Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11

 

2009-02-08 05:32:19
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

oug wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

oug wrote:

So you're saying that if you're a suspect that makes you guilty? omg lol
No dolt. What I am saying is that under our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty by a trial of your peers. So in other words if I were to walk into your place of work and stab you to death in front of all of your colleagues as witnesses I would be a suspected murderer. Until of course I am found guilty. Kind of hard to understand what I was saying still? OMG LOL!
Well then why bring up a case of a suspect who was proven guilty when obviously this has nothing to do with this case, where there was no conviction. Don't try to turn things around now, we know what you meant.
To be fair, OJ was "proven" innocent. He got away with it (1st time round).

Also this suspect has been tried, in absentia, and found guilty, by a foreign court - though that doesn't carry much weight.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-08 05:42:20)

2009-02-08 05:51:03
mikkel
Member
+383|6905

rdx-fx wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Racism? Where the hell did I ever accuse you of racism?
"Posts in which the author groups people up because they look/think/sound alike, and attributes them all with the same ideals and the same opinions"

Right there.

mikkel wrote:

You complain about a lack of reading comprehension? Have a look at yourself.
Right after you read what you wrote yourself.
That's calling you racist? No, it's not.

rdx-fx wrote:

mikkel wrote:

If I don't like the question asked? The question asked was not PERTINENT to me. It was based on your presumptions that I held opinions which I did in fact not hold.

Again, your question was based on your wrongful presumptions, so the question clearly does not APPLY to me
Then why on earth were you responding to it, if my question was not pertinent to you?
I replied to your methods, and because your argument was obviously meant to include my previous posts, as you say so yourself in your post. Your questions do not have to be pertinent for me to criticise your characterisation.

rdx-fx wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Do you know who I call to task on what at all? No.
No.  Are you someone so notable that I should make a study of your relevant literature, outside the current discussion at hand?
I am discussing exactly what you wrote, as you wrote it.  No more, no less.

You are the one that stepped into my initial premise, not the other way around.
You aren't discussing what I wrote. You haven't responded to what I wrote at all. You're characterising me to discredit my arguments, and you're doing so by attributing opinions to me that I do not hold. If you want to characterise me, then yes, you should make a study of who I am, or your characterisation will be speculative, moot, and "juvenile debate club" material.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-08 05:53:16)

2009-02-08 06:10:32
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6975|UK

deeznutz1245 wrote:

oug wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:


OJ Simpson was suspected too.
So you're saying that if you're a suspect that makes you guilty? omg lol
No dolt. What I am saying is that under our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty by a trial of your peers. So in other words if I were to walk into your place of work and stab you to death in front of all of your colleagues as witnesses I would be a suspected murderer. Until of course I am found guilty. Kind of hard to understand what I was saying still? OMG LOL!
Correct me if i am wrong but the whole stabbing someone in front of everyone didn't happen in the OJ case.  With regards to the Cole bombing i would concede al-Nashiri is the number one culprit but 'suspected' for me personally (unlike yourself) is not absoutley not enough.  Torturing him to gain a confession further erodes any ability to side with you/your people.  OMG LOL!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2009-02-08 06:17:38
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Bertster7 wrote:

The fact is that waterboarding is classed as torture under those acts. End of story.
ok?  i understand that.  but i dont agree.  i am still not seeing your point.  are you saying because the govt said so i should agree and follow along like a good little sheep?  or are you saying we should close down this section because there is no need to argue about it since it is the law?  i mean we could say the same about pot threads and such.
2009-02-08 06:30:25
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The fact is that waterboarding is classed as torture under those acts. End of story.
ok?  i understand that.  but i dont agree.  i am still not seeing your point.  are you saying because the govt said so i should agree and follow along like a good little sheep?  or are you saying we should close down this section because there is no need to argue about it since it is the law?  i mean we could say the same about pot threads and such.
No. I'm saying YOU don't decide what is classed as torture. Nor do I. Therefore either of our opinions on whether or not it is torture, are irrelevant.

You have to put this in context. Your government, just like mine, signed a treaty prohibiting torture. Under the terms of that treaty waterboarding is classed as torture. Therefore your government isn't allowed to do it. Those who have done it have been in breach of the law. No convictions can legally be obtained in instances where it has been used and those who have authorised the use of waterboarding and other interogation techniques legally defined as torture should be prosecuted.

