Home | Community | Message Board

North Spore
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinemadscientist
journeyman
Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 110
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    #781491 - 07/28/02 07:59 AM (19 years, 2 months ago)

I f America belives so strongly in human rights and democracy why are you opposing a bill that seeks to outlaw torture?

Fucking yanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Once someone in this forum said that Americans would be better off if the US just built a huge wall around itself and let no-one in or out. I was inclined, at the time, to disagree. Now I just wish you yanks would because we (everyone else) would be better off wothout you cunts!

Geneva
The United Nations human rights chief on Thursday welcomed a decision by the international body to enforce a treaty on torture, despite opposition from the United States.

Mary Robinson, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said the enforcement plan was "an important step toward the establishment of a new international mechanism to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

The protocol was passed late on Wednesday by a vote of 35-8 with 10 abstentions in the UN Economic and Social Council.

The United States, which had sought to reopen 10 years of negotiations on the document, abstained.

Washington's attempts to block the protocol, which seeks to enforce a 1989 international treaty against torture, were widely criticised by human rights campaigners and US allies in Europe and Latin America.

Technically, the protocol seeks visits to prisons as a way to help enforce the anti-torture convention.

But the United States said elements of the plan were incompatible with the US Constitution. Privately, US diplomats said allowing outside observers into state prisons would infringe on states' rights.

The United States was also concerned about allowing visits to terror suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

Such visits are still unlikely unless the United States chooses to adopt the protocol.

Human rights advocates and diplomats argued that the protocol was essential to enforce the international convention on torture passed 13 years ago and since ratified by about 130 countries, including the United States.


--------------------
Instead of the dove as the symbol of peace we should have a pillow. Its got more feathers but doesnt have that nasty sharp beak......


Edited by madscientist (07/28/02 08:05 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: madscientist]
    #781563 - 07/28/02 09:02 AM (19 years, 2 months ago)

But the United States said elements of the plan were incompatible with the US Constitution.

I'm not familiar with the plan, but this on it's own (if true) would be reason to oppose it. If the elements which are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution were removed, perhaps things could more easily move forward.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: madscientist]
    #781641 - 07/28/02 10:02 AM (19 years, 2 months ago)

madscientist quotes:

The protocol was passed late on Wednesday by a vote of 35-8 with 10 abstentions in the UN Economic and Social Council.

So only two out of three of the members of this council voted FOR it? Hardly a ringing endorsement. Does that make the other one third of the members as terrible as the US? Why didn't you give THEM shit, too? Who were they?

When one out of three of the members of a council either abstain or vote against a proposal that on its surface seems such a no-brainer, that's GOTTA mean it has some serious flaws.

Note that the US didn't vote AGAINST it, but abstained from voting at all, as did nine other members. The US gave their reason for abstaining. Did the other nine abstainers have similar problems with the provisions?

The United States, which had sought to reopen 10 years of negotiations on the document, abstained.

This thing has been in negotiations for TEN YEARS???? Obviously the wording of it has been problematical for quite some time, or it would have been decided on a decade ago.

Human rights advocates and diplomats argued that the protocol was essential to enforce the international convention on torture passed 13 years ago and since ratified by about 130 countries, including the United States.

Clearly this does not mean that the US favors torture, or they wouldn't have endorsed the 1989 protocol. It just means that the US has some difficulties with the proposed monitoring mechanism. Apparently other countries have similar problems with it... A LOT of other countries.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinemadscientist
journeyman
Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 110
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #781742 - 07/28/02 11:13 AM (19 years, 2 months ago)

Yes but I wonder which other countries abstained/voted against it? Maybe Iran? maybe Iraq? maybe north Korea? Anyone one for axis of evil? Oooo... look theres the USA hanging on to its coat-tails!!!


--------------------
Instead of the dove as the symbol of peace we should have a pillow. Its got more feathers but doesnt have that nasty sharp beak......


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: madscientist]
    #781807 - 07/28/02 11:56 AM (19 years, 2 months ago)

Well mad, I've seen plenty of foolish posts here, but yours is right at the top.

Just because there is a treaty means it's automatically a good one? Just because other countries voted for it means we should automatically do so?

And if there is something in our Constitution that is incompatible with the treaty, we can't sign it. That is what sets us apart from most other countries. We have a set of rules which determines what our government can do. You may not like it, others may not like it. Too bad. We like it just fine. The US has the longest running form of government in the world. We have endured while others have fallen.

