Torture ?

[Funkmasterr]

I watched the congressional meeting the other day for only a few minutes where they mentioned the memo from bush's office about how it is ok to torture prisoners in war times. I know that they wouldnt turn the memo over to congress, but I didnt get to finish watching it, and haven't heard anything else since then. Anyone else got anymore info ?

[Kelshara]

Read about it in a few newspapers overseas.. they basically refuse to turn it over citing it as classified or some crap like that.

Reported at the same time was the fact that Rumsfeld OKed several interrogation methods, and like 7 (can't remember number can look it up) were not listed in the manual which works with the Geneva convention.

[Sionistic]

Funny thing was that congress was getting pissed because ashcroft wouldnt hand over the memos, but he wouldnt say why not. He didnt invoke anything he just refused. They were about to say he was in contempt of congress.
edit: wrong name

[Kylere]

The only funny thing about all this was when Biden jumped all over Ashcroft about how would he like to have someone who may serve overseas being threatened by all this ( because he has a guardsman nephew who is a truck driver, and has a small chance of being deployed.

So Ashcroft said, my son has already been there, and may go again.

Biden then sputtered, I bet his research person and support staff got burned for letting him try for a sound bit and blowing it that badly.

Don't get me wrong I think Ashcroft is creepy but Biden really made an ass of himself.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Where was their outrage when our contractors got burned and dismembered?

Where was there outrage when Nick Berg got his head cut off while they spewed their praise to Allah?

Where was their outrage when Daniel Pearl was murdered?

Where's their questioning of Geneva Convention policies?

They aren't playing by the rules, we shouldn't either. Also they aren't a member of the Geneva Convention, therefore the rules don't apply to them anyway. They aren't a military....they are fucking terrorists.

Wake up people.

[Aslanna]

Oh nos.. Midnyte invoked the Terrorist card!

We lose.

[Niffoni]

Where was their outrage when our contractors got burned and dismembered?

Where was there outrage when Nick Berg got his head cut off while they spewed their praise to Allah?

Where was their outrage when Daniel Pearl was murdered?

Ummmmm... Everywhere?

I don't know about you, but my igloo only gets 4 channels, and I'm pretty sure i recall some pretty pissed off people.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Where was their outrage when our contractors got burned and dismembered?

Where was there outrage when Nick Berg got his head cut off while they spewed their praise to Allah?

Where was their outrage when Daniel Pearl was murdered?

Ummmmm... Everywhere?

I don't know about you, but my igloo only gets 4 channels, and I'm pretty sure i recall some pretty pissed off people.

Do you really? Are you sure it wasn't outrage at the Bush Administration for us being there in the first place?

You couldn't have seen outrage at Geneva Convention violations. They don't BELONG to it. Don't you get it?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Oh nos.. Midnyte invoked the Terrorist card!

We lose.

Go fuck yourself Aslanna. Say something worthwhile instead of that bullshit.

[Aslanna]

Oh nos.. Midnyte invoked the Terrorist card!

We lose.

Go fuck yourself Aslanna. Say something worthwhile instead of that bullshit.

Nothing to say other than you're a fucking retard as you've proved over and over.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Why is it when I read Midnytes posts I begin to think that maybe the worst rednecks AREN'T here in Alabama.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Why is it when I read Midnytes posts I begin to think that maybe the worst rednecks AREN'T here in Alabama.

Because you aren't a very good judge of character?

[Kelshara]

Actually I think he did quite a good job there.

Personally I believe Midnyte is a terrorist and should be tortured until eh confesses!

[Zaelath]

Where was their outrage when our contractors got burned and dismembered?

Where was there outrage when Nick Berg got his head cut off while they spewed their praise to Allah?

Where was their outrage when Daniel Pearl was murdered?

Where's their questioning of Geneva Convention policies?

They aren't playing by the rules, we shouldn't either. Also they aren't a member of the Geneva Convention, therefore the rules don't apply to them anyway. They aren't a military....they are fucking terrorists.

Wake up people.

