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: zonder who wrote (16032)	3/21/2005 9:30:02 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| 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"? It's a pretty simple answer it seems to me. Definition: Anything the US does is legal. Treaties are "quaint" documents that don't apply to the US. Who's going to do anything about it anyway? What's the worst the world can do...The Canadians sending a letter of protest? We'll ball it up and drop it in the trash. Sure it's illegal and shameful. But no one can do anything about it. And the American public at large doesn't even care enough to raise an eyebrow. jttmab

To: zonder who wrote (16032)	3/22/2005 11:59:28 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I'll reply when you can provide credible evidence that this citizen was "indiscriminately" "abducted" rather than taken into custody based on evidence that would justify his detention. So far no one has done so despite your deep faith that your assertions are the gospel truth. I'm not going to be dragged into a partisan debate where biased, self serving assertions from only one side are considered rather than a civil, objective discussion of all of the facts. When you can point me to the unbiased facts of this person's detention from a credible source, I'll consider forming an opinion. And I'll note that I ask fairly simple questions here that are routinely ignored by most folks, including you.

To: zonder who wrote (16032)	3/22/2005 12:15:15 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

RE: Article 3 I understand it is an article of faith among you & your peers that our gov't is eeeeeevil. I can understand how you can read Article 3 & immediately see it as "proof" that we are in violation of it since, in your mind, our gov't has no legitimate reason whatsoever to send detainees to other countries. It's your predisposition to assume the worst, then turn those beliefs into firm conclusions despite the lack of genuine evidence to support such conclusions. As I said, I'm skeptical about renditions to countries that have known human rights issues. The difference between us is the lack of evidence & I prefer to draw reality based POV's rather than inflexible, ideologically based opinions. No doubt you didn't read the following article I posted on this thread during this discussion. Or if you did read it, with your predisposition to believe our gov't is pure eeeeevil, you dismissed it out of hand...... CIA Chief Defends Interrogation Procedure Message 21146957