[Buckaroo]

What the hell is wrong with this group? They are defending Terrrorists against the US.

I have always had a so-so attitude (mostly negative) of the ACLU, but now I outright hate this Anti-American group.

ACLU: Boeing Offshoot Helped CIA: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

NEW YORK (AP) -- A Boeing Co. subsidiary that may have provided secret CIA flight services was sued Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three terrorism suspects who claim they were tortured by the U.S. government.

The lawsuit charges that flight services provided by Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. enabled the clandestine transportation of the suspects to secret overseas locations, where they were tortured and subjected to other "forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."

The ACLU said the company "either knew or reasonably should have known" that they were facilitating the torture of terrorism suspects by providing flight services for the CIA.

[peeb]

Are you serious? Everyone deserves due process. Even a ****ing werewolf needs to be given the right to appear before a court and not be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. How is torture and denial of habeas corpus suddenly an American value? It's telling that you can't even spell 'liberty'.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What the hell is wrong with this group? They are defending Terrrorists against the US.

No, they are defending the United States against morons like you.

[BRussell]

peeb, you don't understand. Pro-American is pro-torture, pro-unlimited government power, and pro-secret detentions.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

peeb, you don't understand. Pro-American is pro-torture, pro-unlimited government power, and pro-secret detentions.

Yes, now I see the light! Those liberal terrorist founding fathers with their anti-American Bill of Rights! Ship them off to Cuba and torture them to death. Twice!

[tie]

Buckaroo, do you seriously think the government should be picking up random people and torturing them? (Some people have even been tortured to death.) What the hell is wrong with you? I think you're as anti-American as the terrorists.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think you're as anti-American as the terrorists.

Moreso, I would say. Terrorists cause tragic and unforgivable, but ultimately limited damage, but this kind of crap undermines the very freedoms that are supposed to make the US different from groups who do this kind of thing. If values such as due process and freedom from torture are not preserved then it is just a question of which group of crazed despots wins.

[OldManMac]

So few people actually understand what the ACLU is about. During the election last year, a local city, Troy, MI, had an ordinance that prohibited public displays of campaign signs past 30 days before an election. A citizen was told to take down his pro-Republican signs, on his lawn, or face civil action. The ACLU took on his case and won, overturning the unconstitutional ordinance against freedom of speech and expression. Of course, it's not surprising that some people criticize the ACLU; those same people usually don't understand what a democracy is. They think their speech is protected but not that of others, and that's the way they want to keep it, as evidenced by this thread. They're also very quick to jump to conclusions.

BTW, Buckaroo, it's spelled Liberties.

[peeb]

Quite. If you don't believe in free speech for people whose opinions you loathe, you don't really believe in free speech at all. Said someone, I can't remember who.

[ebuddy]

Still... I can't help but feel if someone kidnapped your daughter and the neighbor knew who did it, but didn't want to say anything... you might not want to know how the information that saved your daughter was attained. I'm not defending torture, I'm just sayin'...

[Uncle Skeleton]

If you feel that strongly about it, why don't you grab your neighbor and get the intel yourself? That intel isn't going to be reliable, and the torturer is going to go to jail for a long time, but that price is worth it to you to get your daughter back, right? Or not, as the case may be if your tip that the neighbor knows turns out to be wrong...

[peeb]

It's hard to know precisely without reading eBuddy's post, but it sounds like he is advocating grabbing random people and torturing them if one's daughter is kidnapped. Great plan. I just hope my neighbor's daughter is never kidnapped, or I'm off to Git'mo...

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not defending torture, I'm just sayin'...

You sound like George Bush. Torture is wrong, period. To attempt to justify it under certain hypothetical circumstances does nothing except to attempt to rationalize the belief that there's a way to gaurantee a safe passage through life while we're here, which is false. It also makes the fallacious assumption that the information gleaned is accurate, which can be false. Two wrongs have never made a right, and never should.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Still... I can't help but feel if someone kidnapped your daughter and the neighbor knew who did it, but didn't want to say anything... you might not want to know how the information that saved your daughter was attained. I'm not defending torture, I'm just sayin'...

