DrDNA

I think that we should worry about it because they do it. Is that not reason enough? I believe that this statement is correct. However, how does this validate, if I may use term, 'real torture'; including, extreme forms of torture, or even relatively less extreme forms of torture, or any act that Geneva, The UN Convention or US Military law clearly define as torture? By the way, iNow, The Bear's Key, others (sorry I left some out), and I have presented not only our opinions, but also a lot of FACTUAL information to support our stances against torture; including, but not limited to my posts referencing, -several Articles in the Geneva Conventions that define and ban torture, -several articles of The UN Convention Against Torture that define and ban torture, -US Military law that that define and bans torture torture, -death tolls in wars fought to protect human rights and dignity, and -statements by officials in the Bush administration (including the Assistant Attny General and Press Secretary) that condemn torture and define it as "in accordance with the Geneva Conventions or under the spirit of the Conventions where they do not apply such". Does the opposing view (ie, those that support torture) have ANY 'facts' or 'scientifically proven data' to support their argument that torture should be permitted? I'm looking at a lot of opinion here but "Where's the beef?" If I missed any, please forgive me (and please point me to it).

Good for him. He went out (finally) on a good note.

Uh oh. The 2nd was my # 1 source of apprehension when I pulled the trigger in the booth for Mr Obama. I wonder how you make a gun "childproof". Is this just referring to "childproof" locks, such as the ones that currently exist or is it something else? For example does anyone know if it is intended to refer to some, as yet not invented, technology that renders the firearm useless after it has been unholstered and, then, the firearm becomes active immediately when I go from yellow to red and shoot the perp (3 in the chest, followed by 1 in the groin and 2 in the head)? "War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." Mao

""Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “U.S. flag-rank officers maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq–as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat–are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.” We owe it to our troops to protect them from terrorist attacks by not conducting torture and we owe it to our forefathers to uphold the American principles that they passed down to us."" The American Public has a Right to Know That They Do Not Have to Choose Between Torture and Terror”: Six questions for Matthew Alexander, author of How to Break a Terrorist http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004036 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAmerican Revolutionary War 1775-1783 US Total Killed 25,435 US Wounded 4,435 World War One 1914-1918 US Mobilized 4,734,991 US Killed 53,402 (combat) 63,114 (non-combat) US Wounded 204,002 US POW/Missing 3,973 / 3,350 US Total Casualties 364,800 World War II 1937 — 31 Dec 1946 Total US Mobilized 16,112,566 + 215,000 Merchant Marines US Killed 404,997 US Wounded 670,846 Remaining US MIA 78,000 Korean War 25 Jun 1950 — 27 Jul 1953 US Mobilized 5,720,000 US Killed 54,246 US Wounded 103,240 Vietnam / South East Asia 4 Aug 1964 — 29 Mar 1973 US Mobilized 8,744,000 US Killed 58,253 US Wounded 53,303 "Operation Desert Storm" - 1991 17 Jan 1991 — 11 Apr 1991 US Mobilized 540,000 US killed 269 "Afganistan" - November 2001 - Present Day US Casualties 5582 "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - March 2003 - December 2008 US Casualties 35,143 What for?? http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml (I didn't intend to slight the significant contributions of other countries here)

Bingo. That's exactly the problem as I see it. We're not talking toasters here and it's not a TV show. And no, I don't have any faith in the professional torturers. I seriously doubt that they have "the truth the real truth and nothing but the truth", my, your, or anyone elses' best interests, but their own at heart. I'm sure that they are quite good in their chosen field of endeavor, but we are talking professional torturers here.

I'm pretty sure that this is how it works (and has worked for centuries): You ask me questions. I don't tell you anything. You hurt me. I don't tell you anything. You hurt me some more. You continue to hurt me until I tell you what you want to hear. You give your report, filled with all the made-up crap I told you so you would stop hurting me, to your superior officer and everybody (but me) is happy. Meanwhile, Bin Laden sits comfortably in his cave in the mountains somewhere between Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don't see anything evolutionary in it at all. But the 3 tried and true proven methods to get anything out of anybody is sex (if it is a male), cash, and cash. Sorry Para. I was editing out the rock science part when you were (obviously) posting. I should have left it alone. To everyone else: What I edited was: It isn't evolutionary and it isn't rock science.

??? all you have to do is [ctrl] c, [ctrl] v I believe that it is somewhat well accepted that something catastrophic happened 12,000-15,000 years ago. I have even seen evidence and speculation about possible causes presented on one of the science-related shows the tele. And your references do not conflict with that. What I don't get is how you extrapolated that to conclude that a series of impacts occurred at a specific geographical location (Marshal Alabama). Maybe the resolution is bad, or I need a new monitor, but I don't see it in your image either. Like looking at the stars, if you look at Google Maps long and hard enough, you'll anything that you want to see......maybe I'm missing something......

Destroyed jet engine due to bird strike. Aircraft on takeoff phase, 50 ft. AGL, 140 knots. View of Fan blades of JT8D Jet engine after a bird strike

It means that this is the convention's definition of Torture. The part you left off means that the current US administration has publicly stated that it will adhere to this definition and to the spirit of the convention. It is what it is. I'm not in love with it. But to be perfectly honest with you, I think that it is attractive and I kind of like it. I just wish that the Gov would say what they mean and then do what they say. It seems contradictory; don't you agree?

I would too. Absolutely and without any reservation. But if I did it, I would knowingly and willingly accept the ramifications of my actions and be held responsible for those actions (assuming I was dumb enough to get caught). Is the government permitting, organizing, colluding, conspiring, allowing, ordering, condoning, encouraging, or performing the act the same thing as you or me doing it?

By strict definition, photosynthesis takes photons and CO2 and converts these into organic compounds (such as sugar) by 'fixing' the CO2....usually, but not always, liberating O2 in the process. So, I suppose that "hypothetically", any system that is able convert EM radiation (for example visible light, radio waves, microwaves, infrared and ultraviolet light, X-rays, gamma-rays, etc) into chemical energy might be used for the same or a 'similar' purpose. For example, ""Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of photons, which are mass-less particles each traveling in a wave-like pattern and moving at the speed of light. Each photon contains a certain amount (or bundle) of energy, and all electromagnetic radiation consists of these photons. The only difference between the various types of electromagnetic radiation is the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwaves have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared has still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and ... the most energetic of all ... gamma-rays."" http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/emspectrum.html

I don't believe that your statement is correct. Not according to an agreement that we were a party to and bound by: CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment The States Parties to this Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms, Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)), Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world, Have agreed as follows: Part I Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. Continues............. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Also......... US revises definition of torture By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen, Washington Post | January 1, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/01/us_revises_definition_of_torture/ ''It has been US policy from the start to treat detainees humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions or under the spirit of the Conventions where they do not apply," said White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy. In the new memo, Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish. His opinion is meant, according to its language, to undermine any notion that those who conduct harmful interrogations may be exempt from prosecution.

No. If you are referring to Night vision (some night vision anyway), it just detects radiation in the infrared spectrum. Most types of night vision just multiply photons with an amplifying tube (Gen1 Russian Technology does anyway). Some also have an IR illuminator which is like a flashlight to help in completely dark situations, where there are very few photons around to amplify. Infrared radiation, which is not visible to the naked eye is often given off by warm objects and this can be detected. Wiki actually has a pretty good article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

From your wiki link: "the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." " Is this the section or part that you are referring to? Does anyone know what the legal definitions of a 'Power' and 'the Powers who are parties' actually are and how these definitions might or might not be applicable to a gang of thugs waging Jihad? In other words is a terrorist organization actually a "Power"? Similarly, did the US government ever formally classify the KKK as a "Power"? ......or the Black Panthers?....or the Weathermen? I seriously doubt it, but admit that I really don't know for sure. So, if they did not classify them as a 'Power', it seems like some Judicial branch of the US (ie, Supreme Court) or a World Court would rule against Al Queda being classified as such. In other words then there should be no legal precedent to legally permit this activity to occur. I realize that this is the loophole that this mess is all about. But I still don't believe that the portion of the Geneva Conv above was intended to apply to anything other than a "country". Also, this is just one small part of the Geneva Conv and, as quoted in my previous post, we also have US Laws plus The UN Convention Against Torture, which we are a party to also, and bound by.

This is the reference I used http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/do.../usint8614.htm If any one has a better one, I'd be interested in reading it also (unless they are the entire documents)

I intended for my comments about the Constitution to to be taken in the context of this: I'm sorry if that was not clear. I thought I was clear, but maybe it was off topic. But, to be precisely on topic, did you read my earlier post (above) quoting several Articles in the Geneva Convention(s), in the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishments (both of which we have signed) and US laws which ban torture? In case you did not; I encourage you to. The information was enlightening to me and goes against what I had previosuly read and heard, for example on "right" leaning radio and TV. I'd like to see your comments after you read it in detail. But here is a snippet for you: Our own War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. *Article 75 (1977) of Geneva states that "even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by “fundamental guarantees”. Specifically, it prohibits “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.” I also refer you to the details of some of the other relevant Articles of the Geneva Conv listed above. One must conclude that, even disregarding the moral and the ethical implications, there is absolutely no legal foundation in the US or the world courts that would permit such an act to occur. Plus, the Geneva Convention makes no distinction, the UN Convention makes no distinction, and our own laws (see e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2340A) make no distinction whether "war is declared" or not (again, see above). Furthermore, these acts are illegal even if they are committed by contractors and/or on foreign soil (which is also contrary to what I was led to believe). I was kind of shocked when I saw it.

Maybe it is Tinnitus, a ringing, buzzing, crackling, or hissing sound heard inside one or both ears. It is often a symptom of ear damage or an increase in blood pressure. It can also result from excessive caffeine intake. Rock Stars often have Tinnitus, before they go deaf, because of the excessive noise that they experience. You're not a Rock Star by any chance are you?

Actually, I did interpret "we" and "us" as referring to a member(s) of some group that actually participated in some activity. For example a group that might distinguish "us" from them. It did not occur to me, nor did I consider, that it might imply or define a collective "we" or "us"; as in "we" the people of the US of A. Interesting and perhaps even silly on my part. At the time, I will admit that my judgment may have been influenced in some manner by my internal responses to what I view(ed) as several inappropriate derogatory comments about my communicative style. I should not have allowed that to happen. No. I did apologized to iNow and to the collective for apparently crossing some line. THANKS (for your input/enlightenment and the "Good to....")!!

I simply believe that it's similar to being a chicken hawk. We as a people did very little. A select few did (actually do something) and they paid prices for it. And I will not claim credit for what they did; nor do I believe that anyone who did not directly participate in it and suffered the consequences should claim credit for it. Call me opinionated, or rude or whatever, but this is the political forum and politics are entirely opinion. This is my VERY strong opinion. I give up, will move on, and I apologize to iNow and everyone else for crossing the line.

Not torturing does not necessarily = protection. I voted for those bastards twice. Why? Because I felt that, compared to the alternative, they were better equipped to (and would) defend and abide by the US Constitution. A document which they have sworn to uphold, protect and abide by. And that they would honor all of the liberties and inalienable rights contained therein. I also thought that they would adhere to the moral, ethical and legal standards that have historically separated us from "them". But they flushed all of the above down the toilet. I'm pretty ticked off at them, how low we have sunk and myself for my mistake in judgment.

You do realize that the prisoner in question was considered "the 20 high jacker"? And: 1. It is illegal under US law: ***Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court-martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134). ***The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions (see below) ***A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, which provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” ***Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778). Known as MEJA. MEJA, it permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Note that MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law. 2. illegal under international according to several Articles of the Geneva Convention(s). ***Article 3 which "prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” ***Geneva Article 17 and 31 which states that detainees may be questioned, but any form of “physical or mental coercion” is prohibited. ***Article 75 (1977) which states that "even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by “fundamental guarantees”. Specifically, it prohibits “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.” ***The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm 3. Against the "UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishments": including article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (to be honest we did EVENTUALLY sign the Convention Against Torture but I'm not sure if we ever ratified it) 4. That we are "supposed" to be "better" than "them" 5. That it is well accepted that tortured individuals will say anything that you want to hear 6. And, finally, from our own legal stand point, all of the evidence must be thrown out

I think this is what you are asking for: Identify the genes of interest. Identify restriction sites around the genes of interest. Cut them out with REs Puirfy them (probably PAGE). Put them in a vector; take your pick: http://www.addgene.org/pgvec1?f=v&cmd=listvecinfo Add the vector any number of expression system: again take you pick, but competent E coli cells are common. Additional info and details can be found in any Molec Bio textbook. I hope that this isn't homework, and if so, that I didn't just do your homework for you.

I think that it could be entirely possible for molecules that convert light energy to chemical energy to be present in some plant-like life form. But I don't think that they would have any color as a result of those molecules if they absorbed/emitted light in the UV spectra. However, other parts of the plant, such as structural elements, organelles, cell walls and or membranes, etc...., should have some color associated with them. Carrying that further, if they absorbed/emitted in the near UV, they might have a purplish tint; as the OP eluded to earlier. Please note however that UV tends to damage DNA and other molecules, so that might be a problem.

I've always suspected that my office was one seriously bad trip. I wonder why they only reported on instant? It is just lyophilized (freeze dried) regular coffee which generally does not change anything chemically....although some of the tannins and such do oxidize (like what occurs in coffee pot after a few hours). I used to scoop up the leftovers from the bottoms of used 40 gal drums of caffeine that were used to make Mountain Dew.....kept a mason jar of it around to spike my coffee......I can tell you from experience that very high does of caffeine (15-20 coffee cups worth) will totally freak you out....including delusions of grandeur and paranoia. But I doubt that I ever saw anything or anybody that wasn't there. I'm absolutely certain of this because the little purple people told me that it was all real. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I've always suspected that my office was one seriously bad trip. I wonder why they only reported on instant? It is just lyophilized (freeze dried) regular coffee which generally does not change anything chemically....although some of the tannins and such do oxidize (like what occurs in coffee pot after a few hours). I used to scoop up the leftovers from the bottoms of used 40 gal drums of caffeine that were used to make Mountain Dew.....kept a mason jar of it around to spike my coffee......I can tell you from experience that very high does of caffeine (15-20 coffee cups worth) will totally freak you out....including delusions of grandeur and paranoia. But I never saw anything or anybody that wasn't there. I'm absolutely certain of this because the little purple people told me that it was all real. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThat's weird. Can one of the mods remove the top thingy (I tried to edit remove the word "doubt" and ended up with a two for one funky post)? Thanks!!!!

Who wrote this????????? You are inconsistent. Please drink one. Or at least put me on ignore. Why torture yourself? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm still waiting for a detailed description of "our" past struggles and all the battles that "we" won. How did "we" make equality a reality? For that matter, exactly how is "equality a reality"? Racial discrimination no longer exists?