Replies: 72 comments
tried playing your clip, but instead i get an error msg that "file doesn't exist".
did you have to take it down after atrios linked to your site?
if anyone has a mirror, i'd love to know about it....
thanks!
Posted by selise @ 06/10/2004 12:45 PM CST
Are you getting hammered by Alterman's link? I can't convince the file to download.
Posted by Pacific John @ 06/10/2004 01:00 PM CST
The only nice thing that I can say about Missouri - they voted for a dead guy rather than vote Ashcroft into Congress. :o)
Posted by RecordGuy @ 06/10/2004 01:10 PM CST
I think Biden, Kennedy, Feinstein, Leahy, and even a couple repub, were sorta getting on old stump face. But Biden tore him a new ass . Kennedy was reading it out of the paper, and asskroff still would'nt budge. They should have gotten him on contempt charge's. I think these people think they don't have to answer to anyone. VOTE, and we as Americans can show them they are wrong.
Posted by Don @ 06/10/2004 01:11 PM CST
Its back up. My poor web host had to rename the file because it kept crashing the server.
Posted by skallas @ 06/10/2004 01:15 PM CST
Thanks! That was great. Biden got Pissed!
Posted by spocko @ 06/10/2004 01:29 PM CST
Dear Lord is that funny. Must start watching Stewart...
Posted by Chaz @ 06/10/2004 01:31 PM CST
Thank you very much for this.
Posted by Lis Riba @ 06/10/2004 01:58 PM CST
So, what's next for our illustrious John Mitchell-like Attorney General. I see a contempt of congress citation in his future.
What gall!!
Posted by Baron VonSlakenoff @ 06/10/2004 02:17 PM CST
I vote that we begin a letter writing campaign to Ashcroft's law school recommending that they revoke his diploma.
Posted by Robin @ 06/10/2004 03:02 PM CST
Jon Stewart is the sharpest political commentator in all of the media. If he can get out the vote, Amurika wins!
Posted by bigvic @ 06/10/2004 03:45 PM CST
Jon Stewart can cut through the spin/bullshit of bush politics like a warm knife through butter
Posted by bigvic @ 06/10/2004 03:49 PM CST
Just a note, the mimetype for the .torrent is set to AVI, when it should be set to plain ol' binary.
Posted by ah nawn @ 06/10/2004 04:30 PM CST
Situation 1: September 11, 2001. One of the 11 is in custody instead of one of the flights. He says nothing. Do you force him to talk, or protect his rights?
Situation 2: Suspicion of conspiracy to import and explode a dirty nuclear bomb in NYC. It may already be in the city. Suspect says nothing. Do you write legal briefs or force him to talk?
Posted by Dan Smith @ 06/10/2004 04:31 PM CST
Situation 1 and 2 answers:
Depends on if you want to be able to send the guy to prison afterwards, or let him walk.
Also, if the suspects in the situations above did not want to talk, you would be unlikely to "force" them to talk, or give useful information. The moral dilemma you pose is only troublesome if you have a guaranteed way to make someone tell the truth. We don't.
Posted by Alex @ 06/10/2004 04:37 PM CST
the lcip is up @ Daily Show website -- click my name
Posted by amanda @ 06/10/2004 04:39 PM CST
What!? Sodomizing people with Glow Sticks doesn't magically compel them to tell the truth??
There goes my worldview.
Posted by James @ 06/10/2004 04:39 PM CST
I love the paranoid fantasies the wingers come up with. Whats next "Sitation 3: You have a time machine, do you kill hitlers mother?!?!" Its the year 4000, Hitler's brain is loose! What do you do? What do you do?
First off, those "examples" are not wartime examples, which is what most of this all about. Not to mention they are fantasy, I'd like to see a citation other than a Hollywood movie where something like that has happened.
Secondly, real life examples include death camps and torture for kicks (think Germany and Japan) of our troops because of the breakdown of international laws.
Lastly, there are other methods of getting information out people (drugs, deals, coercion, etc) that are not torture but are effective.
Not to mention, a tortured person will eventually confess to anything, thus if implemented you now have some really bad intel which can lead to a system failure that's even worse than your half assed examples.
Posted by skallas @ 06/10/2004 04:45 PM CST
Biden is the man. This was the first time in a long time that the emotion of an interrogating panel member matched the gravity of the charges being leveled. If we had a whole team of Bidens, arrogant people like Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfield would probably be pissing their pants. Biden for president.