That doesn't make it right. Or legal, for that matter.
Plus, if you don't even know if the person is involved in any way, it would be akin to torturing everyone who is only slightly suspicious. Perhaps because he happened to walk by your house that day.

And the best thing is that even if the guy is guilty, all evidence that has been obtained consequently is tainted. So the guy might walk because you tortured. No, no matter how you turn it, it doesn't look very appealing to me.

[BRussell]

You guys may not like torture, but it is now the official policy of the United States government. Even if you are an American citizen, like Jose Padilla, you can be held and tortured by the American government or sent to another country that will torture you.

And the more you say you'll torture, the more applause you will get at a Republican presidential candidates' debate.

[peeb]

Distressing, isn't it? How such an Anti-American group got control of the White House is beyond me.

[ebuddy]

You guys slay me. Here's the truth;

- The US does not officially advocate torture.
- I loathe the act of torture and said I'm not defending it. I never said it was correct or proper or right or justifiable. I said; "still... I can't help, but wonder..." I'm just saying I can't help, but wonder. Unless you were in this position, you wouldn't know. There was a time when honesty was appreciated, but apparently I'm supposed to just fall in lock step with y'all like a clutch of gibbons clapping hand cymbals for the quick high-five on the Bush digs.
- The closest one to a point was Uncle Skeleton and I'd likely consider doing it myself knowing I could get off under mental duress... easily. Especially having saved my daughter as an expert at such techniques. If I didn't get off, I'd be a martyr with numerous letters, a couple of book deals and the cushiest lifestyle of anyone who ever stayed in a prison cell. My daughter could come visit.
- Next up with a good point is BRussell. Torture is dirty work. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be used. If your claim that it doesn't work has any substance at all, it's currently not being used. Period.
- Peeb is an asshat who advocates a 75% reduction in the current population. Why he's concerned about torture is as confounding to me as is the fact that he's responding to someone he put on ignore.
- You'll get no applause at a Republican convention for touting the merits of torture. Surely you would understand that it is officially called; "information extraction". This information could also be used to save a... *hush... Democrat.

Still... I can't help but feel if someone kidnapped your daughter and the neighbor knew who did it, but didn't want to say anything... you might not want to know how the information that saved your daughter was attained. I find torture disgusting, but I'm just sayin'...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

if you don't even know if the person is involved in any way, it would be akin to torturing everyone who is only slightly suspicious. Perhaps because he happened to walk by your house that day.

Wouldn't it be great to live in a country where you could be hauled in for torture on suspicion of knowing something about a crime? Oh, wait. It wouldn't be.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- The US does not officially advocate torture.

Is that a way of saying we just do it and then lie about it? How is that any better?

- I loathe the act of torture and said I'm not defending it. I never said it was correct or proper or right or justifiable. I said; "still... I can't help, but wonder..." I'm just saying I can't help, but wonder. Unless you were in this position, you wouldn't know.

This sounds a lot like that "moral relativism" it was so fashionable to accuse liberals of a few months back...

There was a time when honesty was appreciated,

9/11 changed the equation, lol.
Torture is all fun and games until someone gets hurt. This issue wouldn't be such a sore point if the US government wasn't actually regularly torturing people.

I'd likely consider doing it myself knowing I could get off under mental duress... easily.

So now you don't loathe the act of torture, and you are defending it...

If it didn't work, it wouldn't be used. If your claim that it doesn't work has any substance at all, it's currently not being used. Period.

And if it works 1% of the time?

"information extraction". This information could also be used to save a... *hush... Democrat.

Has it occurred to you that it could also be used to torture a... *hush... Republican? Have you ever helped, to wonder [sic] what will happen a few years down the line, when the Dems are in control and start hauling Reps (or 'Pubs or 'Lics or whatever those guys are called) off to git'mo just for their opposition to tyrannical Global Warming restrictions, or for resisting mandatory Trans-Queer Appreciation Summer Camp, or whatever else the "other extreme" can come up with? Don't you have any apprehensions about setting a precedent to allow torturing American citizens (or anyone for that matter) because they happen to disagree with the party currently in power, just by calling it "information extraction"? Aren't you worried that some day when the shoe is on the other foot that Queen Pelosi will get it into her head that you have some information that needs "extracting," and even if she's mistaken you'll still end up hanging yourself in your cell after 5 years of torture without any trial or representation or even knowing what you're accused of?

[besson3c]

I hate leberties.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hate leberties.

As do we all, brother, as do we all. I can't wait until those true patriots succeed in totally getting rid of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and we can finally get those evildoers.

[peeb]

I never said it was correct or proper or right or justifiable. I said; "still... I can't help, but wonder..." I'm just saying I can't help, but wonder. Unless you were in this position, you wouldn't know.

This sounds a lot like that "moral relativism" it was so fashionable to accuse liberals of a few months back...

It's also why lynching is illegal.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Are you serious? Everyone deserves due process. Even a ****ing werewolf needs to be given the right to appear before a court and not be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. How is torture and denial of habeas corpus suddenly an American value? It's telling that you can't even spell 'liberty'.

Please. Terror suspects don't deserve any rights. If they were innocent, they wouldn't be suspects. "Innocent until proven guilty" only gets in the way, and is obviously unAmerican since anyone who argues for it is labeled "anti-American".

[tie]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Moreso, I would say. Terrorists cause tragic and unforgivable, but ultimately limited damage, but this kind of crap undermines the very freedoms that are supposed to make the US different from groups who do this kind of thing. If values such as due process and freedom from torture are not preserved then it is just a question of which group of crazed despots wins.

I don't agree. But I wouldn't be surprised if Buckaroo is an Al Qaeda operative. The policies he supports are exactly those Osama Bin Laden would want him to support.

I'll put a here for ebuddy's benefit.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- The US does not officially advocate torture.

Torture is our government's official policy. So I'm not sure what you mean specifically by this.

- You'll get no applause at a Republican convention for touting the merits of torture. Surely you would understand that it is officially called; "information extraction".

If you want to be politically correct. If you have half a brain, you'll call it what it is.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by tie 

Torture is our government's official policy.

Don't be so silly. Some people are stupid enough to read what you wrote and spread it as the truth. Soldiers caught torturing prisoners have been imprisoned by both US and UK governments. The detention suspects have recieved in places like Guantanamo where they get their three meals a day, prayer mats, prayer times, access to books, and now even greater access to legal representation, is a far cry from what their Islamist brethren do, specifically beheading anyone they want and putting videos of that on the internet. I'd like to see a protest rally about that.

[OreoCookie]

Yeah, let's just forget about extraordinary rendition and black sites in third world countries … all of which is condoned by the current Administration.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yeah, let's just forget about extraordinary rendition and black sites in third world countries … all of which is condoned by the current Administration.

You could come up with a thousand theories about what goes on at black sites from UFOs to resurrecting Elvis (search the net, people really do come up with these ideas in all seriousness). Putting 100% faith in the words of a released Islamist whose very ideology is opposed to freedom of religion, democracy or military accountability is hardly a starting point.

[OreoCookie]

Pardon? You put this on the same level as conspiracy theories and UFOs?

We have detailed accounts by several independent witnesses, the existence of black sites has been acknowledged by the Administration and for the first time in history, CIA agents are wanted criminals in at least three European countries (Spain, Germany and Italy, although perhaps other countries have filed charges, too). Needless to say that Administration officials are on record admitting to the practice.

Needless to say that all the euphemisms in official US documents (again, approved by the current Administration) on how to treat the prisoners in various military-run prisons such as `stress positions' or kidnapping of citizens of friendly nations (let's just call it extraordinary rendition) are a very effective disguise.

So if you still want to believe that extraordinary renditions do not take place, sure, but then you could also believe that Elvis is still alive and kicking.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Don't be so silly. Some people are stupid enough to read what you wrote and spread it as the truth.

And some people watch American Idol, but are so silly they don't read the news. See, e.g., OreoCookie's post, although it isn't even complete.

I agree we aren't beheading the prisoners, but that's a silly comparison. Are you patting yourself on the back that we haven't flown passenger jets into Saudi Arabian skyscrapers?! We have tortured prisoners. And some have died from torture. (Look up Tenet's interview on 60 Minutes a few weeks. He was directly asked whether anyone had died in the CIA's torture program. He replied very carefully (rough quote) 'nobody died in the program we are discussing'. I'll let you figure that one out.)

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Pardon? You put this on the same level as conspiracy theories and UFOs?

We have detailed accounts by several independent witnesses, the existence of black sites has been acknowledged by the Administration and for the first time in history,

Did I say they don't exist? I said you can theorise a thousand things about what goes on there and many do come up with UFO and what-not stories. Calling them black sites is bad enough. People who live near them call them American bases. I mean, "black site", you know that people use that term to equate it with darkness, thus evil, thus conspiracy theories!

[OreoCookie]

Black sites are not the same as American military bases.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Black sites are not the same as American military bases.

People who live nearby them call them American bases. Ask a Kosovar or a Bosnian. People who like to sell fear (aka fear mongerers) use terms like 'torture' and 'black site'. They even insult war heroes and voters with banners that read "Hitler Bush". How many times now have we heard from them that Bush wants to rule by decree? For almost eight years they've been selling that fearsome idea, and now Bush is almost out of office and nowhere near wanting to be anyone's dictator.

At the same time these Bush attackers were lavishing praise on Hugo Chavez, calling him a good democratic socialist who will work hard for the poor. Where are these people now? Hiding under a rock because Chavez is now ruling by decree and eroding all Venezuelan freedom while aligning himself with Syria and Iran, and most of the country's money has gone to lining the pockets of South American leaders.

The actions of fear mongerers are despicable and should not be supported. For every action of the government that should be questions please also take the time to question those who take an anti-establishment position. Analyse the motives and actions of everyone on every side.

[analogika]

What exactly are you saying, Obi-Wan?

That the United States *doesn't* use torture as an Administration-sanctioned method of information generation? That the Administration's admission to using torture is nothing but fear-mongering from the left? Or that you actually *approve* this systematic transgression of fundamental human rights by the U.S. Administration?

Because all I can see at the moment is some weird deflections into arguing about the nature of the "black sites" or why they should or shouldn't be called "American bases" (the reason they're not called "American bases" is because then torture would be an officially employed method on an American base!), and Hugo Chavez!?

[OreoCookie]

You're switching topic now. I don't care about a populist in Latin America at the moment. You don't have to investigate any other person's position to clearly voice your opposition to illegal actions taken by a government, be it your own or another country's.

You seem hell-bent on putting substantiated allegations of torture, abuse and criminal acts into the realm of fairy tale, just because some evil dictators are using it for propaganda purposes? I'm not sure what else you need: you have admissions by the very people in charge of the programs, arrest warrants, people in jail, … what else do you need?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

People who live nearby them call them American bases. Ask a Kosovar or a Bosnian. People who like to sell fear (aka fear mongerers) use terms like 'torture' and 'black site'. They even insult war heroes and voters with banners that read "Hitler Bush". How many times now have we heard from them that Bush wants to rule by decree? For almost eight years they've been selling that fearsome idea, and now Bush is almost out of office and nowhere near wanting to be anyone's dictator.

At the same time these Bush attackers were lavishing praise on Hugo Chavez, calling him a good democratic socialist who will work hard for the poor. Where are these people now? Hiding under a rock because Chavez is now ruling by decree and eroding all Venezuelan freedom while aligning himself with Syria and Iran, and most of the country's money has gone to lining the pockets of South American leaders.

The actions of fear mongerers are despicable and should not be supported. For every action of the government that should be questions please also take the time to question those who take an anti-establishment position. Analyse the motives and actions of everyone on every side.

Your lumping of everyone who disagrees with you together as one homogeneous entity doesn't really speak well of your perspective on the matter.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You seem hell-bent on putting substantiated allegations of torture, abuse and criminal acts into the realm of fairy tale, just because some evil dictators are using it for propaganda purposes?

I didn't say that allegations of torture are in the realm of conspiracy theories or fairy tales. There could well be continuing abuses at military sites. However, whenever someone makes that claim or if someone is going to toe that line, then the onus is on them to prove it. If they prove it then those responsible for abuses should be put on trial. That's how due process works. Believing allegations blindly, especially when it comes from those who have a history of trying to make people fear government, isn't how we should think, is it?

If the ACLU especially wants to represent foreigners against the US government, they should set up an international organisation for doing so, be it an ICLU. And when they do so I hope they have the balls to represent those who suffer at the hands of Islamists who certainly do have black sites, if we're going to talk about hidden locations where hostages are held.

[analogika]

Have you even READ this thread?

A good dozen CIA agents would be arrested the second they set foot on European soil, for kidnapping free citizens. No, they're not "proven", but the fact that at least three democratic governments would put them on trial shows something, don't you think?

The U.S. government has ADMITTED that kidnappings and torture are policy. Right, we can't "prove" that because they're not CALLING it that. Is that your point?

What exactly would you consider "proof"?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

If the ACLU especially wants to represent foreigners against the US government, they should set up an international organisation for doing so, be it an ICLU.

Because free thought isn't welcome in America or what? Why should an American organization not be allowed to question the government?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The U.S. government has ADMITTED that kidnappings and torture are policy.

The onus is on you to show a government official release a statement admitting exactly that. You do that and then I'll take a position against the establishment.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because free thought isn't welcome in America or what? Why should an American organization not be allowed to question the government?

Of course they should question government. Everyone should. Legally representing a foreigner whose motives are questionable is another matter, an international one. If they are going to internationalise themselves then perhaps the ACLU should grow some balls and question more than just the US government.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

The onus is on you to show a government official release a statement admitting exactly that. You do that and then I'll take a position against the establishment.

Posted above:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4500630.stm

Glad you agree.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Posted above:
BBC NEWS | Americas | Full text: Rice defends US policy

Glad you agree.

Was the first sentence hard to understand:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has defended the use of "rendition" to transport terror suspects between countries, but refused to address claims that the CIA runs secret prisons abroad.

Furthermore, in case you really do find it hard to read, I'll put the following quotes in bold.

We consider the captured members of al-Qaeda and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held, in accordance with the law of war, to keep them from killing innocents.We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people.

Torture is a term that is defined by law. We rely on our law to govern our operations. The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances.

The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture

The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured

The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.

Acts of physical or mental torture are expressly prohibited.

Violations of these and other detention standards have been investigated and punished. There have been cases of unlawful treatment of detainees, such as the abuse of a detainee by an intelligence agency contractor in Afghanistan or the horrible mistreatment of some prisoners at Abu Ghraib that sickened us all and which arose under the different legal framework that applies to armed conflict in Iraq. In such cases the United States has vigorously investigated, and where appropriate, prosecuted and punished those responsible.

analogika, You should take back your accusations and conspiracy theories now.

[analogika]

One of the difficult issues in this new kind of conflict is what to do with captured individuals who we know or believe to be terrorists. The individuals come from many countries and are often captured far from their original homes.

[...]

For decades, the United States and other countries have used 'renditions' to transport terrorist suspects from the country where they were captured to their home country or to other countries where they can be questioned, held or brought to justice.

Yep, that's kidnapping. It's nice that they be treated according to U.S. laws, but we'd appreciate if ours were respected as well if you're going to be investigating one of our citizens.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yep, that's kidnapping. It's nice that they be treated according to U.S. laws

No, it's called arresting illegal combatants as prisoners of war as she said and you failed to quote. And your original statement was

The U.S. government has ADMITTED that kidnappings and torture are policy.

You can hide under a rock now. You're embarassing yourself too much.

[analogika]

Illegal combatants are called that precisely so that they can then NOT be treated as prisoners of war, which is a very narrowly-defined term. That has been discussed to death before.

And whatever you want to call them, you cannot simply have four CIA agents pull an Italian citizen off a public street in Italy into an unmarked van and fly him to an interrogation center in Cairo.

If you want to call that "arresting illegal combatants as prisoners of war", go right ahead, but a) that's a contradiction in terms, because they're only one OR the other, and b) whatever you want to call it, it's kidnapping a free and innocent man, unless you have somehow PROVEN that he is, in fact an "illegal combatant" or a soldier, whichever may be the case.

The burden of proof is on whomever is doing the kidnapping. At least, over here in the free world, it is.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by analogika 

yadda yadda yadda i hope if i repeat bullshit enough someone will believe it

Your comment was wrong and you didn't have the mental capacity to read Rice's statement. You can't rectify it or make excuses now.

As for the Islamist in Italy who was taken by the CIA and sent to Cairo.

1. Italians hated him.
2. It wasn't done under Rendition.
3. He wasn't taken to a 'black site'
4. The Egyptians, not Americans, handled him in Cairo. Instead of looking to accuse Americans of widespread torture, you should be pointing the finger at Islamic culture's love of torture in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan, and just about every bloody where the ideology goes.
5. Whose word do we have to take that he was tortured by the CIA if he was?
6. How do you know the CIA or other men who took him haven't been punished?

I'm certainly not lending you an iota of credence anyway. Your whole mission is to discretely spread Islam and play the Islamist victim card, while spreading lies about Americans. If this was the 1940s you'd be making excuses for the Nazis.

Here's a tough love question for you. If you don't answer it we'll know where your loyalties lie.

Do you think all those illegal combatants should be free to continue murdering Muslim and non-Muslim alike?

[analogika]

As for torture; you are correct that the U.S. Administration has not admitted directly that it is policy. However, part of the reason they tried so long to argue the definition of "illegal combatants" vs. "prisoners of war" was precisely so that the Geneva Conventions wouldn't apply.

At any rate: The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods

There's a bunch of interesting stuff in there, including a re-definition of torture: "The Office of Legal Counsel concludes that physical pain constituting torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

But this is interesting, too:
Jan 15, 2003 - Department of Defense memo from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to the head of U.S. Southern Command on specific interrogation techniques

The memo from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld withdraws his approval for some interrogation techniques used on detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Secretary Rumsfeld allows for the use of harsher tactics only if "warranted in an individual case" and explicitly approved by him.
[Released June 22, 2004. Obtained from The Washington Post website at www.washingtonpost.com.]


And then, there is this:
Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past

on how interrogation manuals still in use outline "Coercive Techniques", albeit with a hand-written note and new prologue page cynically noting that the very things outlined in the manual are, in fact, illegal under U.S. and many other countries' laws.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

I said I'm not lending you any credence because so far you have been found incapable of reading articles and statements you link to and have lied or been manipulative on too many occasions.

I'll let you redeem yourself if you answer the question I already asked and you avoided. So I'll ask again, and if you don't answer it we'll know where your loyalties lie.

Do you think all those illegal combatants should be free to continue murdering Muslim and non-Muslim alike?

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Quite. If you don't believe in free speech for people whose opinions you loathe, you don't really believe in free speech at all. Said someone, I can't remember who.

Voltaire.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Paraphrased, because I think the original quote is in French anyway.