Still Hating America.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Because it's boring.

Got to be more exciting than the endless dribble about firing the AGs, no?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Uh, it took until the 3rd website (NYT, Fox I struck out on) to find the story. Apparently some soldiers in disputed waters. Iranian or Iraqi territory? Unsettled. There are talks.

Club, can you kind of set out what there is to discuss?

I too hope the British soldiers are released, and I also hope they weren't actually spying.

Fringey, I don't think you're giving this story the critical eye it deserves.

The British soldiers (the good guys) are in the hands of Iranian government officials (the bad guys) and unspeakable things could be happening to them. This constitutes a potential Escalation to Nuclear Brinksmanship that neconservatives have been drooling over for months now. The Blogosphere is quivering in anticipation.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Fringey, I don't think you're giving this story the critical eye it deserves.

The British soldiers (the good guys) are in the hands of Iranian government officials (the bad guys) and unspeakable things could be happening to them. This constitutes a potential Escalation to Nuclear Brinksmanship that neconservatives have been drooling over for months now. The Blogosphere is quivering in anticipation.

Oh. Oh dear. How long have they been held so far? Why isn't this front-page news on foxnews.com?

ETA I found it on fox's "World" page; it seems to be the same AP article as is on CNN.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Got to be more exciting than the endless dribble about firing the AGs, no?

Monica Goodling.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Got to be more exciting than the endless dribble about firing the AGs, no?

It is sad that Tony Snow's cancer is back.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The British soldiers (the good guys) are in the hands of Iranian government officials (the bad guys) and unspeakable things could be happening to them. This constitutes a potential Escalation to Nuclear Brinksmanship that neconservatives have been drooling over for months now. The Blogosphere is quivering in anticipation.

If Iran thinks they may have been spying, is Iran morally justified in torturing them to learn more?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Iran thinks they may have been spying, is Iran morally justified in torturing them to learn more?

I believe that Spanky view was the Iran would be morally required to torture them if it would help save innocent lives. So, basically, if they think British or American troop are soon to bomb or invade, then yeah, Spanky would seem to argue that torture is a-okay.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Iran thinks they may have been spying, is Iran morally justified in torturing them to learn more?

Take Your Pick:

(a) Yes, because the Iranians are facing threats such as the world has never, ever seen before, so morality is a quaint concept reserved for the suicidally naive.

(b) No, because the Iranians are part of the Axis of Evil and an enemy of the US (despite their useful cooperation post-9/11 right up until that State of the Union address).

(c) No, because torture is wrong.

(d) Only if the Brits are "enemy combatants."

S_A_M

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Iran thinks they may have been spying, is Iran morally justified in torturing them to learn more?

They're going straight to the Iranian version of Camp Cupcake, the lucky bastards.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

So apparently the Supreme Court has decided that Bush v. Gore does have precedential value after all.

etfs

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So apparently the Supreme Court has decided that Bush v. Gore does have precedential value after all.

etfs

There was a lot of stuff on that page. Which part were you referring to?

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
Take Your Pick:

(a) Yes, because the Iranians are facing threats such as the world has never, ever seen before, so morality is a quaint concept reserved for the suicidally naive.

(b) No, because the Iranians are part of the Axis of Evil and an enemy of the US (despite their useful cooperation post-9/11 right up until that State of the Union address).

(c) No, because torture is wrong.

(d) Only if the Brits are "enemy combatants."

S_A_M

You forgot:

(e) Clearly no, because while moonbats on the Left and in Europe are willing to extend the scope of the Geneva Convention to cover things like "enemy combatants" and the "belly slap"- we really don't give a fuck about the actual soldiers in the field that the treaty was designed to protect.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
There was a lot of stuff on that page. Which part were you referring to?

The link was to the first item:

• "We emphasize that our holding is limited to the unique procedural circumstances presented here." So writes Justice Clarence Thomas in holding that U.S. Supreme Court review was sought in a timely manner, rather than too late, in the case of Limtiaco v. Camacho, No. 06-116, decided today. Although the Justices divided on other issues, the Court's ruling was unanimous on the timeliness issue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
we really don't give a fuck about the actual soldiers in the field that the treaty was designed to protect

It's a pleasure to find a conservative so candid about the downside of torture. "Support our troops" indeed.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
There was a lot of stuff on that page. Which part were you referring to?

I couldn't get past the all-too-clever (ie. moronic) article about the "fair use" doctrine preventing the use of irritating pop music during terrorist interrogations.