Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (15956)	3/18/2005 6:15:10 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

<< Yet you all are convinced I am the nutcase. >> You got that part right.

To: Sully- who wrote (15956)	3/18/2005 6:15:43 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 20773

$9.95, the market price for a seriously tortured Pavolvian puppy. afrc.af.mil (note, even Ridge should give you some extra positive points for clicking this patriotic link) afrc.af.mil $2.05 in Tampa-land. Fillmore too was a funny guy. Ready.gov, steady.gov, Mp3, BooksGuys, and the two-party-goverment === Service Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request. Please try again later. === Things happen, in two-party-systems.. ready.gov .

To: Sully- who wrote (15956)	3/21/2005 8:45:37 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

My question was pretty simple: Does anything you posted here enlighten us as to how abducting a Canadian citizen and dumping him in a Syrian jail at the mercy of Syrian jailers can be deemed "lawful"? I can't see the answer to that question anywhere in your introspective post. I am not about to talk on behalf of "most folks here", and I am not even going to dignify the generalization "many of you folks", so let's stick to the subject. (1) Please answer the question above. How is abducting a Canadian citizen and dumping him in a Syrian jail "lawful"? While answering that question, you keep in mind the "UN convention against torture" which US signed in 1980s, where this paragraph appears: Article 3 1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. (2) I understand your point re "we don't know for sure that US meant these people to be tortured in Syria and elsewhere". Personally, I cannot think of another reason why the US would send its detainees off to such countries known for their ease with torture, especially in light of the Convention they signed that expressly forbids it. Please share with us your thoughts on this: What other reason can you possibly think of for US to send a suspected Canadian off to Syria? I'll form my opinions on these issues as time & events unfold. And I'll do it with real facts from credible sources if you don't mind. Events are unfolding in front of your eyes (the Canadian in question was sent to Syria two years ago, fyi) and nobody is asking you to take into consideration anything other than facts. Now, please do answer the above two questions. To me, it looks like a turd and smells like a turd. Let's see what it looks/smells like to you...