Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57

Thread: Amnesty International condemns US

  1. #1
    Old Texan
    I believe Amnesty International to be another hypocritical bunch of discontents worrying about the rights of terrorists rather than condemning those terrorists for what they are and what they do to inflict death on innocents. Just like the ACLU they believe in the rights of the bad guys and stand on their elitist soapbox to look down on those that will save their sorry skins.
    http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/A-y.../War-on-terror

  2. #2
    eliminatedsprinter
    Amnesty international at one time had done some good work in documenting the abuses of some of the worlds worst dictators etc. However, it has long since been taken over by the left and now it just sees anything that is not socialism as abusive.

  3. #3
    CA Stu
    It's a slippery slope.
    Once the US condones torture, the terrorists have already won.
    They've ruined our way of life.
    I was in the airport the other day and saw an old lady getting searched because she had a plain brown bag of oatmeal. 70+ years old, getting the shakedown. I was ashamed, angry, and embarassed that a senior citizen would be treated that way. I wanted to apologize to her.
    If that isn't un-American, I don't know what is.
    Yeah, the ACLU sucks, Amnesty International sucks, but I'm glad they're out there. If we let some people have their way, any one of us could end up in a box with electrodes on our balls for voicing our opinions...
    Thanks
    CA Stu

  4. #4
    eliminatedsprinter
    It's a slippery slope.
    Once the US condones torture, the terrorists have already won.
    They've ruined our way of life.
    I was in the airport the other day and saw an old lady getting searched because she had a plain brown bag of oatmeal. 70+ years old, getting the shakedown. I was ashamed, angry, and embarassed that a senior citizen would be treated that way. I wanted to apologize to her.
    If that isn't un-American, I don't know what is.
    Yeah, the ACLU sucks, Amnesty International sucks, but I'm glad they're out there. If we let some people have their way, any one of us could end up in a box with electrodes on our balls for voicing our opinions...
    Thanks
    CA Stu
    I used to think about them that way, but they have become selective about who's balls they want to protect and I honestly think they no longer give a rip about protecting mine.
    The irony of your example is, that it is because of the ACLU and Amnesty A. that they are bothering old ladies, instead of "profiling" those that pose the most risk.
    Besides, old ladies with oat meal are without a doubt a flight hazard. I know if I eat enough of it I definatly become a bio-hazard.
    P.S. Was it in the revolutionary war or the war of 1812 that we began to condone torture and how has our way of life been ruined since then???? Do you honestly think any nation has ever fought any war (let alone won one) without any use of torture??

  5. #5
    ULTRA26 # 1
    I used to think about them that way, but they have become selective about who's balls they want to protect and I honestly think they no longer give a rip about protecting mine.
    The irony of your example is, that it is because of the ACLU and Amnesty A. that they are bothering old ladies, instead of "profiling" those that pose the most risk.
    Besides, old ladies with oat meal are without a doubt a flight hazard. I know if I eat enough of it I definatly become a bio-hazard.
    P.S. Was it in the revolutionary war or the war of 1812 that we began to condone torture and how has our way of life been ruined since then???? Do you honestly think any nation has ever fought any war (let alone won one) without any use of torture??
    ES,
    Seems to me that the United States has always stood on moral high ground. IMO this has always one of the issues that has made this Country the greatest one in the world. In tha past, we have been a part of establishing proper and acceptable methods for war. Among others, the use of torture is unacceptable within the standards that the US helped establish. We must adhere to our own standards.

  6. #6
    Old Texan
    ES,
    Seems to me that the United States has always stood on moral high ground. IMO this has always one of the issues that has made this Country the greatest one in the world. In tha past, we have been a part of establishing proper and acceptable methods for war. Among others, the use of torture is unacceptable within the standards that the US helped establish. We must adhere to our own standards.
    ES's point is as I understand it is the old lady gets searched because of PC and that big deal of "equal rights". We can't profile and if we search a middle eastern young male with questionable looks and acting suspicious, we also must search Aunt Bee, preferably in the same manner. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if there was unwriten encourgement to search more Aunt Bee's than Abdul the terroist prototypes to be on the safe side of non-predjudice.
    We've become such a nation of fear when it comes to potential litigation, we have groups such as AI andthe ACLU using this against our system not to mention our real enemies (who also might be the AI and ACLU, I'm not betting against that one by any means).
    Out of control "rights' groups and such work the system to it's limits to get their agendas fulfilled. Common sense is no longer an option. Sorry guys, I'm not buying into the fears that our government will make us the next victim if we don't protect the rights to the extreme of known criminals. This whole other immigratioon issue has a lot of ties to the same principles and helps the border problems exist.
    We cry the Patriot Act has taken away our rights but go ahead and allow the ACLU and AI to further dilute authority and the ability to deal with an enemy who goes by "NO RULES". Your points of high American traditional standards are righteous but somewhere a line must be drawn in the sand and let the world and everyone know we mean business. Our allies expect it of us to do so and our enemies fear that we will belly up to the bar and say enough is enough.
    We have checks and balnaces and it's only too evident that atrociites will not be tolerated both in municipal police departments and in our armed forces. A lot of bad publicity is thrown at these 2 groups but day in and day out they are honorable men and women that do a helluva job withourt expectations of credit from the generl media or public. Soldiers in the Iraq war theater have done wrong and they have paid the price. Don't let the media influence towards the negative cloud your judgement.

  7. #7
    eliminatedsprinter
    ES,
    Seems to me that the United States has always stood on moral high ground. IMO this has always one of the issues that has made this Country the greatest one in the world. In tha past, we have been a part of establishing proper and acceptable methods for war. Among others, the use of torture is unacceptable within the standards that the US helped establish. We must adhere to our own standards.
    No doubt, but that high ground has never been an absolute. War has always required rough methods. We have just tried to be more fair, just, and discriminating in how we go about using them than our enemies and most (almost all) other nations. I said almost all, because there are some (dam# few) other nations that also try to be as fair as we do.
    What is worse torture or killing?? What would you rather have happen to your son? Would you rather have him waterboarded and not killed or killed but never tortured? I know it is a non-sequitur in a discussion on how war should be fought. Neather killing or torture are good things, but I doubt any ground war has ever been fought without both sides doing both. An abosolute no torture (with a very very broad and liberal definition of torture) policy makes about as much sense as a no killing policy would. What is better? Establishing a policy for the reasonable use of physical discomfort to gain valuable information that can be followed? Or having a feel good absolute policy that just goes ignored....I'll bet our first President whose army used torture was most likely Payton Randolph.

  8. #8
    ULTRA26 # 1
    No doubt, but that high ground has never been an absolute. War has always required rough methods. We have just tried to be more fair, just, and discriminating in how we go about using them than our enemies and most (almost all) other nations. I said almost all, because there are some (dam# few) other nations that also try to be as fair as we do.
    What is worse torture or killing?? What would you rather have happen to your son? Would you rather have him waterboarded and not killed or killed but never tortured? I know it is a non-sequitur in a discussion on how war should be fought. Neather killing or torture are good things, but I doubt any ground war has ever been fought without both sides doing both. An abosolute no torture (with a very very broad and liberal definition of torture) policy makes about as much sense as a no killing policy would. What is better? Establishing a policy for the reasonable use of physical discomfort to gain valuable information that can be followed? Or having a feel good absolute policy that just goes ignored....I'll bet our first President whose army used torture was most likely Payton Randolph.
    Is there not something known as the Geneva Convention that the US is/was a part of? Because the scum in the Mid east were not a part of what the Geneva Convention set forth, does not mean we abandon our morals and act like scum ourselves. IMO, doing so, places the US under a similar dark cloud.
    With regard to your question regarding what is better torture or killing and what I would rather have happen to my Son. I don't believe you nor I are the ones to answer that question. I believe that there some forms of torture are so horrific that the one being tortured might choose a bullit through the head.
    Our first President's army preceeded the Geneva Convention(s).

  9. #9
    zudnic
    Torture is wrong if its used to get a confession, as in getting someone to admit to a crime they have not done. The millennium bomber caught by an alert customs agent at the Canadian/U.S border in Washington State was on his way to blow up LAX. That bomb could have gone off on its way, even in my states back yard. Thank God for an alert racial profiling Customs Agent, if she did'nt look at him as a nervous muslim, she would'nt have searched him and he would have killed un-told amounts of innocent people, not just Americans. If he did get through, I for one would'nt care if they tortured one of his coherts and that stopped. PC is UN-American when it harms America... Clinton should be charged and jailed for deriliction of duty, the millenium bomber and successfull first attack on the World Trade Center was a wake up call for action, instead he worried about Bin Ladens legal rights, not enough evidence. Sure he lobbed a few cruise missiles at a training camp, only to deflect Monica and his shamefull disgrace of the Oval Office and Presidentancy..... Liberals should remember that whole Dante thing, those that do nothing in the face of evil going to he//. I'd rather act and if that means torture to save innocent people and children, so be it!!!!!

  10. #10
    CA Stu
    Is there not something known as the Geneva Convention that the US is/was a part of? Because the scum in the Mid east were not a part of what the Geneva Convention set forth, does not mean we abandon our morals and act like scum ourselves. IMO, doing so, places the US under a similar dark cloud.
    Well said.
    Like I said, once we stop playing by our own rules and morals, the terrorists have already won.
    Ya know what makes me laugh is when people call me a liberal. I've been a member of the RNC for a long time, donated to Bush's campaign, and I'm a conservative.
    I'm fiscally conservative, bit socially liberal.
    I think pot should be legal, I think taxes should be less, I think that there should be a lot less government intervention in our lives, and I think that it is nobler (and takes more balls) to stick to our principals regardless of the percieved threat.
    If we are struck, we strike back fiercely and immediately, with firepower of biblical proportions. We don't turn into chicken shits.
    Thanks
    CA Stu
    PS WTF is a "Presidentancy?"

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Look what show'd up at a gun amnesty:
    By Trailer Park Casanova in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-19-2007, 11:13 AM
  2. One Step Closer to Amnesty
    By Boozer in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-26-2007, 02:45 PM
  3. Wake Up America!!! No Amnesty!!!
    By Wetracer in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-08-2007, 08:07 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-29-2007, 01:52 PM
  5. This New Amnesty Program
    By burtandnancy2 in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 07:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •