental to the collection of intelligence by the agencies associated with the programs.

So... it's ok for us to waterboard people to save our own citizens, but not ok for another nation to do it to us to save their own citizens. Nice double standard there son. Also, with more details on the Japanese sentencing etc http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...-waterboarding/

So because of our sense of decency we should let KSM's plans go forward and let thousands more people die because we don't want to distress the scumbag? Btw, rigorous interrogation such as waterboarding isn't torture, torture is infliction of pain or injury, which is against the rules. It's torture, as defined by US who persecuted Japanese soldiers who waterboarded US marines... and we sentenced them to death by hanging http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/...in3554687.shtml

Well, my entire point in posting the original video (which only like one person seems to have taken the time to watch given the responses) was that the Bush crew and fox news wanted to be partisan and are trying to deny credit to the current democratic president and instead take credit for themselves by instigating the various intelligence gathering operations that led to Bin Laden getting shot. One part pure partisan hackery, one part "we got him so we were vindicated in ordering the torture of another human being!"

Mainly pointing to page ninety four there... in that they're unsure exactly what, if any, help the torture was (While Mr. Cheney said that report said that the waterboarding was totally what gave them all of the information).

Dagon, this is taken from pg 96: (page 96)it then goes into still classified stuff. also (page 94)

Hell, Bush could have had the couriers name if he'd not tortured. As the departing CIA head states: It's very possible that they could have gotten the information faster from non-torture means.

True, it wouldn't have happened without the invasion. But the exact point they're trying to make is that the use of "legal loopholes" to torture/extract intel from the "combatants" is what got the intel, and Obama just pulled the trigger when they set him up for it. And yet, as the video I linked points out, the CIA and others outside the Bush administration said that the use of torture was actually detrimental to the acquisition of the intelligence that lead to the killing.

Isn't it "Dr'zzt Du'orden"? or something? I know it has apostrophes.

And the partisan hackery begins! Currently the Bush administration has taken to Fox News in order to say that it's due to their efforts that Obama was able to pull the trigger. (Yes the maker has a political opinion... he's a lawyer for the ACLU in Sacramento but that doesn't seem to work to hard on his opinions).