Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

stay focused. don't confuse nutjobs.

aV

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Ya know, you're really making me just guess about this, but if this was a cute comment meant to underscore some moral equivalence between our Iraq actions, and the actions of the Baathists, the foreign Islamic insurgents, or the let's-take-it-now Iranians, then you've very nicely proved my point.

On the other hand, if you just couldn't think of anything to say, I take it all back.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Settle down, Hannity. Don't read too much into a joke. Kind of like when none of us really thought you were serious when you were defending Quayle's intellectual ability.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Is there a circumstance to justify our use of chemical or biological weapons?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Oh, I can be naive and have poor taste in men, I admit it OKAY?

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/ava...ine=1112188054
I have to tell you Hank, for once, I think I want to fuck you. I'd still have to bag your face (or do the missionary style position so if you're tall enough your face will be towards the headboards and out of my line of vision) but this is a much sexier avatar.

Yeh Yeh Yeh, take it to the FB.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Like this guy?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Throughout history, civilized societies have agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, that there were limits to what was and what was not acceptable conduct. Deliberately attacking civilians has been deemed immoral and unacceptable. Safe conduct for negotiators is another example. Torture of prisnoers is yet another.

I can't think of any other way to say it. Torture is wrong. It is not dropping bombs. It is not engaging in battle. It is not honoring the humanity of the combatants on each side. It is deliberately inflicting pain on another human being qua human being, not fighting a soldier on the field of battle.

Morality and rationality don't always walk hand in hand. If you can't see it any other way, then please accept that I take this as a matter of faith.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I'm not being naive, Hank. I'm just honoring Bilmore's desire to keep this non-partisan.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Noonday grows fantastic onions. Very sweet.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Good lord.

At what point in life do you start lying about where you're from, and disclaiming any knowledge of Texas? Seems like you could claim good cause by now.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

If we engage in torture, then we are no different from Saddam. Where do you derive the belief that it is okay to adopt the tactics of the Baathists and the mullahs and Al-Qaeda and not be just as morally culpable?

Because our motives are pure? Because we're better than them. Bullshit. If we are willing to torture, maim, and kill them all if we have to, then we are them. What makes us different is the fact that we are governed by laws, and we adhere to them. Pure power is not deemed an aceptable way to lead and govern.

If we throw all that aside, then we have nothing left to claim to be better. We have forfeited the high ground. What staggers me is that you can argue so vehemently about your individual rights and freedoms, but you deny that those rules apply to the Iraqis.

What is your basis for the distinction? That some of them want to kill us? What the fuck do you think we've been doing? That they want to impose their will and their way of life upon the citizens of Iraq? Isn't that what we're doing?

What the fuck, Bilmore? What the fuck?*



*(New board motto.)

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

What is there to support the lack of moral equivalence?

Remember, we're not talking about the invasion or the toppling of Saddam. We're not talking about the efforts to democratize Iraq. We're talking about beating the shit out of people, raping their daughters (or trying to credibly threaten to do so), denying them food water, and sleep.

What makes it better when we do it than it was when Saddam did it?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

See, here is where we just can't communicate. Someone points a gun at your head, and pulls on the trigger. I stop them from shooting. In your view, I have arbitrarily and imperiously imposed my will - my will being, that you should live - on you.

No, that's not what we're doing. Sheesh.

I buy the Dershowitz argument. If some asshole has a nuke set on a timer in Minneapolis, and I can get him to tell me where it is by torturing him, consider him to be without fingernails or eyes. I can do many things in defense of life that I can't do as offensive action. You spend too much time on the surface idea of how it "looks", and not enough on what it serves. Yeah, sometimes the ends justify the means. What makes us different is the moral stance of the end we seek. A moral stance that says "I will enforce my rule with shredders" brings no moral sanction to an action. A moral stance that says "I will stop that man from shredding others" does. Your nobility costs others their innocent lives, but makes you feel good, and that strikes me as serving your own self-image far more than serving life.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

But that isn't what you are aguing in favor of. A more apt analogy would be as follows: You know someone wants to kill me, and you know that his brother knows where the gun he plans to use is hidden.

You are arguing that it is okay to break the brother's fingers one by one until he tells you where the gun is.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinion...511628reh2.pdf

Denial of petition for rehearing.

Language in the separate concurrence regarding Activist! judges.