Misinformation, misconceptions, and so on

[TheAmazingRando]

Why not ban alcohol and legalise weed?

The United States tried to ban Alcohol in the 1920's under an act called Prohabition. It was thought it would bring the crime rate down in America but instead it backfired with mobsters gaining money and control through the illegal distribution of alcohol. Needless to say Prohabition has since been repelled.

 

[Absinthe]

I see that idiocy is the new and hip thing nowadays. Any fool who thinks of Canadians as a race is just that, a fool. You seem to have no problem when people say, "Americans are this," or, "Americans are that." What's the difference? Canada is made up of almost as many races and ethnicities as the U.S. This ignorance almost made me squirt coffee out my nose from laughing.

And your babbling degeneration into bitching about semantics made me laugh as - Oh wait, it didn't make me laugh. It made me shake my head in pity.

You act like Marijuana is not abused. Everybody abuses it who uses it Absinthe, and you have to be pretty naive to object to that.

What?

I agree that marijuana can be abused, but I don't think consumption itself can be considered abuse by default.

 

[Absinthe]

The United States tried to ban Alcohol in the 1920's under an act called Prohabition. It was thought it would bring the crime rate down in America but instead it backfired with mobsters gaining money and control through the illegal distribution of alcohol. Needless to say Prohabition has since been repelled.

And we have an illegal drug market for marijuana that's doing pretty peachy these days thanks to the drug's legal status.

 

[Hapless]

And your babbling degeneration into bitching about semantics made me laugh as - Oh wait, it didn't make me laugh. It made me shake my head in pity

Whatever, genius. Racism.....chuckle.

 

[Absinthe]

Whatever, genius. Racism.....chuckle.

If you want to be a nazi about semantics (you know damn well how the word "racist" is used), then go ahead and rub some more sand in your vagina.

 

[Kangy]

The link between regular cannabis use and later depression and schizophrenia has been significantly strengthened by three new studies.

(....)

One of the key conclusions of the research is that people who start smoking cannabis as adolescents are at the greatest risk of later developing mental health problems. Another team calculates that eliminating cannabis use in the UK population could reduce cases of schizophrenia by 13 per cent.

(...)

Patton's team followed over 1600 Australian school pupils aged 14 to 15 for seven years. Daily cannabis use was associated with a five-fold increased risk of depression at the age of 20

Taken from New Scientist.

 

[Hapless]

If you want to be a nazi about semantics (you know damn well how the word "racist" is used), then go ahead and rub some more sand in your vagina.

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
racist

adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]

race1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.


Canadian is not a "race," anymore than Texan is. And that vagina comment is mighty sexist.

 

[Eg.]

but Absinthe has a larger post count, thus the victor

 

[Hapless]

but Absinthe has a larger post count, thus the victor

Oh, well, in that case, I bow to the victor..... :thumbs: Although I have been registered here much longer.

 

[Raziaar]

Canadian is not a "race," anymore than Texan is. And that vagina comment is mighty sexist.

Wait a second. You had to explain to him that Canadian is not a race? Heh, that should have been self explanatory!



Yeehaw! I be Texan an you be offending on my race! I'm gonna round up me cattle, milk my cows an take you ta county court for when ya call me a redneck! That's racism! Yeehaw! <fires dual six shooters into the air like Yosemite Sam or that guy from the simpsons>



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :cheese:

 

[Hapless]

Yeah, anybody that bags on Bush is racist. God knows no liberal wants to be painted with THAT label....tee hee.


again, for the Canadians on the forum, this is humor.

 

[CptStern]

what a complete waste of ...ummm digital space?

racist? that remains to be seen

bigoted? you bet ya

hypocritical? yes siree bob

 

[Raziaar]

what a complete waste of ...ummm digital space?

racist? that remains to be seen

bigoted? you bet ya

hypocritical? yes siree bob

Oh, well then Mr Stern. You'd be a huge bigot, for calling the americans who voted for bush idiots, who's views differ from yours, etc etc

You love to put them down for it, and I guess that makes you by definition, a huge bigot!