I?d go one but pinksharkmark has done a more detailed rebuttal and I don?t need to duplicate any of his answers.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 17 days, 13 hours
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #783491 - 07/29/02 08:35 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Considering it is a treaty to ban torture I would say it's a pretty good one. What part of the treaty would you say is a bad thing? This just shows the rest of the world how the U.S. is quick to condemn other countries when it comes to human rights violations, but likes to think of itself as immune from scrutiny when the spotlight may actually be turned on themselves.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Rono]
    #783641 - 07/29/02 10:09 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Rono writes:

Considering it is a treaty to ban torture I would say it's a pretty good one.

I suggest you re-read the article. If that's not enough, re-read some of the replies to it, like mine and Evolving's. This is NOT a treaty to ban torture. The treaty to ban torture was signed in 1989, by 130 countries, INCLUDING the United States.

The latest vote was held, not on the treaty itself, but on mechanisms of enforcing its provisions, or a "... protocol which seeks to enforce a 1989 international treaty against torture..."

What part of the treaty would you say is a bad thing?

Even this article, biased as it was, did at least detail the US objections to the PROTOCOL (not to the 1989 treaty itself) --

"But the United States said elements of the plan were incompatible with the US Constitution."

I have found that actually READING these posts before responding to them is generally a good idea, rather than merely scanning a headline which tickles one's rabid anti-US biases and firing off a load of canned rhetoric as a Pavlovian response.

madscientist writes:

Yes but I wonder which other countries abstained/voted against it? Maybe Iran? maybe Iraq? maybe north Korea?


My question exactly. There were slightly more than one third of the voters who either voted against it outright or did the same thing as the US and abstained. For all you know, New Zealand, England, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway were the other nine abstainers.

I find it revealing the article didn't list which countries voted which way. Where is it from anyway? Sounds like the typical Leftist "balanced reporting" the Manchester Guardian is so famous for.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepolitikill
journeyman

Registered: 05/23/02
Posts: 72
Loc: THC, Canada
Last seen: 19 years, 15 days
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #783711 - 07/29/02 10:44 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

You're right Pink, why don't we get some of that no biased reporting such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal... lol
Every time I have seen you encounter any information that CONTRAdicts you're right wing dogma you blame it on those bastard "leftwing" reporters.

Face it there is an agenda behind the US voting against this resolution, just like they have done over and over again on UN resolutions against terrorism (the new American scapegoat now that the Commies no longer work as the common enemy). That time you had you're good buddies the Israelis vote no as well, I guess it is that holding another countries land against International Law (or is International Law another thing that we can do away with??)


--------------------
Censorship: ahh, McCarthyism with a smiley face



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 17 days, 13 hours
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #783716 - 07/29/02 10:45 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

I have found that actually READING these posts before responding to them is generally a good idea, rather than merely scanning a headline which tickles one's rabid anti-US biases and firing off a load of canned rhetoric as a Pavlovian response.

I have read the article, and forgive me if I used the wrong wording in my short post...no matter how you decide to word it, the point remains the same. There is a treaty on the table that will help end torture (on paper at least) and the U.S. refuses to sign it because it may be incompatible with parts of the US Constitution...I would love to know what parts of the constitution are that deal with continuing torture..please enlighten me on this...because maybe somewhere in your condescending reponse to me I may have missed it.

If I come across as Anti American, then you are hearing what you want to hear, I am NOT Anti-American...I do however have huge issues with the U.S. attitude that you can do whatever you want because you're the biggest bully on the block.





--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: politikill]
    #783796 - 07/29/02 11:33 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

madscientist writes:

You're right Pink, why don't we get some of that no biased reporting such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal... lol

So it WAS from the Manchester Guardian. I thought I recognized the style.

Every time I have seen you encounter any information that CONTRAdicts you're right wing dogma you blame it on those bastard "leftwing" reporters.

a) I am not right wing.

b) What I write is no more "dogma" than what you write.

c) Clearly the article is biased. Not a single word is mentioned about the eight countries who actually voted AGAINST the protocol, or the other nine countries who abstained. If I (or anyone else who didn't have a personal vendetta against the US) had written the article I would have emphasized that TEN countries, the US among them, abstained from the vote, and named ALL of them.

d) That article doesn't CONTRADICT anything. It merely does an incredibly incompetent job of "reporting" the results of a UN vote. The article as factual reporting is useless, and would receive a failing grade in any Journalism 101 class, even one run by a Leftist professor.

Face it there is an agenda behind the US voting against this resolution...

Sigh. Do you even bother to READ what you post? The US did NOT vote against this resolution. It abstained from voting at all, AS DID NINE OTHER UNSPECIFIED COUNTRIES. Presumably all nine of them also had mysterious agendas. Would you care to enlighten us as to what THEIR agendas might be? Oh, I forgot, you can't, since the author of that piece of dreck didn't bother to name even one of them.