Posted by Ray @ 06/10/2004 04:49 PM CST
Just go to comedycentral.com
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/
'Finding Memo'
Posted by cjm @ 06/10/2004 04:54 PM CST
Ashcroft's only honorable option is to resign. He will never do this, so fire him . . . and his boss - on November 2nd.
Posted by Jim @ 06/10/2004 04:59 PM CST
The Comedy Central version stops short of the best parts.
Posted by jaybee @ 06/10/2004 05:57 PM CST
Situation 4: You're the dictator of a relatively small country that's been invaded by the United States. You capture 12 American soldiers. Do you force them to talk?
Of course, what Hussein did do was show the faces of the soldiers on Iraqi TV. The US press was outraged, calling the footage "vile", "uncivilized", and a violation of international law. Rumsfeld said, "Under the Geneva Convention it's illegal to do things with prisoners of war that are humiliating to those individuals"... I guess that's just a one-way thing.
Another important thing to remember when talking about how these terrorists don't deserve any legal protection: According to the Red Cross, the officers in charge of Abu Ghraib reported that 80%-90% of those arrested are found to be innocent of anything. Those being tortured are not necessarily terrorists, or even "insurgents". They're they people the US is supposedly bringing democracy to.
Posted by Tzoq @ 06/10/2004 06:10 PM CST
Wow...what to say? Well, Stewart is just plain awesome at making his point while making it hilarious and that's why I love the Daily Show. But even without his comments you can see the pure handing of the ass Ashcroft recieved which I'm glad he did. It's about damn time that we see Congress initiating their constitutional duty of keeping the executinve branch in check. I hope it continues until we can remove the puppet from office :)
Posted by SirG @ 06/10/2004 06:36 PM CST
and to think that ashcroft, good christian that he is, considers dancing sinful !!!!!!!!
but a flashlight up the forbidden highway is acceptable actions on prisoners......
Posted by MICHAEL @ 06/10/2004 06:40 PM CST
Thanks, Mike.
Posted by stavrosthewonderchicken @ 06/10/2004 07:01 PM CST
re: situations 1 and 2 above: this isn't like '24' where it was obvious that the white house chief of staff or whoever he was knew where to find the nuclear bomb. your perfect scenarios aren't what's happening. more like, scenario 1: you round up a whole bunch of people with guns in a foreign country where most everyone has guns. you figure they must be planning something awful because, well, just because. do you torture them?
the answer's obvious.
Posted by ANDREW @ 06/10/2004 07:17 PM CST
Dear Steve:
You (and others) are suggesting that there ar esituations in which torture would be ok.
What if you did know that this man has some part to play in the setting of a nuc in NYC? Is it ok then?
Is it never ok? Even when millions of people are at stake?
If it is ok, who decides when it's ok? An entertainer? Or someone who is not right there in the city?
I wonder if Stewart might feel differently if he lived in NYC? I wonder if he might think, in the above scenario, it's useful to do whatever is needed to get info? Especially if he can't get out in time.
Posted by Steve Dawson @ 06/10/2004 08:55 PM CST
"I wonder if Stewart might feel differently if he lived in NYC?"
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/community.jhtml
"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart tapes every Monday through Thursday at the Daily Show studios, located at 513 West 54th Street, New York City."
He was likely in the studio on 9/11 ;)
Posted by SirG @ 06/10/2004 09:06 PM CST
I can only assume that Steve Dawson is being funny. Otherwise, he's a complete idiot -- JON STEWART LIVES IN NEW YORK!
Posted by Angelike @ 06/10/2004 09:09 PM CST
Steve - do your homework. This is from Stewart's return to the Daily Show after 9/11:
"The view from my apartment was the World Trade Center (sniffs, long pause). And now it's gone. And they ATTACKED it. This SYMBOL of American ingenuity and strength and labor and imagination and commerce, and it is GONE. But you know what the view is now? The Statue of Liberty. The view from the south of Manhattan is now The Statue of Liberty. You can't beat that."
Posted by Niles Donegan @ 06/10/2004 09:12 PM CST
if you want to mirror it or need help with bandwidth you can have people download your original version here as well: http://www.angryfinger.org/archives/000344.html
thanks for sharing it!
Posted by jimmy mac @ 06/10/2004 09:47 PM CST
That has got to be the funniest thing I've seen in a while...