There was plenty of outrage in the public about all these events, and you have accepted the invasion of two countries primarly on (out)rage from 9/11. How much more outrage do you want?

The Geneva convention was about putting on paper what should be common decency in the civilised world, as we see it. If you really want to lower yourself to the lowest common denominator then you will lose the right to the outrage you are so fond of.

Don't forget, you live in a country so progressive that the last time you were in a world war you had no problem at all tossing anyone of asian descent into internment camps, yet you can act surprised that caucasians in Iraq are being killed.

Talk about "wake up".

[archeiron]

They aren't playing by the rules, we shouldn't either. Also they aren't a member of the Geneva Convention, therefore the rules don't apply to them anyway. They aren't a military....they are fucking terrorists.

Wake up people.

Do you think we should round up all the terrorists and herd them into camps? Maybe we could bring their families along, strip them all naked, shaved their heads and bodies, seperate them into male/female subcamps, and intern them for months on limited food. Wouldn't it be great to gather up groups of them at random and funnel them into a shower that was actually as gas chamber??!

I mean, yeah, it sounds kinda bad, but they are terrorists so it is ok, right???!! We can respond in kind when they are "really" bad guys, right???!! RIGHT???!


Then.... we could round up all the Americans who we think may be terrorists based upon their race and intern them in camps without legal recourse until the war on terror is over.




Fuck me, Midnyte. Weren't you taught common human decency? Don't you appreciate that it is BECAUSE they are terrorists that we have to REALLY pay attention to the rules? It is when things get really ugly that we remember to be civilized and decent, lest we unravel the decency of the country that we are "defending".

[Fredonia Coldheart]

They aren't playing by the rules, we shouldn't either. Also they aren't a member of the Geneva Convention, therefore the rules don't apply to them anyway. They aren't a military....they are fucking terrorists.

Wake up people.

Do you think we should round up all the terrorists and herd them into camps? Maybe we could bring their families along, strip them all naked, shaved their heads and bodies, seperate them into male/female subcamps, and intern them for months on limited food. Wouldn't it be great to gather up groups of them at random and funnel them into a shower that was actually as gas chamber??!

I mean, yeah, it sounds kinda bad, but they are terrorists so it is ok, right???!! We can respond in kind when they are "really" bad guys, right???!! RIGHT???!


Then.... we could round up all the Americans who we think may be terrorists based upon their race and intern them in camps without legal recourse until the war on terror is over.




Fuck me, Midnyte. Weren't you taught common human decency? Don't you appreciate that it is BECAUSE they are terrorists that we have to REALLY pay attention to the rules? It is when things get really ugly that we remember to be civilized and decent, lest we unravel the decency of the country that we are "defending".

Very well said!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Not well said at all. He blew it way out of purportion. Don't be so fanatical Farmer Arch. Not everything needs to be taken to extremes. Please try and be slightly more rational. No sane person wants to re-visit the autrocities(sp?) of the Death Camps. What has happened in Gitmo, Abu Graibe in no way can compare. Making those correlations are monumentaly stupid and completely undermine the discussion at hand.

[archeiron]

Premise #1: Our righteous indignation must be supported by the unshakable decency of our actions.

We bear the torch of liberty and freedom with pride in times of peace. We are judged now and will continue to be judged for some time in the future by how well we conduct ourselves during strenuous events. Our claims to that torch will be founded on conduct when dealing with people who do not play by the rules.


Premise #2: The ends do not justify the means.

If during the defense of freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all we sacrifice freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all, then what are we fighting for? If we are fighting based upon simple survival instincts, then (1) we are no better than animals without the capacity for reasoning and logic, (2) we are attacking a nation that represented no immediate or direct threat to the survival of America as a nation, and (3) we have failed to ensure the survival of our nation because we have ourselves sacrificed that which we hold most dear.


In response to these premises, I will expect logical and direct responses from you, Midnyte.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I see no question in there. Who's premises are those? Where do they come from?

[archeiron]

I see no question in there. Who's premises are those? Where do they come from?

They are yours to discredit with logic and eloquent discourse; their origin was my keyboard as it appears that hyperbole was not to your liking, so I will start anew. I am offering a playing field on which to discuss the validity of your claim that we can treat terrorists any way we want.

p.s. if it is not evident, those premises can be used as a foundation for an argument as to why we must follow the Geneva Conventions. I am assuming that you understand that to undermine a logical construct you must either find internal contradiction, or discredit the assumptions. I will begin by asserting those assumptions, which after refinement, I will use to constructive a logical framework free of contradiction to prove my point. You job is find contradiction and use logic to refute any assumptions I use. I assume that you will steer clear of arguing infinite regression crap in discussion of the assumptions because we are considering politics the field of discussion not abstract philosophy.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Premise #1: Our righteous indignation must be supported by the unshakable decency of our actions.

I would agree. I don't see your point though. Only the fanatics are putting forth the suggestions that our military philosophies in any way are similar to the grotesque actions of those soldiers who abused the Iraqi prisoners.

Premise #2: The ends do not justify the means.

I disagree. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. But again what is your point to this? Whose actions are you saying aren't justified?

[archeiron]

Premise #1: Our righteous indignation must be supported by the unshakable decency of our actions.

I would agree. I don't see your point though. Only the fanatics are putting forth the suggestions that our military philosophies in any way are similar to the grotesque actions of those soldiers who abused the Iraqi prisoners.

Premise #2: The ends do not justify the means.

I disagree. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. But again what is your point to this? Whose actions are you saying aren't justified?

We are a nation of laws, correct? (The question is rhetorical. We are a nation of laws).

In the defense of order and law, we are extraordinarily careful not to allow the defenders (e.g. police) to break those laws; hence, we have Miranda rights, reasonable doubts, and due process.

Due process states that "..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . "

The essense of this constitutional amendment is that the government must abide by its own laws and process to enforce laws upon any person. This reference to any person does not specifically reference whether this person must be an American citizen or not.

At the core of this amendment, the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is arguing that the government must not break the law in order to uphold it. This would suggest that the US Constitution as a body does not support the notion of the "ends justifying the means".

As a result, I would argue that as a nation we must either (a) accept that the ends do NOT justify the means, or (b) change our constitution so that it agrees with our acceptance. I am inclined to the former, incidentally.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note the transition in the second sentence, second & third clauses, from citizen (as described in the first) to "any person".


Essentially, I would argue that this suggests that US Constitution should be applied fairly and equally to any person falling under the jurisdiction of our laws regardless of nationality.

I suspect that the Supreme Court may one day throw out some of the clauses of the Patriot Act as being unconstitutional.


The point is that the US Constitution which we both hold dear establishes a set of principles for how we must govern and pass judgement. If we violate those principles in defense of our nation, we are saying to ourselves and the world that we do not hold them dear as principles by which everyone should live, but only as something to follow some of the time for some people. That violates the most basic tenants of democracy.

I do not want our government to be a "Fair weather friend" to our own Constitution and principles of freedom and justice. We must uphold our own principles in the face of those who violate them in order to preserve them.

Hence, in upholding the law we must abide by it. Or using the same principle applied to terrorists, we must uphold the Geneva Conventions even against those who ignore them in order to preserve the sanctity of our sense of freedom and justice for all.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

All sounds good. You're preaching to the choir. Those soldiers who did those things are being punished. I just don't see your point.

[archeiron]

All sounds good. You're preaching to the choir. Those soldiers who did those things are being punished. I just don't see your point.

If you accept all of the above (which you are now quoted as doing so), then

(1) it would self contradictory for you to support that "the ends justify the means"

(2) it would be difficult to argue that, and I quote:

They aren't playing by the rules, we shouldn't either. Also they aren't a member of the Geneva Convention, therefore the rules don't apply to them anyway. They aren't a military....they are fucking terrorists.

because it is entirely irrelevant whether or not anyone else plays by our rules. We would like everyone to eventually adopt some subset of our rules and basic principles. As a result, we must demonstrate how in the face of evil our rules still apply. We must be a model for how fair, just governance can be conducted.