By the way, I am no fan of the US government, as numerous posts of mine will attest. But I restrict my criticism of them to things that they actually DO. My criticism is not a blind, gleeful, unreasoning, automatic knee-jerk response to every shabbily-written piece of drivel I unearth in the Manchester Guardian.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepolitikill
journeyman

Registered: 05/23/02
Posts: 72
Loc: THC, Canada
Last seen: 19 years, 15 days
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #783849 - 07/29/02 12:02 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Pink it would appear that you are the one who does not read posts!!!!
Firstly, I am not madscientist and therefore could not tell you if it was in the Manchester Guardian.

In previous posts where we argued you said the same thing about the sources I got my information from, they were all crazy "leftists". So I say this from past experience. I am not calling you a Republican or any particular partysupporter but you're views are very right wing, which is fine.

Abstained from voting (my mistake), the example I gave was really what I was aiming at, which by the way contained the other countries that joined the US.
I was hoping to show that this is part of a patern, perhaps you could give me a list of media sources that are not crazy "leftists", so I can avoid using them in the future...


--------------------
Censorship: ahh, McCarthyism with a smiley face



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMacey Howard
Formally MOE HOWARD
Female

Registered: 07/03/99
Posts: 14,165
Loc: Georgia
Last seen: 5 years, 26 days
Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: madscientist]
    #783865 - 07/29/02 12:10 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------
Hugs and Kisses!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 17 days, 13 hours
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Macey Howard]
    #783881 - 07/29/02 12:19 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Sorry Moe...but that statement had absolutely nothing to do with anything!


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Rono]
    #783936 - 07/29/02 12:45 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Rono writes:

...no matter how you decide to word it, the point remains the same.

No, the POINT is not the same at all. There are two completely different issues here. Clearly the US is against torture, or it would not have signed the 1989 treaty. But a mechanism for enforcing the provisions of the original treaty is an entirely DIFFERENT kettle of fish than agreeing in principle that torture must be forbidden.

For example, suppose one of the provisions of the protocol is that each prison must accept two board members appointed by the UN Security Council (which, incidentally, is currently chaired by a country which is one of the biggest human rights offenders on the planet -- Syria. See http://www.adl.org/Terror/terrorism_syria.asp ) who will have the final word in how the prison is run? Would you not find that objectionable?

Is this really one of the provisions? I don't know, and neither do you, because the article was so useless. But clearly at least some of the provisions of the protocol are controversial, and not just to the US. To repeat myself (since no one bothers to actually READ), it took TEN YEARS of debate to finally bring it to a vote, and even then 34% of the members of the council either voted against the protocols or abstained from voting. That is a mighty big percentage, don't you think? Did you ever wonder why one third of the participants couldn't bring themselves to vote for something that every correct-thinking human being should accept without question? Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the protocol is so poorly-written that those abstainers would willingly submit themselves to public castigation rather than sign it.

Of course, none of those other countries are taking any flack at all. Just The Great Satan. Gee, how surprising!

There is a treaty on the table that will help end torture (on paper at least) and the U.S. refuses to sign it...

Seventeen other countries also refused to sign it. To me, THAT is what is so noteworthy about this vote.

...because it may be incompatible with parts of the US Constitution. I would love to know what parts of the constitution are that deal with continuing torture..please enlighten me on this...

There are none. Perhaps the reason the US doesn't feel the need to vote on this protocol is that its own Constitution already prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment", and feels that its own prison overview bureaucracy is sufficient to deal with those in the penal system who break the rules. The Constitution does, however, lay down in some detail the responsibilities and obligations of the various branches of the US Government. It makes no provisions for the governments of OTHER countries to supercede those responsibilities. I suspect that may be why some of the other seventeen countries have some problems with this protocol, too -- I'll bet some of those countries have constitutions of their own.

If I come across as Anti American, then you are hearing what you want to hear, I am NOT Anti-American...

Could have fooled me. Many posts of yours make it abundantly clear that you have problems not just with the American government, but with Americans and their way of life.

..as opposed to the kind and generous nation you are now? -- July 25, 2002, in thread " Bush Gets his Way"

The way I see it, the U.S. is the worlds spoiled, greedy little fat kid that needs a spanking... -- July 23, 2002, in thread "Bush Gets his Way"

that's super...now go back to your usual American habit of overeating, watching way too much T.V., starting pointless wars and listening to Britney Spears. -- July 23 2002, in thread "Kent State"

Sure...if you'll go back to fucking the rest of the world.. -- July 23 2002, in thread "Kent State"

Americans in general don't read, and for the most part, believe whatever they are told by their "elected" officials. -- July 22 2002, in thread "The American Government Knows Exactly What You Need"

Why would anyone get the impression you were anti-American after reading such little gems?