 

[CptStern]

ummm no:

big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I rarely wave the nationalist or liberal rallying flag ..I'm an island onto myself

 

[seinfeldrules]

and is intolerant of those who differ.

Ahem Mr. Stern.

 

[Hapless]

ummm no:

big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I rarely wave the nationalist or liberal rallying flag ..I'm an island onto myself

You know, some people find it hard to really define themselves, but Stern, I think you've nailed it. Congratulations. :cheers:

 

[Raziaar]

He just can't handle the truth! Heh.

 

[GiaOmerta]

I dont think any of us can completely handle the truth.
Like Newell said.
There are two groups. Both are wrong. Except one group is very wrong. I believe this holds light in the political spectrum.

 

[CptStern]

Ahem Mr. Stern.

kettle meet pot

the only intolerance I have is reserved for:

homophobes, religious fantics and uber-patriots ..not fault some of you fit the bill :E

 

[Raziaar]

kettle meet pot

How many times are you going to use that before it gets old? This is like the 50th on my count. lol

 

[seinfeldrules]

homophobes, religious fantics and uber-patriots

You forget ...

homophobes, religious fantics, uber-patriots, and anyone who disagrees with me...

Additions made by SR at 11:21 EST.

 

[CptStern]

How many times are you going to use that before it gets old? This is like the 50th on my count. lol

:upstare: I'm happy to know you've taken the time to keep track of what I say ...sigh too bad you didnt take the time to listen instead of keeping track of how often I repeat myself....... tell me ...how many times have I used the word hypocrisy?


:smoking:

 

[Raziaar]

:upstare: I'm happy to know you've taken the time to keep track of what I say ...sigh too bad you didnt take the time to listen instead of keeping track of how often I repeat myself....... tell me ...how many times have I used the word hypocrisy?


:smoking:

1,769 Times. You've used the word The approximately 42,331 times too, but that ones not as important!

 

[Hapless]

kettle meet pot

the only intolerance I have is reserved for:

homophobes, religious fantics and uber-patriots ..not fault some of you fit the bill :E

You seem to have a great intolerance for me. I have never said anything even vaguely, "homophobic," I'm a Deist at best, or at least an agnostic, and I don't consider myself to be an "uber-patriot." I will, however, defend my country, both in words and deeds, if called upon to do so. :cheese: You seem to call upon me to do so quite often.

 

[Raziaar]

He's a police officer. Police officers don't defend their country, we know that! <rolls his eyes>

/sarcasm

 

[burner69]

Taken from New Scientist.

Yip, fair point. But if you look, it was saying depression increased 5 fold in kids smoking cannabis DAILY! That's abusing the substance.

And 13% of all schitsophrenia sufferers would not have it if cannabis was irradicated (which has been attempted for decades) - well, that's 13% of 1% of the population, which although is hardly good, hardly makes it possible to suddenly cease cannabis use.
Also, I could find very similar studies linking smoking, drinking, hell, probably sitting at home on your PC with depression. Fact is, people shouldn't be smoking cannabis daily, and if cannabis was legilised these young kids they talk about would find it much more difficult to get hold of.

 

[Kangy]

Legalising would make it much more common. Unless there was a real deterrant against it, things would just spiral out of control. Also, why legalise something else with proof of harm?

There's just no need.

 

[CptStern]

You seem to have a great intolerance for me. I have never said anything even vaguely, "homophobic," I'm a Deist at best, or at least an agnostic, and I don't consider myself to be an "uber-patriot." .

who said i was talking about you? you're a little overly defensive

I will, however, defend my country, both in words and deeds, if called upon to do so. :cheese: You seem to call upon me to do so quite often

too bad you dont put much effort in actually dealing with the issues I bring up

 

[burner69]

Legalising would make it much more common. Unless there was a real deterrant against it, things would just spiral out of control. Also, why legalise something else with proof of harm?

There's just no need.

Untrue. Cannabis use in Holland went down after legilisation. Why?Because it's use was controlled by the government. No longer could kids just ask their mate for weed, they had to get served in regulated coffee shops - strict on ID. Also, as soon as things are made legal it strips much of the 'cool' element from it. That puts some kids off.

Why illegalise something with relatively fewer health problems than things currently illegal. Remember, people are losing jobs, getting criminal records over this.

And with it having health risks, it makes more sense for the government to take control over it, rather than giving that control to people with less regard for the age of the person they're selling it to, and the health of them - by cutting it with crap for profit.

 

[Hapless]

too bad you dont put much effort in actually dealing with the issues I bring up

There's that snide condescension I love so much.

 

[CptStern]

prove me wrong

 

[Hapless]

prove me wrong

Prove ME wrong. Without snide comments. Without left-wing websites. Without condescension, and the, "I'm soooo much more intelligent than you," attitude. How is it possible to absolutely prove someone wrong in a political discussion anyway? It's not, that's why these threads always devolve into ad hominem attacks.

 

[CptStern]

simple: I provide proof, you counter it by providing evidence

 

[Hapless]

This has been going on for months, between you and I, you and seinfeldrules, and a few others. You've provided your proof, we've provided our evidence, you belittle us, and thus the cycle continues with no movement in either direction. If you like, I can provide PLENTY of evidence of your attitude.

 

[RZAL]

Do you realize that when I became a police officer almost 8 years ago, I could stop a car I thought had dope in it based on an unrelated traffic offense, request consent to search the vehicle once it was stopped, interview occupants of the vehicle other than the driver, and so on?

Depending on the circumstances, its been that way for a longer than 8 years. I seem to recall Terry v. Ohio 1968.

Within the last 2 years, all of that is changed. Now I have to have reasonable suspicion that dope is in the car before I can start asking questions about dope. I cannot request consent to search the vehicle, because one of the lovely appellate courts in my state has found that consent can not be considered valid under the auspices of a traffic stop.

The courts have long considered vehicle stops based on reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds tantamount to arrest when pertaining to Consent Searches. Logic being- How can a person freely give consent if they are unable to leave?

Simple work around for Consent Searches
If you don’t have reasonable grounds for a search, simply conduct all of your business, ticket or what have you, give back all property belonging to them, let them know they are free to leave and then ask for consent, you may also want to add they can withdraw the consent at anytime.

Consent Searches Rule Number Two
Don’t ever, ever limit your search to only one item. Judges will normally throw charges out if you find something outside of the scope of the consent search. Could be some case law on this, can’t remember off hand.

I can no longer speak to or request ID from any other occupants of the vehicle unless they have also committed a violation.

Are you from Ohio? Sounds like a law they would have on the books. What appellate court case & #.

No Sarcasm intended, Ohio just has some funking laws.

 

[Absinthe]

"I'm soooo much more intelligent than you," attitude.

Coming from a man that made such a huge issue over the word "racism"?

Shock! Horror!

(I'm gonna shutup now)

 

[CptStern]

This has been going on for months, between you and I, you and seinfeldrules, and a few others. You've provided your proof, we've provided our evidence, you belittle us, and thus the cycle continues with no movement in either direction. If you like, I can provide PLENTY of evidence of your attitude.

what evidence? every single point I bring up is either nicely sidestepped or ignored ...the only person here who's even admitted that some of the issues I've pointed to are correct is Scoopnfl ...and he's new. There'll never be an admission of guilt from you guys, that much is true ...bush could have a signed affidavit saying he lied and people died and you still wouldnt admit it ...it's tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "blahblahblah" to drown out the truth

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You had the right to remain silent, but now I'll have to use what you said against you.

Uninteresting story? Gay sex jokes? Anus? Where were any of these things in my post?

Yes, it never happened. Obviously I'm a crazy canadian claiming you did something like that...

...can take your condescension and stick it in that ass you were talking about. Or Stern's, if you like.

Oh, shit! You said you were right, but you weren't?
I'm totally surprised at this shocking development.

As for the uninteresting nature of your assumedly sob story, I can't really say, because I wasn't interested enough to read it completely.

And just a brief note: I don't see why you're mentioning my nationality once every post, but in case you think it counts as clever, I'll just tell you right now that it isn't.
Think of it as the last bit of friendly advice I'll be giving you.

So let's begin this post with that divergence starting off your average with .000 for maturity and accuracy (both good qualities for a cop to have, by the way). I think it's pretty indicative of the quality of the rest of your points.

Please pay attention because you will be quizzed on this.

The things that I mentioned were sleep deprivation, yelling and standing on a box with wires attached to you. The first two things are nothing any recruit in the U.S. Armed Forces doesn't go through for weeks. I speak from experience, because I served in the U.S. Army, but that probably doesn't interest you either.

Right, in the armed forces you were needlessly forced to stay awake for a week straight for the sole and express purpose of causing you psychological anguish?
Even if that were true does that mean you lock hobos in your cellar and force them to never sleep?

Pop quiz 1: Forget the doctors and the Geneva Convention for a minute. Would that be legal in the US? How much time in prison would you get for locking someone in a cellar and forcing them to stay awake for a week?
You're supposedly a cop. Tell me.

Oh right, it's not morally reprehensible because 'We're at war.'
I call lame excuse on that one. That pretty much translates to 'it's not just a crime, it's a hate crime.'
You'd think that taking the moral high ground against Saddam and the gang would be a good idea.

Pop quiz 2: If sleep deprivation of these prisoners is necessary because you're at war, tell me: What does this act, which is officially considered a form of torture, do to help the war effort? Or any effort? Or is it just the pointless exploitation of another human's pain for some bizzare amusement?

I'd call it's the last one. Unless you have any evidence at all that these actions were somehow necessary. Which I'm sure you do, since it would be very foolish to base one's opinion on nothing but confusion and assumptions.

So these guys should be molly-coddled, eh? Can't "abuse" them verbally eh? But you have no problem with the statements you make further down about mail-order badges, and such. Interesting, and vaguely....hypocritical.....

So you routinely walk up to the cells of criminals you've already captured and scream obscenities and death threats at them?

Pop quiz 3: If you did this on a regular basis, how long before the real cops charge you with issuing death threats?
Even without the death threats, would you repeatedly and needlessly scream obscenities at people who aren't even convicted yet, for the sole purpose of messing with them?

I'm sure there's some sort of ethical limitations that would prevent you from doing such a thing.

And I'm not just purely making fun of you. I really do think that you have no place in the legal system, and that there should have been some sort of screening process that stamped the word 'REJECTED' on your face and cast you into the unemployment line long ago.

Any hypocrisy in hurting your feelings there would be the signifigantly outweighed by a law-enforcement officer supporting needless breaches of international ethics laws.

Umm, NO they are not. Do some research, genius, and you would find the guy was told the wires were electrified and that if he stepped off the box he would be shocked. The wires weren't actually electrified.

Oh, ho ho ho! They were only threatening him with death if he didn't remain in a fixed position for hours or even days!
Laff riot.
Remember, you're a police officer, and you've just said that death threats and positional torture (the clinical term for this little prank) are a-okay, even when they are done soley for the amusement of others (AKA the torturers).
What's your badge number, by the way?

Pop quiz 4: If positional torture is such a no-big-deal walk in the park, why don't you force your prisoners into strange clothes and threaten them with deadly injuries unless they jump through hoops down at the precinct? Tell me why you don't.

OMFG, that poor man, he has to bend over. I'm sure you must have nearly fainted dead away when you first saw that picture. If I could email you a tissue, I would.

I'm not one to judge your lifestyle choices, but just because you might not mind being stripped down to your underpants, masked, and forced to do tricks under threats of injury and death doesn't mean everyone else does.

Unless, of course, you would be opposed to being forced to do that. What's that word again? Oh yeah. Hypocrisy.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. First of all, I find it amusing that you would use stuff from a biased, activist, website. Second of all, AGAIN I said sleep deprivation, yelling and standing on a box wth wires attached. I said nothing about blunt trauma. I said nothing about electric shock. I said nothing about sexual violence. I actually said food deprivation was torture. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Furthermore, I SAID NOTHING ABOUT ABU GHRAIB. I was talking about Guantanamo Bay. I believe the idiocy that occurred at Abu Ghraib is a separate issue.