There is more to come, if you accept this far!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Arch, I was agreeing to the statement "the ends justify the means." I believe sometimes the ends justify the means. If you are specifically askign if torture is an important tool used by a military to extract information? Yes, I believe it is, always has been, and always will be. Is it pretty? Hell no. It is repulsive the way human beings treat eachother. If the torture of a man reveals information which stops a plot to kill thousands, then I suppose I can accept that.

It is a fact that terrorists aren't part of the Geneva Convention. Iti s a fact that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them. That is all I said.

Interesting article as well...

State Dept. Cautioned White House on Torture

Friday, June 11, 2004



WASHINGTON — The State Department warned the White House two years ago that rejecting international standards against torture when dealing with detainees could put U.S. troops at risk.

A department memo from Feb. 2, 2002, surfaced Thursday as President Bush said he ordered U.S. officials to follow the law while interrogating suspected terrorists. Bush sidestepped an opportunity to denounce the use of torture.

"What I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law," Bush told reporters at the close of the G-8 summit in Georgia.

Asked whether torture is ever justified, Bush replied, "Look, I'm going to say it one more time. ... The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you."

The memo followed recommendations from the Justice Department advising the president he could suspend international treaties prohibiting torture. It warned that failing to apply the Geneva Conventions to detainees from the war in Afghanistan — whether Al Qaeda or Taliban — would put U.S. troops at risk.

"A decision that the conventions do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan in which our armed forces are engaged deprives our troops there of any claim to the protection of the convention in the event they are captured," State Department legal adviser William H. Taft IV wrote in the 2002 memo to presidential counsel.

Furthermore, refusing Geneva standards to detainees "weakens protections afforded by the conventions to our troops in future conflicts," Taft wrote. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the memo.

The Justice Department also told the White House that U.S. laws against torture do not apply to the fight against terrorism. The department memos say torture "may be justified" against Al Qaeda detainees in U.S. custody abroad and laws and treaties barring torture could be trumped by the president's supreme authority to act as necessary in wartime.

Bush said Thursday he does not recall seeing any of the Justice Department advice.

Democrats say that by suggesting that Bush could legally authorize torture, the memos would have lain the legal foundation for Iraqi prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

In its memo, the State Department also advised that following Geneva standards "demonstrates that the United States bases its conduct not just on its policy preferences, but on its international legal obligations."

Five days after the State Department memo was written, Bush decided the Geneva Conventions apply to Taliban prisoners but not to captured Al Qaeda terrorists.

The Bush administration has said that even though it does not believe the Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners in the war on terror, it has complied with the treaty's guidelines.

[Kelshara]

Bush said Thursday he does not recall seeing any of the Justice Department advice.

Shocker.

[archeiron]

Arch, I was agreeing to the statement "the ends justify the means." I believe sometimes the ends justify the means. If you are specifically askign if torture is an important tool used by a military to extract information? Yes, I believe it is, always has been, and always will be. Is it pretty? Hell no. It is repulsive the way human beings treat eachother. If the torture of a man reveals information which stops a plot to kill thousands, then I suppose I can accept that.

It is a fact that terrorists aren't part of the Geneva Convention. Iti s a fact that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them. That is all I said.

Interesting article as well...

State Dept. Cautioned White House on Torture

Friday, June 11, 2004



WASHINGTON — The State Department warned the White House two years ago that rejecting international standards against torture when dealing with detainees could put U.S. troops at risk.

A department memo from Feb. 2, 2002, surfaced Thursday as President Bush said he ordered U.S. officials to follow the law while interrogating suspected terrorists. Bush sidestepped an opportunity to denounce the use of torture.

"What I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law," Bush told reporters at the close of the G-8 summit in Georgia.

Asked whether torture is ever justified, Bush replied, "Look, I'm going to say it one more time. ... The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you."

The memo followed recommendations from the Justice Department advising the president he could suspend international treaties prohibiting torture. It warned that failing to apply the Geneva Conventions to detainees from the war in Afghanistan — whether Al Qaeda or Taliban — would put U.S. troops at risk.