Posted by Sparky @ 06/10/2004 10:43 PM CST
Another mirror here: http://www.danielharan.com/resources/daily-show-ashcroft-memo(divx).avi
Posted by Daniel Haran @ 06/10/2004 10:50 PM CST
Surprisingly enough, I was able to run the clip, despite the fact I have a rather ancient, though wonderfully durable system: NT 4.0, Bld 1381, Svc Pk 6, which also happens to underlie (in software architecture) most any still-running NT4.0 or Windows after Win95; the key for me, I believe, is RealOne Player, from RealMedia, the best alternative to Windows Media...no problem recognizing or running the AVI file...
Posted by King David @ 06/10/2004 11:10 PM CST
In response to this post:
"Posted by Dan Smith @ 06/10/2004 04:31 PM CST"
My answer is this: maybe you are the terrorist. Maybe you have plans that we need to know about. Are you going to tell us the details or do we have to force it out of you?
Posted by Kerry @ 06/10/2004 11:46 PM CST
I think Biden said it best "There's a reason why we sign these treaties...so when American's are captured, they..are..not..tortured."
That's it. That's really all that needs to be said. I've been saying it since the pictures first emerged (no one listens to me, of course, I'm not a pundit or a politician)!
I mean, honestly, does anything else need to be said beyond that?
Posted by Tim-in-Houston @ 06/10/2004 11:49 PM CST
Just a thought: you can see this clip easier by going to www.comedycentral.com, clicking on The Daily Show and then clicking on the link...
Posted by Lawrence @ 06/11/2004 12:38 AM CST
No! That comedy central link ends before the best part!!!!
Posted by Andy @ 06/11/2004 02:04 AM CST
Fuck bush!!!Vote his out!
Posted by Bringer @ 06/11/2004 04:52 AM CST
To all of you folks that did not respond to the substantive part of Steve's message, only his mistake as to where Stewart lives, I'll repeat the questions. Perhaps you can answer them on the second go-round:
"You (and others) are suggesting that there are situations in which torture would be ok.
What if you did know that this man has some part to play in the setting of a nuc in NYC? Is it ok then?
Is it never ok? Even when millions of people are at stake?
If it is ok, who decides when it's ok? An entertainer? Or someone who is not right there in the city?"
Posted by Dan Smith @ 06/11/2004 08:15 AM CST
Dan Smith:
To answer your question: It's not OK to legalize torture. Nowhere, never, under no circumstance.
Would i (were i in that ludicrous scenario you built) apply torture? Sure, i would. And i would hope for a pardon, later. Nothing more.
But i would never endorse making torture legal.
Posted by Jaynes @ 06/11/2004 08:31 AM CST
"Is it never ok? Even when millions of people are at stake?"
It is *never* okay as a matter of government policy.
In the field, at an immediate moment for clearly defined reasons, there has *always* been practical leeway.
The criminals who run this administration want to normalize, legalize, and administer torture. That is unacceptable to anyone with a shade of moral sense.
Posted by Ed Bear @ 06/11/2004 08:33 AM CST
Sorry, correction: should have read: "...that ludicrous scenario Steve Dawson built"
Posted by Jaynes @ 06/11/2004 08:34 AM CST
An entertainer? Hey...wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor? Ya know, I'd put my life in Jon Stewart's hand over Reagan, Bush, hell any president in the past century. The guy's more knowledgable and on top of things - and even handed than any of those other clowns. And he's practically partisan-neutral.
The issue you're questioning here, Dan, is a valid one. But requires consideration of the consequences. "Is it never ok?" Millions of "innocent" people versus one towelhead's torture? While one can't put too much stock in root causes, the fact that innocent people are being tortured should answer that question for you. It's a slippery slope. And deciding who it's okay to torture and who isn't inevitably leads to greater crimes being committed including those in retaliation.
The end doesn't justify the means. Period. There's a good reason to have rules for war between civilizations. Otherwise, there is no civilization. And you can't say the "terrorists" aren't civilised when you don't even distinguish between terrorists and innocents when you're torturing them for information they may or may not have. It's a vicious circle.
Posted by Mike Hunt @ 06/11/2004 08:37 AM CST
Two words: red herring
Why do people who pose these hypothetical situations always assume that torture works, when all available evidence from the military and the intelligence organizations say that it doesn't work. In those situation lives would indeed be at stake, but I fail to see how torturing someone gets you the information you need.