You don't find it amusing at all. You're just acting haughty and superior in order to distract from your shortcomings.
I could call you absurd and laughable, but I don't find you at all amusing. It's more disturbing that you're allowed to carry a loaded weapon, let alone a badge.

And yeah, I specifically chose this 'activist website' that i've only just visited because of a random google search. Forget that my sources also include Amnesty International, Fox news, NBC Some random newspaper in vegas and others. While you've presented nothing more than bupkis and your own meandering opinion, which I rate lower than the latter.

And to be honest, the only really activist things I saw on that website are that this group is anti-torture. Thinking that torture is bad might be 'extremist' to you, but I can tell you right now that you're the tiny minority in that opinion.
I guess that would you the extremist.
And since you took activist action by posting here telling eveyone to get over torture, I suppose your opinion is worthless by your definition.

Of course, now's your opportunity to show me up with links to website that say positional torture and death threats are good. Chances are all you'll find through google is some sort of dominatrix porn though, but you're welcome to try.

You made an announcement to everyone that they should 'get over' Guantanamo Bay because it's no big deal.
I described, with sources like NBC, the forms of torture described at Guantanamo Bay, and showed them to you in list form with the source, a group of doctors who are undoubtedly more qualified than you in this matter in spite of whatever their political leanings might be.

Your rebuttal: "Uh, that single website is 'activist' therefore torture is good."

Sexual assault happened there:

The memo obtained by the AP documents abuses that included a female interrogator’s grabbing a detainee’s genitals

True, you didn't specifically mention food deprivation.
But neither did I.

Deprivation of normal sensory stimulation, such as sound, light, sense of time, isolation, manipulation of brightness of the cell, abuse of physiological needs, restriction of sleep, food, water, toilet facilities, bathing, motor activities, medical care, social contacts, isolation within prison, loss of contact with the outside world (victims often are kept in isolation in order to prevent bonding and mutual identification and to encourage traumatic bonding with the torturer);

You'll notice that food deprivation is only mentioned as it is a single spectrum of the sensory deprivation 'rainbow'.

However, you pledged your indifference to, and even support of, all those forms of sensory deprivation listed above in bold, and to an extent, most of those in italics. The food one was one of the few things you didn't condone.
I guess my reading skills 'aren't as good' as yours because I failed to ignore the entire rest of the paragraph like you did.

And, as you've already corrected me by pointing out that you don't support electrocution torture, instead only supporting threats of electrocution torture in concert with several other forms of torture, performed for no reason beyond amusing the captors. Yeah, you're a grade-a human being. I'm sorry I doubted you.

And if you're so incensed over my mention of Abu Ghraib, because you "SAID NOTHING ABOUT ABU GHRAIB", then why did you SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ABU GHRAIB in your first post, listing the infamous 'Abu Ghraib prisonner threatened with electrocution' photo as one of the things people should 'get over'?

You sure have said a lot of things you didn't say.
I'll just be generous and chalk it up to poor comprehension skills.

VERBAL ABUSE!!! Or it would be if you said it to me in person. I assure you, my badge didn't come in the mail. I understand the law very well, thank you. You are not justified in questioning anything, because most of the things you pointed out were based on misunderstandings of what I said and your apparent inability to comprehend what you read, and most of the rest is based on activist and biased websites.

Surely you know the difference between a simple comment and verbal assault, threats, harassment and the like.
Because it would be very sad if you didn't.
And like I said, I am genuinely concerned that you are unfit for duty as a police officer, given your disdain for conventional laws and propensity towards comments and opinions that would be considered hateful in most social circles.

Of course, that concern is unwarranted because:

-When you said people should ignore some forms of torture that took place in Abu Ghraib and all those at Guantanamo Bay
(comments recorded for posterity in your first post), I assumed you meant that people should ignore some forms of torture that took place in Abu Ghraib and all those at Guantanamo Bay.

-A panel of doctors listed starvation as a form of sensory deprivation, despite the fact that you only support other forms of sensory deprivation.

-I used multiple sources that say 'torture is bad' in order to try and drill it into your head that torture is, in fact, bad.

Yeah, you sure have the upper hand on this one. You can't hear me, but I'm actually clapping at your awesome power of saying "It's not torture because I say so, now we should all wash our hands of things that are blatantly illegal in the US and arround the world."

Despite your powers of persuasion, I'm still convinced that my 'activist sources' like NBC easilly trounce your 'I have no absolutely no rational support for my stance' stance.

...add some more mentioning of my nationality for some reason, and trying to prop up your weak jokes, and you're done.
At the very least you've decided to stop trying to be funny.
Gotta be thankful for that.

 

[Hapless]

You had the right to remain silent, but now I'll have to use what you said against you.

Clever. :|

Yes, it never happened. Obviously I'm a crazy canadian claiming you did something like that...

Oh, shit! You said you were right, but you weren't?
I'm totally surprised at this shocking development.

Just for the record, you said, "'Get over it' my ass". I responded by suggesting you stick your condescension UP that ass you were referring to. Or Stern's ass. If telling someone to stick an intangible attitude up their or another's bottom amounts to a gay sex joke, then so be it.

As for the uninteresting nature of your assumedly sob story, I can't really say, because I wasn't interested enough to read it completely..

You asked, "What kind of police officer are you?" I answered. Here, again, is that condescension I was referring to. I'm haughty and superior? I guess.....

And just a brief note: I don't see why you're mentioning my nationality once every post, but in case you think it counts as clever, I'll just tell you right now that it isn't.
Think of it as the last bit of friendly advice I'll be giving you.

More condescension. Heaven forbid I should mention your nationality. I guess, "good natured ribbing," is as foreign to you as "jest," or, "joke."

So let's begin this post with that divergence starting off your average with .000 for maturity and accuracy (both good qualities for a cop to have, by the way). I think it's pretty indicative of the quality of the rest of your points.

Surprise!! More snide condescension. Wow, you are on a roll.

Please pay attention because you will be quizzed on this.

I didn't know this involved a quiz. I didn't sign up for this, man.
Again, humor.

Right, in the armed forces you were needlessly forced to stay awake for a week straight for the sole and express purpose of causing you psychological anguish?
Even if that were true does that mean you lock hobos in your cellar and force them to never sleep?

While I don't recall if I ever had to stay up for exactly a week straight, everything the military does to it's recruits is calculated for the sole and express purpose of causing the recruit psychological anguish. This breaks the recruit down so they can be built back up. This includes sleep deprivation, verbal abuse (including threats), AND staying in one position until it becomes uncomfortable.
Why would I, or anyone, want a hobo in my cellar? Where in the hell did that come from? Does that happen alot in that place you're from that I can't mention for fear of being called a racist, or at least not funny? Making some pretty big leaps there, aren't we?

Pop quiz 1: Forget the doctors and the Geneva Convention for a minute. Would that be legal in the US? How much time in prison would you get for locking someone in a cellar and forcing them to stay awake for a week?
You're supposedly a cop. Tell me.

Let's see, that would be unlawful restraint, which is a class 4 felony, I think. The elements of the offense are the knowing detention of another without legal authority. A class 4 felony is the lowest on the hierarchy of felony crimes, and is punishable by 1-3 years, as I recall. Making them stay awake for a week would be included in the offense.

Oh right, it's not morally reprehensible because 'We're at war.'
I call lame excuse on that one. That pretty much translates to 'it's not just a crime, it's a hate crime.'
You'd think that taking the moral high ground against Saddam and the gang would be a good idea.

The very act of killing, itself, is morally reprehensible. The act of shooting someone with a high-powered rifle is morally reprehensible. WAR is morally reprehensible. But, unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary. Any moral ground would be higher than that upon which Saddam and the gang stand. See my answer to the next pop quiz, where I will expand further...

Pop quiz 2: If sleep deprivation of these prisoners is necessary because you're at war, tell me: What does this act, which is officially considered a form of torture, do to help the war effort? Or any effort? Or is it just the pointless exploitation of another human's pain for some bizzare amusement?.

As I explained above, sleep deprivation breaks people's defenses down. It helps the war effort, if effective, by providing us with information helpful to the war effort. Now, to put this in perspective, I am not going to, and cannot, deprive a suspect in my custody of sleep in order to obtain a confession from them about hitting their wife, breaking into a house, shooting the neighbor's dog, killing the mailman, or whatever. None of those things involve the security of the U.S., or U.S. forces abroad. Again, it may be morally reprehensible, but also necessary. Kind of like when an officer interviews a child molester who he really wants to jump over the table and throttle, but instead acts like it's not that bad a thing, everybody does it, the child brought it on him or herself, etc. Morally reprehensible, but necessary in many instances.

I'd call it's the last one. Unless you have any evidence at all that these actions were somehow necessary. Which I'm sure you do, since it would be very foolish to base one's opinion on nothing but confusion and assumptions.

Is that haughtiness I detect? Surely not.

So you routinely walk up to the cells of criminals you've already captured and scream obscenities and death threats at them?

Yeah, all the time. Don't you?

Pop quiz 3: If you did this on a regular basis, how long before the real cops charge you with issuing death threats?

Since there is no offense in my state called, "Issuing Death Threats," I suppose they would charge me with Disorderly Conduct and maybe Official Misconduct. The realcops? More snideness?

Even without the death threats, would you repeatedly and needlessly scream obscenities at people who aren't even convicted yet, for the sole purpose of messing with them?

Now that part about people who aren't even convicted yet is very interesting. If I may make a logical leap of the type you are adept at, then can I presume you actually support the repeated and needless screaming of obscenities at those who HAVE been convicted? Nah, I won't take that out of context, because I want to take the moral high ground here. <humor> In answer to your question: no. First of all, it's unnecessary, and second of all, I have no access to the prisoners I arrest after I turn them over to corrections officers. The jail is run by the County, and I am a city officer.

I'm sure there's some sort of ethical limitations that would prevent you from doing such a thing.

Here you are equating what I do with what soldiers do. THere is a huge difference between civilian law enforcement and the prosecution of a war. The ethics that apply to my profession are not applicable to soldiers. My job is to protect life whenever possible, even the life of a suspect. This is why I have all manner of non-lethal weaponry at my disposal. A soldier's job, at it's most basic level, is to kill people and destroy things. Morally reprehensible? Maybe, but sometimes necessary.

And I'm not just purely making fun of you. I really do think that you have no place in the legal system, and that there should have been some sort of screening process that stamped the word 'REJECTED' on your face and cast you into the unemployment line long ago.

I'd tell another story here, but you would probably find it uninteresting. Suffice to say, really, I feel truly distressed that someone on a message board thinks I shouldn't be a cop. Or maybe that's just gas.... <humor>

Any hypocrisy in hurting your feelings there would be the signifigantly outweighed by a law-enforcement officer supporting needless breaches of international ethics laws.

Again, I could take this out of context to imply that you support necessary breaches of international law. But I won't sink to that level. :E Even if I did support breaches, whether necessary or unnecessary, of international ethics law, it isn't really one of the questions they ask you on the application, the psych eval or the oral interview. International ethics law doesn't really intrude into the local level of law enforcement too often.

Oh, ho ho ho! They were only threatening him with death if he didn't remain in a fixed position for hours or even days!
Laff riot.
Remember, you're a police officer, and you've just said that death threats and positional torture (the clinical term for this little prank) are a-okay, even when they are done soley for the amusement of others (AKA the torturers).
What's your badge number, by the way?

It's 395.

Pop quiz 4: If positional torture is such a no-big-deal walk in the park, why don't you force your prisoners into strange clothes and threaten them with deadly injuries unless they jump through hoops down at the precinct? Tell me why you don't.

Sigh, do I really have to answer this question AGAIN? I'm not going to. Check back further up in the thread if you've forgotten already.

I'm not one to judge your lifestyle choices, but just because you might not mind being stripped down to your underpants, masked, and forced to do tricks under threats of injury and death doesn't mean everyone else does.
Unless, of course, you would be opposed to being forced to do that. What's that word again? Oh yeah. Hypocrisy.