That's how the law works you see.....


You don't have to agree. Your opinion is irrelevant in the legal context of this. You are quite free to state that you disagree with it - but when we are talking legal technicalities that is meaningless.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-08 06:32:23)

2009-02-08 06:35:26
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The fact is that waterboarding is classed as torture under those acts. End of story.
ok?  i understand that.  but i dont agree.  i am still not seeing your point.  are you saying because the govt said so i should agree and follow along like a good little sheep?  or are you saying we should close down this section because there is no need to argue about it since it is the law?  i mean we could say the same about pot threads and such.
No. I'm saying YOU don't decide what is classed as torture. Nor do I. Therefore either of our opinions on whether or not it is torture, are irrelevant.

You have to put this in context. Your government, just like mine, signed a treaty prohibiting torture. Under the terms of that treaty waterboarding is classed as torture. Therefore your government isn't allowed to do it. Those who have done it have been in breach of the law. No convictions can legally be obtained in instances where it has been used and those who have authorised the use of waterboarding and other interogation techniques legally defined as torture should be prosecuted.

That's how the law works you see.....


You don't have to agree. Your opinion is irrelevant in the legal context of this. You are quite free to state that you disagree with it - but when we are talking legal technicalities that is meaningless.
who is arguing legal context?  dont be such a fucking smart ass. people asked me why, and i told them why i thought what i thought.  i am not talking legal techs or anything.  stop being such a posh little school boy.

Last edited by usmarine (2009-02-08 06:35:46)

2009-02-08 06:38:43
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6924|London, England

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:


ok?  i understand that.  but i dont agree.  i am still not seeing your point.  are you saying because the govt said so i should agree and follow along like a good little sheep?  or are you saying we should close down this section because there is no need to argue about it since it is the law?  i mean we could say the same about pot threads and such.
No. I'm saying YOU don't decide what is classed as torture. Nor do I. Therefore either of our opinions on whether or not it is torture, are irrelevant.

You have to put this in context. Your government, just like mine, signed a treaty prohibiting torture. Under the terms of that treaty waterboarding is classed as torture. Therefore your government isn't allowed to do it. Those who have done it have been in breach of the law. No convictions can legally be obtained in instances where it has been used and those who have authorised the use of waterboarding and other interogation techniques legally defined as torture should be prosecuted.

That's how the law works you see.....


You don't have to agree. Your opinion is irrelevant in the legal context of this. You are quite free to state that you disagree with it - but when we are talking legal technicalities that is meaningless.
who is arguing legal context?
Well...

usmarine wrote:

wasnt torture back then silly billy  (lol water boarding torture)
2009-02-08 06:39:17
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:


ok?  i understand that.  but i dont agree.  i am still not seeing your point.  are you saying because the govt said so i should agree and follow along like a good little sheep?  or are you saying we should close down this section because there is no need to argue about it since it is the law?  i mean we could say the same about pot threads and such.
No. I'm saying YOU don't decide what is classed as torture. Nor do I. Therefore either of our opinions on whether or not it is torture, are irrelevant.

You have to put this in context. Your government, just like mine, signed a treaty prohibiting torture. Under the terms of that treaty waterboarding is classed as torture. Therefore your government isn't allowed to do it. Those who have done it have been in breach of the law. No convictions can legally be obtained in instances where it has been used and those who have authorised the use of waterboarding and other interogation techniques legally defined as torture should be prosecuted.

That's how the law works you see.....


You don't have to agree. Your opinion is irrelevant in the legal context of this. You are quite free to state that you disagree with it - but when we are talking legal technicalities that is meaningless.
who is arguing legal context?  dont be such a fucking smart ass. people asked me why, and i told them why i thought what i thought.  i am not talking legal techs or anything.  stop being such a posh little school boy.
That is what this thread is about.

Someone getting their trial thrown out of court on the grounds they were tortured.
2009-02-08 06:39:27
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

it wasnt torture back then.  that was law....and fact.  whats your point skittles?
2009-02-08 06:40:30
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

usmarine wrote:

it wasnt torture back then.  that was law....and fact.  whats your point skittles?
Yes it was.

I thought you weren't talking legal techs anyway?