Why will nobody address the obvious situation that torture is more likely to get you bad intel? The military and intelligence agencies have whole reports on how to interrogate people effectively. Torture is not in those reports as an effective tool.
"Torture is the canary in the coal mine. When your society starts seriously talking about torture, it means you've fucked up and become repressive." (via Unruled)
Posted by Pat @ 06/11/2004 08:38 AM CST
Jaynes: So as long as you don't officialyl say it's ok, as long as you don't create objective criteria for when it is and is not ok, it is perfectly fine for people in the field to make their own determinations?
I'd prefer more objective, written criteria, rather than seat-of-the-pants "it's ok if we don't officially write about it."
Posted by Dan Smith @ 06/11/2004 09:51 AM CST
So if you think there's something going down involving Muslims and you have, say, 200-300 Muslims under surveillance/consideration who may or may not be involved in terrorist-related activities, do you start torturing them all, on the chance that one of them might know something? How do you know when you've learned that critical piece of information to stop the [hundreds of thousands?] of people from being killed? Suppose you don't find out what you need? Do you think maybe there ISN'T anything going down, or do you round up another bunch of possibles?
In the real world, you don't know who REALLY has the information and whether anything REALLY is going to happen. Is it OK to torture everybody who MIGHT have information, because there's a real chance that there MIGHT be a major attack coming? Wouldn't that be all the time? Wouldn't that be a lot of people -- both American citizens and non-citizens? Who decides who's eligible for torture?
The whole subject is so sick -- especially when you argue bottom-line effectiveness as an argument against atrocity. When these conversations start taking place in public in this country, the terrorists have already won (at least a minor victory). On the other hand, it becomes clearer what kind of people we're dealing with. (I'm speaking of those within our own government -- not the terrorists.) A real wake-up call.
Posted by Fred Nicholson @ 06/11/2004 10:22 AM CST
Nope, you don't torture them all.
You question them all (sorry, ACLU) and, if you are pretty sure that someone *does* have information about a major terrorism incident about to blow, you SHOULD be able to get information out of the person, whatever it takes. You can then see if you were told the truth.
Personally, (and I'm sure in this vast company of liberals I am alone) I prefer the right to live for thousands or millions of people to the rights of one suspect on whom suspicion has well-focused.
Posted by Dan Smith @ 06/11/2004 10:43 AM CST
Wow, yet another republican shadow government like we had with Reagan. (big shocker) Ashcroft should be charged with contempt of Congress.
Better yet, let's vote these EVIL bastards out of office and send them back to only running their evil, anti-American corporations.
Posted by Cowicide @ 06/11/2004 12:10 PM CST
If Asscroft is allowed to get away with this, the system of checks and balances in our government is void, and we live in a monarchy.
Posted by Onion @ 06/11/2004 12:43 PM CST
It's incredible that Ashcroft can get away with this. Why hasn't he been charged with contempt of congress?
And here's a little something for the "torture works - let's use it" crowd:
Ashcroft and the military have kept hundreds of prisoners of all kinds locked up where the military and CIA can (clearly!) do anything they want. And by "anything", remember that there have been 35 uninvestigated, unexplained deaths among the prisoners in Iraq and Afganistan.
And EXACTLY how many people have been CHARGED and CONVICTED of terrorism as a result of all this tortuous information-gathering? NONE!!! Zip, zero, nada.
Posted by Bill @ 06/11/2004 01:27 PM CST
What I want to know is: why the hell isn't Ashcroft in jail right now for contempt of Congress? This is illegal, pure and simple, and there is NO basis for withholding the memo.
Posted by Steven @ 06/11/2004 01:28 PM CST
Dan Smith, you prefer the right to live for thousands or millions of people to the rights of one suspect on whom suspicion has well-focused.
OK, let's say there's an Arab country which the U.S. plans to attack. Thousands of Arab lives are at stake. They have well-focused suspicion that your son, who is a POW, has the information they need to save those lives. By your conservative logic, they are entitled to take the high moral ground and torture your son, right? Or am I missing something more nuanced in your position?
Posted by Gail @ 06/11/2004 01:50 PM CST
Here's the other part you don't hear anybody talking about. They keep saying that the (suspected) al quaida and (alledged) taliban prisoners are not entitled to the protections of the geneva convention because they are not members of the military of a signatory country. I did not realize that only signatory nations were entitled to the protections guaranteed by the conventions. Indeed, I always thought that becoming a signatory nation OBLIGATED you to providing the required protections to all participants in conflict, no mater who they are...
Posted by mikey @ 06/11/2004 04:59 PM CST
I think people need to recognise that there are degrees of coercion or "torture" if you prefer, and the memo in question is trying to determine what the boundaries are. Slicing off someone's ear is not the same as subjecting them to loud music. Depriving someone of sleep with long bouts of questioning under bright lights is not the same as raping and killing his wife in front of him. But people throw around the word torture around and say what the U.S. did in Abu Ghraib is equivalent to what Saddam did to his people. It's not. It's very easy to sit in your comfy living room and criticize soldiers halfway around the world for poor judgement, but if you were in a prison in a war zone, outnumbered by prisoners 30 to 1, mortered and attacked daily, reading reports of your fellow soldiers being killed and wanting to get info on the insurgency, and the day after two U.S. helicopters were shot down, there was a prison riot, and some prisoners attacked other prisoners, and one raped a younger male prisoner, perhaps you would not be the lily white moralists so many of you claim to be. I suspect many of the witty folks writing here would fall right into line. Read about Milgram's experiment, or the Stanford prison experiment. It's common human nature to abuse power. In no way am I trying to justify torture of prisoners, but people need to stop acting as if this is the first stain on a spotless American morality, and that we should all fall on our swords as a result. Punish the guilty and move on. In the Bosnian war Clinton unleashed a reign of terror bombing that knew no difference between civilian or military, and purposely aimed to destroy infastructure like water treatment and food distribution, to break the back of the Serb war machine. Not too many complaints then. I wonder why. Should we have given free reign to the Japanese in WWII to rape all of Asia over guilt about interning Japanese Americans? There need to be a sense of scale here. War is hell.
Posted by Scott @ 06/11/2004 11:54 PM CST
@ Dan Smith:
Maybe you should start asking yourself WHY anyone would want to fly an airliner into a building or blow himself up in a bus. Sure, in doctrination works as well on the Arab side as it does on the US side, and you look like a perfect example of this working.
If the US would show a little more humility, energy conservation and decent global citizenship, rather than try to manipulate the world and raise and fell despots at their will (the list of countries is endless), other people wouldn't feel so hostile against the US government and (now also) its citizen. The airliner attack and bus explosion unfortunately doesn't distinguish between good and bad Americans.
So, a little more soul-searching and asking the real questions, read: tackling the symptom rather than the cause, wouldn't go amiss. But then again: it's been on "their" agenda for a long time to make you afraid, very afraid, so that you hand over all your civil rights and liberties.
Another attack, and you'll be begging them to protect you even more - not realising how little they did protect you in the first place.
So there... All done by design. But among -what- 270+m people, there are enough suckers who fall for the government crap. Otherwise Bush would have never even become president.
Go figure.
Posted by Vuvuzela @ 06/12/2004 03:23 AM CST
@Jaynes, Ed Bear.
Makes me regain my belief in mankind and democracy to read such statements.
Posted by Olaf @ 06/12/2004 04:04 AM CST
There is no reason for torture ever. I think it would be interesting if some of the posters actually studied terrorism. If you did you would realize that the scenarios you pose are STUPID. There are better ways to attack someone then what you suggest and everybody probably knows them but you.
If you understood the problem then you would know that Bush aint the answer.
Posted by kcwook @ 06/12/2004 01:03 PM CST
I saw this on the daily show then tried to replay it on the comedy central site.
Guess what, they CUT BIDEN.
Posted by adapa @ 06/12/2004 01:45 PM CST
One of the increddibly sad facts in all of this is that torture is and has been part of American policy for quite some time now. So much so that there are at least two manuals (that we know of) written and used by our military ang intelligence agencies that are used to train both personel and foreign agents on how to extract information from captives through the use of torture.
Posted by qtp @ 06/12/2004 06:14 PM CST
"OK, let's say there's an Arab country which the U.S. plans to attack. Thousands of Arab lives are at stake. They have well-focused suspicion that your son, who is a POW, has the information they need to save those lives. By your conservative logic, they are entitled to take the high moral ground and torture your son, right? Or am I missing something more nuanced in your position? "
If I am someone living in that country, and I want to save thousands or millions of people, yes I have that right.