I'm also opposed to going to jail. Yet I put people in jail almost every day. Does that make me a hypocrite as well? I'm opposed to being placed in handcuffs, yet I place other people in handcuffs every day. Does that make me a hypocrite? As to the specific content of your statement here, again, read above.

You don't find it amusing at all. You're just acting haughty and superior in order to distract from your shortcomings.
I could call you absurd and laughable, but I don't find you at all amusing. It's more disturbing that you're allowed to carry a loaded weapon, let alone a badge.

No, really, I do find you amusing. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother engaging in arguments with you.

While you've presented nothing more than bupkis and your own meandering opinion, which I rate lower than the latter.

Haughty? Superior? Anyone? Bueller?

And to be honest, the only really activist things I saw on that website are that this group is anti-torture. Thinking that torture is bad might be 'extremist' to you, but I can tell you right now that you're the tiny minority in that opinion.
I guess that would you the extremist.
And since you took activist action by posting here telling eveyone to get over torture, I suppose your opinion is worthless by your definition.

Of course, no activist group would ever exaggerate things to prove their point. Never happens. And I'd like you to point out where in any of my statements I said "Hey, you guys, torture is good. Really. No, I'm serious." I simply don't agree that certain things some consider to be torture, are torture. Especially when compared with, say, slicing someone's head off with a dull knife.

I will address the rest of your post at a later time. Time to get ready to go to work and possible violate some international ethics laws. I can't wait. Wow, I made it through this post without mentioning that you're Canadian...oh, damn. Well, at least I tried.

 

[Hapless]

To continue....You want websites? You want sources? Here you go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A40819-2003Jan10&notFound=true
http://www.asininity.com/comments/P1811_0_1_0/#1811
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/pr-releases?pr=20030801This one is interesting in that while not entirely supportive of my position, it does contain the following statement:

As this label is unrecognized in International Humanitarian Law, Singh warns that detainees classified as unlawful combatants may not be protected from "questionable interrogation techniques" or that their captors could "potentially subject detainees to poor detention conditions with a sense of impunity."

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB110497519167818391-IBjg4Njlah4m5uuaoCGbquBm5,00.html

As anyone can see, the question of what exactly constitutes torture is certainly not set in stone, as you would have us believe. There is still much debate. Furthermore, I never said that nothing that occurred at Abu Ghraib was torture. I pointed out that somethign depicted in one of the more famous photos did not rise to the level of torture in my opinion, and certainly in the opinion of others. Without question, much of what occurred at Abu Ghraib was torture, and is being prosecuted as such.

I specifically mentioned Guantanamo Bay because those detained there are considered unlawful combatants. The argument against that designation is extremely weak. It is impossible to come to any other conclusion if one reads the Geneva Conventions. As I read it, a judge or military tribunal is only required to make the determination if it is unclear whether the detainee is a lawful or unlawful combatant. If one is caught on the battlefield, in Afghanistan, carrying a weapon, firing that weapon at uniformed soldiers, while not wearing a uniform oneself, and fighting on behalf of an organization which specializes in the mass slaughter of civilians, it is difficult to make the case that one is anything other than an unlawful combatant.

Basically, I object to the habit that you and Stern and others have of posting a link to an article, or posting an excerpt from that article, in support of your point and expecting all present to accept your view and the view of the author of the article as the gospel truth. Then when someone has the temerity to disagree with you, you post MORE articles, or pictures, and imply that the dissenting party is an absolute moron, or question that persons ability to do his job, simply because he or she disagrees with you. All the while maintaining that you are a progressive, open-minded individual. I'm sorry, but this smacks of the hypocrisy you claim to abhor. That, and your consistent habit of taking everything I say out of context, or flat-out putting words in my mouth while disparaging FOX News or Bill O'Reilly for doing the same thing.

In a debate, there is a difference between subtle, humorous jabs and character assassination. You, apparently, don't understand that difference. Now, I'm sure both you and Stern will post more articles and photos, and question my very humanity. I'm also sure that you feel very strongly about your beliefs. I also feel strongly about my beliefs. I ask you, which of us is right? Who is to say?