Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Hardly a surprise that you can't distinguish between things that happen in reality and fiction -- that's the hallmark of your political movement -- but I'd like to know: who went to prison for what happened to Mohammed al-Qahtani described in the post, and all the other detainees at Guantanamo?-- GlennGreenwald
Club Gitmo? Nobody gets convicted of anything for pampering prisoners. Abu Ghraib on the other hand netted 11 convictions. Apparently you can't tell the difference between people that want to entertain, from people that want to kill.
On the other hand I could be wrong. Perhaps after this is all over, you could invite the Guantanamo jihadist crowd over for a showing of Max Hardcore's cinematic offerings. I have little doubt such an invitation from a gay American jew, would be accepted gleefully.
Dear Glenn,
All is not as it seems. True we have horribly abused whole nations but look what it has done for us in Iraq. It doesn't get a lot of press but those nice Iraqi puppets that we put in power are opening a museum of U.S. Occupation at Abu Grahib prison with full depictions of human torture. This will be a continuously maintained public venue. Now you simply cannot by that kind of press. Talk about winning hearts and minds.
Your article concerned me a little because under the brilliant legal interpretation here won't the depiction of the torture in the museum at the prison be a crime whereas the original act of the torture is considered legal? Boy oh boy, that one is enough to start a person to thinking.
And finally, when all these proud torturing "warriors" come home and they are asked what did you do in the war, what are they going to say. And when these same proud few sit in their darkened room with the whiskey bottle and the revolver on the table and it is now years after they have realized that their own government deceived them into voiding their humanity, what answer will they have for themselves. Will Yoo's legal opinion be enough?
Thank you for your good work.
Conrad C. Elledge
You go girl...
I'd call that "clearly degrading, clearly humiliating and intended to be so."
Guess that puts Salon in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 1465 and 2.
this one from a more reliable source?
http://archive.salon.com/health/sex/urge/2000/01/18/hustler/index.html
You are your own best argument against the mentality you represent. I hope you increase your "contributions" here.
this one from a more reliable source?
Source for what? If that sentence you and that other "source" put into quotation marks was in that article you linked to from Salon, I didn't see it. I don't enjoy reading all of that crap so I skimmed it as well as I could under the circumstances, and, as I said, I didn't see that supposed quote. Is it in there? If so, could you please narrow it down as to at least what page of the three page article it appears?
"Part of my strategy in my current legal battle with the government," is to take the offensive, and get the message out that we are outraged that the government would file against me in an attempt to shut me down and silence my voice because they don't agree with what I have to say. And going so far as to come up with outrageous lies, the number one lie being my movies portray severe violence towards women. I don't know what movie they were watching, but my movies have no severe violence in them of any kind, especially directed towards women. There's no hitting, there's no beating, there's no heavy choking. Of course there's spanking and light slapping and so forth, but far, far from what any reasonable person would conclude is severe violence. If they want to see severe violence towards women, all they have to do is turn on the television during primetime or go to the movies, and they are gonna see stuff that's a hundred times worse than anything I would do.
"So the only thing I can think of," Hardcore speculated, "is that they interpret me riding a girl like a crazed cowboy and spanking her ass as inflicting of severe violence towards them. And I can only conclude from that that, well, they just never had good sex before!"
Riding a girl like a crazed cowboy is not exactly what he's known for- and you would have to be a pretty hardcore submissive to like some of the acts I've read today. :/ Not that there aren't people like that out there, but I'm pretty sure he didn't bother to find them to use as film stars. He abuses people. Maybe they find the money worth it, maybe not. I agree that the military abuses people, too. I'm sure that not everyone that has been forced to kill or torture because they were in a war has wanted to do so. Or has not been traumatized because of it. Obviously some come back documentably traumatized. What I don't understand is why would one victimization be seen as legitimate and the other not?
no, that exact quote was only on that one site (that I could find) Evidently it's more of a line you tell your buddies than advertise with. Who'd a thunk it? :) If you bother to read the Salon article, the author does testify as to what he puts in his films and how they made her feel. I think it's worth slogging through, upsetting as it is.
George is running low on toilet paper...
What I don't understand is why would one victimization be seen as legitimate and the other not?
You do not recognize a monarchy?
If you bother to read the Salon article, the author does testify as to what he puts in his films and how they made her feel. I think it's worth slogging through, upsetting as it is.-- hyblaean
I slogged through it, and, as I suspected, the "quote" is not in there.
I'm not discussing that article or pornography or anything else with you. The only thing I am discussing with you is that you attributed a quote to someone and then used a source to prove the quote. The "source" you used was useless for obvious reasons: they put quotation marks around something someone else was supposed to have said, but there was no way that the reader could know if the quote was legit.
Then you apparently thought that if you used Salon to make your case then that was going to matter one wit. It doesn't matter because the Salon article is beside the point because your claim about the "quote" is not in the article.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