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: madscientist]
    #783945 - 07/29/02 12:48 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Here's the story straight from the UN web site. It's a prime example of why posts like madscientists are sadly lacking in information and are actually misleading.

Economic and Social Council recommends adoption of anti-torture protocol
25 July ? A draft optional protocol to the world?s major anti-torture pact aimed at allowing experts to visit prisons has been endorsed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) following two rounds of voting on the matter.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Council recommended that the General Assembly adopt the draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture as a means of establishing a system of regular visits by independent bodies to centres where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel punishment.

Eight countries ? Australia, China, Cuba, Egypt, Japan, Libya, Nigeria and the Sudan ? voted against the draft text, while ten ? Bhutan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, the Russian Federation, the United States and Zimbabwe ? abstained on the measure, which passed after 35 countries cast their ballots in favour.

The vote was taken after ECOSOC members defeated an amendment proposed by the United States that would have re-opened negotiations on the text of the draft protocol. That proposed amendment was defeated by a vote of 15 in favour to 29 against, with 8 abstentions.

Following the decision, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, issued a statement in Geneva welcoming the Council?s endorsement as ?an important step towards the establishment of a new international mechanism to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.? She voiced hope that the General Assembly would make the concept a reality.
_________________________

So it would seem that we (the US) merely, as stated earlier, had problems with the wording. And it would also seem we weren't the only ones.

My my my..... isn't the US such a horrible place. Try again US basher.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: politikill]
    #783992 - 07/29/02 01:05 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

politikill writes:

Firstly, I am not madscientist and therefore could not tell you if it was in the Manchester Guardian.

Whoops! Correct. I did read your POST, but I screwed up on who was the postER. My bad.

...you're views are very right wing, which is fine.

There's right wing, and then there's Right Wing. I am an atheist who believes the only legitimate function of government is to protect its citizens from the initiation of physical force. The government should run the police, the courts, and the military. Period. If you believe that makes me Right Wing, then I guess we differ on the meaning of Right Wing.

In previous posts where we argued you said the same thing about the sources I got my information from, they were all crazy "leftists".

Noam Chomsky IS a crazy Leftist. Worse, he's dishonest.

....the example I gave was really what I was aiming at, which by the way contained the other countries that joined the US.

Sorry, which example is that? The only other country you mentioned in your post was Israel. Which other countries are you referring to?

perhaps you could give me a list of media sources that are not crazy "leftists", so I can avoid using them in the future...

There are far too many too list. Anything by Noam Chomsky and the Manchester Guardian should always be scrutinized carefully, though.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #784013 - 07/29/02 01:14 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

"Eight countries ? Australia, China, Cuba, Egypt, Japan, Libya, Nigeria and the Sudan ? voted against the draft text, while ten ? Bhutan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, the Russian Federation, the United States and Zimbabwe ? abstained on the measure, which passed after 35 countries cast their ballots in favour. "

It should be obvious from this list that the vast majority of the nations who voted against or abstained from this protocol di d so because they are notorious violators of human rights, i.e., they have something to hide. Of course, most nations are willing to sign a convention that condemns torture IN PRINCIPLE because such a convention and 75 cents will buy you today's newspaper. The true test is whether or not a nation will commit itself to enforecement protocols. It's no surprise that the United States didn't sign this one because the US never, repeat, never, allows itself to be submitted to the scrutiny of international law. And I suppose you could say, since the US has taken on the onus and expense of acting as the world's policeman, it has earned that right. It does harm from a PR point of view, however, in that it simply makes the US appear hypocritical to the outside (as madscientist's response makes clear). There's nothing new about this, however.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 17 days, 13 hours
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #784016 - 07/29/02 01:15 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Could have fooled me. Many posts of yours make it abundantly clear that you have problems not just with the American government, but with Americans and their way of life.

Okay fine...let's go through these one by one shall we?...
as opposed to the kind and generous nation you are now? -- July 25, 2002, in thread " Bush Gets his Way"
An Anti American-goverment statement

The way I see it, the U.S. is the worlds spoiled, greedy little fat kid that needs a spanking... -- July 23, 2002, in thread "Bush Gets his Way"
Another Anti U.S. Government statement...perhaps the title of the thread should have given you a clue on that one...

that's super...now go back to your usual American habit of overeating, watching way too much T.V., starting pointless wars and listening to Britney Spears. -- July 23 2002, in thread "Kent State"
Now that one in itself looks like an attack on Americans lifestyles..but if you took the time to read the thread you would see that it was in good humour...along with Canadians being Mosse fuckers. Quit taking statements out of context.

Sure...if you'll go back to fucking the rest of the world.. -- July 23 2002, in thread "Kent State"
Now unless you think that I'm implying that the average U.S. citizen is actually capable of "fucking the rest of the world" then that would lead me to think I was talking about your goverment...again.

Americans in general don't read, and for the most part, believe whatever they are told by their "elected" officials. -- July 22 2002, in thread "The American Government Knows Exactly What You Need"
Now that IS an attack on the citizens of the U.S...and I stand by it. Many Americans couldn't even find the U.S. on a world map, nevermind Afghanistan.


And thank you Luvdemshrooms for listing the countries that Abstained from voting...just for posterity I'll list these wonderful countries again...I'm sure all of these countries are known for their great humanitarian efforts... "Bhutan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, the Russian Federation, the United States and Zimbabwe"

The U.S. is keeping good company by abstaining...

In all fairness I was very surprised to see Australia and Japan on the "no" side....but did you see the rest of the list? China, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria and the Sudan...hardly an endorsement. None of these countries are going to get a humanitarian award any time soon....






--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (07/29/02 01:24 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Rono]
    #784053 - 07/29/02 01:36 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Now I feel you're taking liberties with my post.

The point was to show that the US did not vote against anything. We merely abstained. We also wanted further dialog on the text. That is a major difference.

It doesn't matter which other countries abstained or voted against. They had their reasons. We have ours. To imply that because we were on the same side of the vote means that we either agree or disagree with these other countries is absurd.

It's readily apparent that when it comes to almost anything the US does, many here will take any oppourtunity to jump on the "kick the USA" bandwagon without any rational thought.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 17 days, 13 hours
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #784069 - 07/29/02 01:46 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Now I feel you're taking liberties with my post.
You're right...I was

It doesn't matter which other countries abstained or voted against.
Funny...Pinky seemed to think it was pretty important...now that it shows the personality of the rest of the countries that didn't sign (besides Japan and Australia) it doesn't matter so much? hmmmm....

To imply that because we were on the same side of the vote means that we either agree or disagree with these other countries is absurd.
Why is that absurd?..please explain.

It's readily apparent that when it comes to almost anything the US does, many here will take any oppourtunity to jump on the "kick the USA" bandwagon without any rational thought.
Perhaps you're right...but it's also readily apparent that there are those that will follow blindly.









--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Rono]
    #784221 - 07/29/02 03:10 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

In reply to:

Funny...Pinky seemed to think it was pretty important...now that it shows the personality of the rest of the countries that didn't sign (besides Japan and Australia) it doesn't matter so much? hmmmm....



It doesn't matter to me which countries voted which way.
For the same reason that it didn't matter which countries (including Japan or Austrailia) voted against or abstained, it doesn't matter to me if pinky has reasons to belive it does matter, even though I don't think he said exactly that it does. I believe he said it was interesting that the article didn't mention which other coutries voted which way and why the writer of the original article didn't see fit to mention that. There can be many reasons to vote against something. Just as my reasons may differ from yours, can't my country have different reasons as well? Imagine if you will a vote for the least favorite food. Liver and onions may be the least favorite... to me because the taste of liver sucks... to you because you may not like onions.... to a vegetarian because he doesn't eat meat. All voted against but for different reasons.

In reply to:

To imply that because we were on the same side of the vote means that we either agree or disagree with these other countries is absurd. "Why is that absurd?..please explain."



See the above.

In reply to:

Perhaps you're right...but it's also readily apparent that there are those that will follow blindly.



True enough, but in my opinion, most US bashing is wrong, and in a large part motivated by a desire to see the US "conform" to the wishes of others. I would be ashamed of my leaders were they to follow blindly along.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Rono]
    #784410 - 07/29/02 04:29 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

I think it's pretty clear that the reason the US abstained from the vote is because the US doesn't want any form of international law impinging on its sovereignty. The business about "state's rights" is just a red herring designed to deflect blame coming from the world community. The federal government defiles state's rights left, right, and center when it comes to their own programs or priorities. And what kind of assault on state's rights is it to have observers after all? Observers are just that, observers. They observe. They don't have the authority to tell prison authorities how to run their prisons. If they witness acts that fall under the convention's definition of torture, all they can do is report it back to the UN which will then take the matter up with representatives of the US federal government. The whole thing will create a major brouhaha and a massive catastrophe of "image management" but even then the UN has absolutely no way to FORCE the US to comply with the convention. All it can say is "You're violating the convention!"

Is the US government doing this to try to cover-up widespread and systematic use of torture in US prisons? You'd have to be a pretty hard core conspiracy freak to think so. Isolated acts of torture may occur, but systematic torture is just too ham-fisted and obviously illegal to be a tactic of first resort. With so many ambulance-chaser lawyers running around looking for the next Rodney King, this country hardly needs UN observers.

Basically, in the case of the US, this is all about national sovereignty. The US has no use for international courts and international regulatory standards, unless of course it serves our own interest (as in the case of sending UN weapons inspectors into Iraq). I have no idea what Australia's reason is. In the case of Japan, it's a little known fact, but Japanese prisons are pretty inhuman places. Amnesty International has cited numerous rights violations in their prisons, so they, like Sudan and Nepal, have good reason to fear UN observers.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: EchoVortex]
    #784990 - 07/29/02 08:52 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Echovortex writes:

It's no surprise that the United States didn't sign this one because the US never, repeat, never, allows itself to be submitted to the scrutiny of international law.

Nor do many other countries.

The federal government defiles state's rights left, right, and center when it comes to their own programs or priorities.

Correct. And it takes a lot of flack for doing so. A very large percentage of cases argued in front of the Supreme Court involve just that issue. How much more controversy would be generated if they also gave a foreign power the right to do so?

Basically, in the case of the US, this is all about national sovereignty.

I suspect that is the case not just with the US, but with most if not all of the other relatively free countries who opposed the protocol.

The US has no use for international courts and international regulatory standards...

Nor should it (or any other country, for that matter), when the international court in question allows the vote of such bastions of personal freedom as China and the Sudan to carry as much weight as the vote of Sweden and Switzerland.

Of the 150 or whatever member nations of the United Nations, how many come even close to respecting human rights to the degree that the US does? Probably a third, perhaps more, of the member nations are run by human butchers, hereditary despots, military juntas, or People's Politburos. Probably another third are either flyspecks somewhere in the South Pacific with a population half that of Bugscuffle Bottoms, Nebraska, or some chunk of ex-colonial scrubland in Africa torn by tribal feuds which has maybe eight working telephones.

How can any nation based on personal freedom take seriously an organization that not only ALLOWS Syria on its Security Council, but actually hands Syria the presidency of that council for two years?

I'm 100% behind Evolving on this one. The UN has had exactly zero credibility since before the start of World War II.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 17 days, 13 hours
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #785555 - 07/30/02 06:03 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Nor do many other countries
Right you are...such countries like Bhutan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, China, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria and the Sudan...oh and of course the U.S.

Correct. And it takes a lot of flack for doing so. A very large percentage of cases argued in front of the Supreme Court involve just that issue. How much more controversy would be generated if they also gave a foreign power the right to do so?
So are you saying that the U.S. should be allowed to stick it's nose wherever it pleases, but no-one else is allowed to scrutinize the U.S.?...you don't see a problem with that?

Nor should it (or any other country, for that matter), when the international court in question allows the vote of such bastions of personal freedom as China and the Sudan to carry as much weight as the vote of Sweden and Switzerland.
Hmmm...sounds alot like a certain Republic we all know quite well, where every state gets a vote.

How can any nation based on personal freedom take seriously an organization that not only ALLOWS Syria on its Security Council, but actually hands Syria the presidency of that council for two years?
Now this I DO agree with Syria is hardly a beacon of light when it comes to human rights.




--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 17 days, 13 hours
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Rono]
    #785698 - 07/30/02 08:14 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

On Friday, March 10, the State Department let an alleged Peruvian torturer go free. Under Secretary Thomas Pickering did so on the grounds that Anderson had diplomatic immunity.

There was simply no basis for this decision and it appears to have been driven more by politics than law. The decision not to arrest Anderson casts into doubt the U.S. commitment to adhere to the Convention Against Torture and its willingness to insure that torturers are brought to justice. The lack of a legal basis for not arresting and prosecuting Anderson is set forth below.

Tomas Ricardo Anderson Kohatsu, a major in Perus Army Intelligence Service, was sent by Peru in early March to testify before a hearing of the Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Right in Washington, D.C. The commission was hearing allegations of Perus involvement in torture and wire-tapping. Anderson was sent voluntarily by Peru to defend its human rights record; he was not requested to appear by the Commission.
In the State Departments annual human rights report Anderson had been linked to "horrendous crimes."

The Center for Justice and International Law or CEJIL stated that "overwhelming evidence implicated Anderson in the torture of La Rosa Bustamente, also a former intelligence officer, who was left a paraplegic as a result of the torture." She was tortured in 1997.

Once Anderson was in the U.S. and human rights groups were made aware of his presence, pressure was put on the Justice Department to have him arrested. It was pointed out that under the Convention Against Torture the United States was obligated to arrest Anderson once it had information that he had committed torture in Peru. This is an absolute obligation under the convention.

U.S. officials recognized that the information they had provided a sufficient basis for arresting Anderson and did not dispute that there was probable cause to believe was a torturer. In fact, FBI agents were sent by Justice on Thursday evening, March 9th to the Houston airport where Anderson was awaiting a plane to leave the United States. At the airport the agents apparently detained and questioned Anderson. However after a few hours he was allowed to leave the country. He was permitted to do so by a decision of Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering of the State Department.
Pickering apparently found that Anderson was entitled to diplomatic immunity and could not be arrested or prosecuted.

This decision by Thomas Pickering and the State Department raise a number of serious questions.

First, why did the State Department give Anderson a visa?

Second, on what legal basis did Pickering decide that Anderson had immunity?

Third, Why did Pickering allow Anderson to leave the country and not have the issue of his immunity decided by a court?

Fourth, what of the U.S. obligation under the Convention Against Torture to bring Anderson to justice?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (07/30/02 08:18 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #785760 - 07/30/02 08:50 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

"How much more controversy would be generated if they also gave a foreign power the right to do so?"

The right to do what? The protocol doesn't give the UN (not a "foreign power" as you call it, but an international organization to which the US nominally belongs) the right to do anything except simply to "observe." The UN is admittedly a ludicrous organization, and there iIS little reason to take it seriously--why then does the US belong to it and continue to belong? The US can withdraw its membership and boot the headquarters out of New York if it wants to. The problem arises when the US uses the UN to give its foreign interventions (that is, its violations of other nations' sovereignty) "credibility" and then turns around and then rejects the idea of even allowing UN observers in US prisons to check for instances of torture.

"I suspect that is the case not just with the US, but with most if not all of the other relatively free countries who opposed the protocol."

And which "relatively free" countries might those be? I addressed Australia and Japan. Would you like to add India to that list of "relatively free" countries? Who else? The fact is that the US wasn't voting alongside "Sweden and Switzerland" on this one. It was more or less on the same side as the "human butchers, hereditary despots, military juntas, and People's Politburos." These are the facts. You can put any spin on them you want to, no skin off my back. There's no doubt however that the rest of the world will see it as another instance of American hypocricy and double-standards. Once again, the US doesn't give a shit even if they do, because US foreign policy is based on the principle of "might makes right", with a lot of moralizing rhetoric to make it all seem legit. Power is power, and the US enjoys its power without apology. Fine, no problem. But there's no way that a thinking person should allow US policy makers to also enjoy the delusion that they occupy some kind of moral high ground. That's where the line has to be drawn.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: EchoVortex]
    #786036 - 07/30/02 11:27 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

In reply to:

It was more or less on the same side as the "human butchers, hereditary despots, military juntas, and People's Politburos."



Oh really? How do you know that the US voted the same way as other countries for the same reason they did? Can not countries vote the same way for different reasons? Or are you saying that we should vote differently than the aforementioned countries did just on general principle? If thats the case how about providing a list of the countries we should always vote with? And then tell us what to do should if one of the countries on your list votes the opposite of the rest? What should we do then that would make you happy?

In reply to:

There's no doubt however that the rest of the world will see it as another instance of American hypocricy and double-standards.



Only if they are blind idiots.

In reply to:

Once again, the US doesn't give a shit even if they do, because US foreign policy is based on the principle of "might makes right", with a lot of moralizing rhetoric to make it all seem legit.



Or perhaps it's based upon whast the constitution allows or upon what is best for our country, rather than upon what makes other countries happy?


Your claim that since we abstained from a vote, then we are on the same "side" as the other countries who either abstained or voted against the protocol, is just plain silly. I hope you are smart enough to see the difference between agreeing and happening to vote the same way.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #786147 - 07/30/02 12:13 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

"Oh really? How do you know that the US voted the same way as other countries for the same reason they did?"

I never said the US voted the same way "for the same reason they did." If you would bother to read this thread carefully, you would see that I attributed the US's abstention to its refusal to recognize international authority, not because it actually carries out torture in its prisons. In the case of China, Sudan, Nepal, et al, it's clear that they actually DO carry out torture on a systematic basis in their prisons. Nonetheless, by voting (or, more precisely, abstaining) the way we did, we give those nations that DO practice torture a shield behind which to hide. "See! The US didn't support the protocols either! You can't single us out on this one!" It just gives them a clear signal that they can carry out such acts with impunity, and the world's most powerful nation isn't going to give a damn.

"Only if they are blind idiots."

Once again you abandon reason and evidence in favor of apoplectic insults. You're amusing when you constantly, hysterically pounce on people for posting on the wrong forum, or double posting, or doing any of those other completely harmless things that make you so enraged. Here, however, you're just wasting your breath.

"Or perhaps it's based upon what the constitution allows or upon what is best for our country, rather than upon what makes other countries happy?"

It's for the Supreme Court to decide what "the constitution allows", not for administration-appointed diplomats. The protocols simply call for observers to "observe" whether torture is being conducted in prisons or not. It does not give them any executive authority over the prisons in question. Torture is unconstitutional anyway, so what's the problem? Why is it "best for our country" to hide what's going on in prisons, as if we HAD something to hide?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: EchoVortex]
    #786165 - 07/30/02 12:23 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

It's for the Supreme Court to decide what "the constitution allows", not for administration-appointed diplomats.

Actually, quite a few government jobs require that you pledge an oath of fealty to the constitution. It is part of their duty to be cognizant of the constitutionality of various laws, treaties and such. If a public servant fails in this regard or knowingly goes against the constitution he/she has broken their oath.


Edited by Evolving (07/30/02 12:28 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: EchoVortex]
    #786213 - 07/30/02 12:58 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

In reply to:

It was more or less on the same side as the "human butchers, hereditary despots, military juntas, and People's Politburos."



You used the words on the same side, not me. So no matter what our reasons, we should have voted differently because someone somewhere somehow might use it as an excuse for their actions?

In reply to:

If you would bother to read this thread carefully, you would see that I attributed the US's abstention to its refusal to recognize international authority



There is no international authority we are required to answer to.

And you failed to answer the question of what would you have us do if two countries, who generally vote the way you wish, split on an issue. Which one should we vote with so as to prevent giving a "shield" as you put it to a country which may use our vote as an excuse? And if we should abstain will you still find fault? I suspect you would. I don't know you, but the impression I'm left with is that you'd bash the US for almost anything we did.

In reply to:

Once again you abandon reason and evidence in favor of apoplectic insults. You're amusing when you constantly, hysterically pounce on people for posting on the wrong forum, or double posting, or doing any of those other completely harmless things that make you so enraged. Here, however, you're just wasting your breath.



My comment was not intended as an insult to you. And I have never been "enraged" by any post, for that would be foolish. As such, I stand by my blind idiot comment.

In reply to:

But there's no way that a thinking person should allow US policy makers to also enjoy the delusion that they occupy some kind of moral high ground.



While less blunt, this comment is no different from my blind idiot comment. Apparently, any one who differs from your opinion is not a person who thinks.

In reply to:

Torture is unconstitutional anyway, so what's the problem?



So is illegal search, if your pockets are empty then whats the problem?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibletoxick
The GoodReverend, Dr.

Registered: 12/11/00
Posts: 128
Loc: O NE
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #786239 - 07/30/02 01:11 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

In reply to:

We have a set of rules which determines what our government can do




LOL!!!!



--------------------
Janet Reno, if I do not go to jail, I will be in Orlando August 15 and you are not going to be elected to any damn thing. Nobody should fear our Government.
- James Traficant


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Mojahedin and leftists executed in Iran Great_Satan 1,079 9 09/13/04 09:33 PM
by Phred
* Chile to Compensate 35,000 Torture Victims
( 1 2 all )
Great_Satan 1,538 20 12/03/04 08:06 PM
by Krishna
* Cuban exile 'would be tortured' bukkake 1,181 7 08/30/05 08:42 PM
by lonestar2004
* Dick Cheney & Torture LucidDream 972 11 11/11/05 02:18 PM
by ArcofaJourney
* Canada defends torture extracted info... carbonhoots 526 1 09/25/05 02:41 AM
by lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
* Why Not Just Call It Torture?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Madtowntripper 3,373 70 02/15/08 07:35 PM
by Prisoner#1
* We Torture!!!
( 1 2 all )
SneezingPenis
2,678 36 01/19/09 10:46 PM
by TGRR
* Islam’s Torture of Lebanon Luddite 642 0 07/23/06 10:31 AM
by Luddite

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,133 topic views. 3 members, 0 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.