You, however, are trying to have me pretend to be BOTH a member of that country and the father of the son.
Can't do that.
As the father of the son, I would not only prefer that he not be tortured, but I'd like him to be released too.
But, nevertheless, if he knew exactly where a U.S. serviceman was about to blow up a nuclear bomb in Ridya, I wouldn't blame them too much for torturing him to find out where it is.
Again, the right to live for thousands or millions of people trumps one person's right not to be tortured for information.
Again, I suspect that if we had captured one of those about to fly a plane into WTC tomorrow, and we knew he had info, you'd be writing legal briefs instead of wringing the info out of him for tomorrow's WTC attack.
Posted by Dan Smith @ 06/13/2004 06:31 PM CST
If it is your position that torture is fine and dandy, great. Why can't these a-holes turn over the damn documents, come out of the closet and admit what they are doing. That it's not a couple "bad apples" and that this behavior was sactioned. Then we can have a democratic and open debate on that question, which they would lose because it puts OUR soldiers at risk. Nobody is against the soldiers genius, we want the people who gave the orders punished.
NO matter what you say, there is no justification for what we saw in this clip. You cannot go before congress and say "no I don't want to answer that". Some people are not "above the law". Taking cheap shots at the ever popular lawyers and boohoohooing about how hard it is to be a soldier is just more double-speak and straw men from those who would sweep this under the rug.
Let's see if these clowns have the balls to call him on this and actually charge his ass. I'm not holding my breath, but kudos to Stewart on this one.
Posted by Bushit @ 06/13/2004 07:29 PM CST
Then it's settled - we should torture Ashcroft until we find out where the memo is hidden.
:)
Posted by Matt @ 06/13/2004 09:49 PM CST
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire (1694-1778)
Posted by Robert Chandler @ 06/14/2004 06:00 PM CST
If there are so many lives at stake that a piece of information is worth torturing someone over, then surely it is also worth sacrificing the interrogator's career and reputation and freedom over, no?
Should a textbook case of ticking-bomb necessity ever arise, the solution doesn't require any change to existing law. Have the AG give an unlawful order, have the chain of command unlawfully relay it, have the torturer unlawfully carry it out, and then lock them all up as felons for the rest of their natural lives, and spit on their graves for decades afterwards. It's a small price, compared to the "last full measure of devotion" so many Americans have given.
And on the century mark, we can look back with the advantage of open archives, and perhaps rehabilitate them if the verdict of history turns that way. What more is needed?
Posted by Joshua W. Burton @ 06/14/2004 08:32 PM CST
What more is needed is common sense and objective criteria determined in advance, when such torture should be permissible.
This reminds me of the debate on abortion. It's fine to kill the fetus in the womb. It's fine to crush its skull and suction out its brain as it is being delivered, but God forbid you let it be delivered alive, but if you then touch a hair on its head, you have committed murder
Whatever happened to common sense?
Posted by Dan Smith @ 06/15/2004 06:46 PM CST
Abortion? Sheesh. Save it for another day, Dan.
Wacky premises aside... torture is not just morally wrong, it doesn't work. But it's a great way for the torturers to hear whatever they want to hear from the guy who is being tortured. That, and it violates both US and internat'l law.
Posted by Wedge @ 06/16/2004 05:05 PM CST
Torture works if you are very certain that the person has the information desired.
The reason torture very frequently does not work is because it is applied when there is relatively little certainty about the person having the information. Then, a person will say anything to stop the pain.
Most people, however, who do have the information, and know that spilling it will stop the torture, and know that it can be verified when revealed, will reveal under torture.
Therefore, under the scenario I gave, torture should be permitted and used.
Posted by Dan Smith @ 06/16/2004 08:30 PM CST
Watch out! Your clip just got Farked. If you were wise, you'd drop it for a few days.
Posted by Kat @ 06/17/2004 03:02 PM CST
Watch out! Your clip just got Farked. If you were wise, you'd drop it for a few days.
Posted by Kat @ 06/17/2004 03:14 PM CST
Yes, we should use torture. Who cares that Iraqi soldiers might not know anything about secrets of the former Iraqi government? And who cares that torture violates international law? And who cares that we'd certainly respond with righteous indignation should we discover enemy troops doing it to our soldiers?
Welcome to the land of hypocracy!
Posted by Keenan Wilkie @ 06/17/2004 06:56 PM CST