"A decision that the conventions do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan in which our armed forces are engaged deprives our troops there of any claim to the protection of the convention in the event they are captured," State Department legal adviser William H. Taft IV wrote in the 2002 memo to presidential counsel.

Furthermore, refusing Geneva standards to detainees "weakens protections afforded by the conventions to our troops in future conflicts," Taft wrote. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the memo.

The Justice Department also told the White House that U.S. laws against torture do not apply to the fight against terrorism. The department memos say torture "may be justified" against Al Qaeda detainees in U.S. custody abroad and laws and treaties barring torture could be trumped by the president's supreme authority to act as necessary in wartime.

Bush said Thursday he does not recall seeing any of the Justice Department advice.

Democrats say that by suggesting that Bush could legally authorize torture, the memos would have lain the legal foundation for Iraqi prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

In its memo, the State Department also advised that following Geneva standards "demonstrates that the United States bases its conduct not just on its policy preferences, but on its international legal obligations."

Five days after the State Department memo was written, Bush decided the Geneva Conventions apply to Taliban prisoners but not to captured Al Qaeda terrorists.

The Bush administration has said that even though it does not believe the Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners in the war on terror, it has complied with the treaty's guidelines.

Actually, you stated that you agreed to the long post on The Constitution.

All sounds good. You're preaching to the choir. Those soldiers who did those things are being punished. I just don't see your point.

Are you now refuting that agreement?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Allow me to cut and paste what I just said. I'm quite certain you are smart enough to figure it out if you read it again.

Arch, I was agreeing to the statement "the ends justify the means." I believe sometimes the ends justify the means. If you are specifically askign if torture is an important tool used by a military to extract information? Yes, I believe it is, always has been, and always will be. Is it pretty? Hell no. It is repulsive the way human beings treat eachother. If the torture of a man reveals information which stops a plot to kill thousands, then I suppose I can accept that.

[archeiron]

Premise #1: Our righteous indignation must be supported by the unshakable decency of our actions.

I would agree. I don't see your point though. Only the fanatics are putting forth the suggestions that our military philosophies in any way are similar to the grotesque actions of those soldiers who abused the Iraqi prisoners.

Premise #2: The ends do not justify the means.

I disagree. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. But again what is your point to this? Whose actions are you saying aren't justified?

We are a nation of laws, correct? (The question is rhetorical. We are a nation of laws).

In the defense of order and law, we are extraordinarily careful not to allow the defenders (e.g. police) to break those laws; hence, we have Miranda rights, reasonable doubts, and due process.

Due process states that "..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . "

The essense of this constitutional amendment is that the government must abide by its own laws and process to enforce laws upon any person. This reference to any person does not specifically reference whether this person must be an American citizen or not.

At the core of this amendment, the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is arguing that the government must not break the law in order to uphold it. This would suggest that the US Constitution as a body does not support the notion of the "ends justifying the means".

As a result, I would argue that as a nation we must either (a) accept that the ends do NOT justify the means, or (b) change our constitution so that it agrees with our acceptance. I am inclined to the former, incidentally.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note the transition in the second sentence, second & third clauses, from citizen (as described in the first) to "any person".


Essentially, I would argue that this suggests that US Constitution should be applied fairly and equally to any person falling under the jurisdiction of our laws regardless of nationality.

I suspect that the Supreme Court may one day throw out some of the clauses of the Patriot Act as being unconstitutional.


The point is that the US Constitution which we both hold dear establishes a set of principles for how we must govern and pass judgement. If we violate those principles in defense of our nation, we are saying to ourselves and the world that we do not hold them dear as principles by which everyone should live, but only as something to follow some of the time for some people. That violates the most basic tenants of democracy.

I do not want our government to be a "Fair weather friend" to our own Constitution and principles of freedom and justice. We must uphold our own principles in the face of those who violate them in order to preserve them.

Hence, in upholding the law we must abide by it. Or using the same principle applied to terrorists, we must uphold the Geneva Conventions even against those who ignore them in order to preserve the sanctity of our sense of freedom and justice for all.

Please respond to this quote, your response to it seems to suggest that you agree with the contents.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

On the record sure I do and so does The President and every other government official. Off the record, as I said before, it is a vital tool, has always been used and will continue to be used. What's your point?

[archeiron]

On the record sure I do and so does The President and every other government official. Off the record, as I said before, it is a vital tool, has always been used and will continue to be used. What's your point?

Still not a response to the quoted text. I haven't reached torture yet, I want you to refute or support the quoted text two posts up.


I do not bash you like some of the people here. I do not think you are mentally handicapped, incredibly stupid, or anything else that they do. I do think that you aren't very good at expressing yourself in a consistent clear manner. I also think that you are bad about jumping from point to point without clear direction.

Hence, the insistence on clear direction and focus on details.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Sure, I will recognize it. I don't necessarily support it, but I'll recognize it. Go on.

[archeiron]

Sure, I will recognize it. I don't necessarily support it, but I'll recognize it. Go on.

What don't you support and why? (I am legitimately curious)

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Just continue to make your point please Arch.

[archeiron]

Just continue to make your point please Arch.

No, thank you. If you won't refute the starting assumption but intend to refute the conclusions, it is a waste of my time to discuss it. I don't really agree with your seeming blanket support for Bush, and I don't feel that the way you and Adex label everyone as ultra-liberal Bush-bashers for discussion the facts to be distasteful, but I am not a liberal Democratic anti-war hippy with frivolous fluffy ideas as a result.


It has been said (I am not infering this of you, specifically!) that you shouldn't argue with an idiot because they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

In that way, I won't argue politics by jumping from A to B to X to D to E while losing the whole thread of what is being argued.

Thank you for the responses, Mid.

Sorry for monopolizing the thread, everyone!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Just continue to make your point please Arch.

No, thank you. If you won't refute the starting assumption but intend to refute the conclusions, it is a waste of my time to discuss it. I don't really agree with your seeming blanket support for Bush, and I don't feel that the way you and Adex label everyone as ultra-liberal Bush-bashers for discussion the facts to be distasteful, but I am not a liberal Democratic anti-war hippy with frivolous fluffy ideas as a result.

Just an FYI. I would gladly vote out Bush for someone better. Someone better is not running. Nothing I can do about that. As discussed on another thread, if McCain was running on a third party ticket, he would have my vote.

[archeiron]

Just continue to make your point please Arch.

No, thank you. If you won't refute the starting assumption but intend to refute the conclusions, it is a waste of my time to discuss it. I don't really agree with your seeming blanket support for Bush, and I don't feel that the way you and Adex label everyone as ultra-liberal Bush-bashers for discussion the facts to be distasteful, but I am not a liberal Democratic anti-war hippy with frivolous fluffy ideas as a result.

Just an FYI. I would gladly vote out Bush for someone better. Someone better is not running. Nothing I can do about that. As discussed on another thread, if McCain was running on a third party ticket, he would have my vote.

*nods* I will vote against Bush in this election after having opted not to vote for the past one out of disgust.

I am a little too afraid of a Patriot Act II, a war with Syria, an unavoidable draft that my 18 year old brother can't avoid from college, a possible overturning of Roe Vs. Wade, etc to see Bush stay in office.

[Kelshara]

Game, Set... Match! Arch!

[Kylere]

I really do not think we will ever see Roe v Wade overturned. Of course the "War on Drugs" is about equally ignorant to such a concept, sigh

Overturn Roe v Wade and there will be a unqualified, untrained amateur ready to do it for 50 bucks in the nearest crack house that the police are afraid to, or not funded enough to raid,

Great, something else for our cops to fight a losing battle against. If Roe v Wade is overturned, I am looking for a new country to live in.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Game, Set... Match! Arch!

It's not a competition....it's a discussion. Once you get that you will be much better off. Arch and I are friends for over 4 years. We have been busting on eachother in game and out of game for just as long. Arch is a good man with a great big heart. I have and will always respect his opinion. So in my eyes we both win.