kumquatq3

I'll call you "Sunshine" Praise the Lord "By the way, If the Bush administration doesn't condone torture then why are they fighting tooth and nail to give the CIA the right to use it?" I never said they didn't condone torture, just that the memo wasn't a smoking gun. and you know that sunshine!

I've taken everything I wanted from him already DENIED!

No

sure I love hugs Ever seen the documentry "The Corporation"? Reminds me of that.

I always come too late for the good "Zing!"s

It's a little different, as I'm not trying to convice him so much as actually embarrass him " , but yea, good call. :"> I just said outloud what your thinking

Yes. Although in some cases it wasnt completely unjustified (although equally in many it was). Top of the list is hunting the Bufalo almost to extinction since it had the biggest knock on effect. Well don't forget all that happened in reality was a name change. Those early US folks were still European with the same sort of disregard for other cultures. That is true, but if we don't take responsibilty from the point our country was founded, then when do we start? Post-slavery? That blood is on alot of peoples hads, not just the Spanish, btw

A JOKE

It isn't???? It IS what you posted previously: So explain to me: Are you lying now or were you lying before? I've always wanted my own bitch <{POST_SNAPBACK}> excuse me, but I edited my post before you posted this. You are once again dishonestly dodging. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> are you the Iraqi information minister???????? you know that I can hit "quote" and start typeing before you edit? It OBVIOUSLY doesn't mean any intended suferring, as imprisonment is causing someone intention suffering your a joke

It isn't???? It IS what you posted previously: So explain to me: Are you lying now or were you lying before? I've always wanted my own bitch EDIT: OOOOOOOOOOOOPS you didn't edit your post fast enought He changed it to

The decimation of the native americans began way before the foundation of the actual US, but then again, the US has got much blood on their hands when it comes to this issue THE US???????? The way I remember it, the Euros were coming over here killing them long before we were a country!!!!

o, and: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You didn't claim "Severe" being in the torture definition was "BS"? and whats this "Poland" I hear so much about?

Yes it does!!!! "intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" That clearly means severe is applied to ALL three! remember, Yrkoon, READING COMPREHENSION unless you think causing any kind of sufferiung is torture. I purposely annoyed my sister a bunch of times, it wasn't torture tho (she says otherwise) Who's your daddy?

Is it "severe" tho? It might be, but have fun proving it in legal terms hence why the charges were not brought, again

Just the good ole' boys, never meaning no harm How stupid do you have to be...

o, and: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You didn't claim "Severe" being in the torture definition was "BS"? and whats this "Poland" I hear so much about?

To prove you wrong, I like taking out your initial arguements, and working my way down to your smaller ones. And it matters, because you claimed something, you mocked me when I asked for a source, and then the source you provided disproved your own claim. So it's funny and important

I already said I made a mistake on that point unlike you, I can admit them. But I'll start you off small: Is "Severe" in the legal definition of torture or is that still BS? then work your way to: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, they could just lie: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, but I was just saying how your definition, while practical in alot of situations, isn't complete Also remember we have several treaties to meet, in terms of our definitions. Under all sorts of different senerios.

Learn to use quotes if you want me to read what you write, but I'll leave you with this: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my point is just that it's not that easy to get a good legal definition EDIT: thats not to say I don't expect that the people we pay to do these things shouldn't have the responsibilty to do just that. I just acknowledge that it's hard

Not if it is done painlessly. Obviously death by the electric chair is out but lethal injection is the most painless way to execute a prisoner and least violent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You don't think KNOWING the goverment is going to kill you won't cause a person "deliberate mental harm"?

Well, wouldn't that depend on the prisoners metal status? but it's not just that. You could argue your definition covers LOTS of things we view as legal. what about legal police interrogations? Or hell, maybe even an audit! The death penalty, in case your for it, would be out of the question

But you have to be careful. I mean, isn't imprisoning someone causing them deliberate mental harm?