Which would be just as well, since you're clearly not very good at it.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-08 06:41:27)

2009-02-08 06:40:41
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Bertster7 wrote:

Someone getting their trial thrown out of court on the grounds they were tortured.
no shit sherlock.  and someone asked me why i thought what i thought.

go yell at them for asking then and piss off.
2009-02-08 06:42:19
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

it wasnt torture back then.  that was law....and fact.  whats your point skittles?
Yes it was.
it was "legal" or "authorized" for use.  dont play fucking word games with me.
2009-02-08 06:43:46
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6975|UK
He's been arging from a legal perspective all through the thread.  And you haven't explained why you don't agree with the classification of torture with respect to waterboarding.  All you ever say is "i don't agree with it".

We'll you better start 'talking' with legal tech in mind with regards to this thread as usually what you can and can't do is defined by the LAW.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2009-02-08 06:44:13
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

it wasnt torture back then.  that was law....and fact.  whats your point skittles?
Yes it was.
it was "legal" or "authorized" for use.  dont play fucking word games with me.
No, it wasn't.

The US is signed up to treaties prohibiting torture. The definitions within those treaties classifies waterboarding as torture. Therefore it is torture (or at least is classed as being illegal as a part of a legal framework the US is party to).

It really isn't that complicated....

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-08 06:46:00)

2009-02-08 06:45:24
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

yes it was authorized for use.  go look it up smart guy.
2009-02-08 06:46:30
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

usmarine wrote:

yes it was authorized for use.  go look it up smart guy.
It was illegal. Go look it up dumbass.
2009-02-08 06:46:32
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

m3thod wrote:

And you haven't explained why you don't agree with the classification of torture with respect to waterboarding.
yes i have method.  go read the thread and stop trolling.  its not my fault you cant read.
2009-02-08 06:47:32
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

yes it was authorized for use.  go look it up smart guy.
It was illegal. Go look it up dumbass.
they allowed interrogators to use it fuck face.
2009-02-08 06:48:52
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

yes it was authorized for use.  go look it up smart guy.
It was illegal. Go look it up dumbass.
they allowed interrogators to use it fuck face.
Obviously they did.

Doesn't make it legal.
2009-02-08 06:49:43
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6796|Connecticut

m3thod wrote:

Correct me if i am wrong but the whole stabbing someone in front of everyone didn't happen in the OJ case.  With regards to the Cole bombing i would concede al-Nashiri is the number one culprit but 'suspected' for me personally (unlike yourself) is not absoutley not enough.  Torturing him to gain a confession further erodes any ability to side with you/your people.  OMG LOL!
I will correct you. I was not suggesting that OJ stabbed anyone in front of anyone else. What I was trying to prove to the Greek was that even though it is known that you commit a crime, you remain a suspect until proven otherwise in court. As far as the torturing goes, you can't really rely on information abstracted against someones will whether it's torture or just simply using leverage (bribery). However, if you know for a fact that the person has killed your friends then it could be fun.


Like, OMG!!!

Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2009-02-08 06:50:08)

Malloy must go
2009-02-08 06:49:55
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Bertster7 wrote:

Obviously they did.

Doesn't make it legal.
who enforces the treaties?  the UN?  lewl.  fuck them.  its our country, we will do what we see fit.
2009-02-08 06:50:44
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6975|UK

usmarine wrote:

m3thod wrote:

And you haven't explained why you don't agree with the classification of torture with respect to waterboarding.
yes i have method.  go read the thread and stop trolling.  its not my fault you cant read.
I missed it and i can't be arsed to go find it.  Its prob only be a sentance so if you don't mind....

That the third time you've accused me off being a troll in this thread.  I get all warm and fuzzy when King troll elevates me to his esteemed position. 
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2009-02-08 06:51:49
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

m3thod wrote:

I missed it and i can't be arsed to go find it.
oh well. stop crying about it then.
2009-02-08 06:52:06
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Obviously they did.

Doesn't make it legal.
who enforces the treaties?  the UN?  lewl.  fuck them.  its our country, we will do what we see fit.
It's not about enforcement. It's about legality.

If you don't plan on following the rules - don't cry about it when other countries don't follow the rules.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-08 06:54:07)

2009-02-08 06:53:42
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6796|Connecticut

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Obviously they did.

Doesn't make it legal.
who enforces the treaties?  the UN?  lewl.  fuck them.  its our country, we will do what we see fit.
It's not about enforcement. It's about legality.
Right, but it was legal.
Malloy must go

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard