| Posted by: sarge33rd
- [148422311] Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 12:20
then ummm, explain to me why you feel the need to 1) oppose legislation banning torture and 2) request an exception to that legislation on behalf of the CIA.
If we "dont do that", we dont need tooppose or gain an exception to any prohibition of "doing that".
Bush says "We dont torture" |
| 1 | StLCards
ID: 371044221 Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 13:55
|
I don't feel that need is warranted nor do I feel an exception is necessary. If we were to bring things into our own lives consider this we have a death penalty in some states and the criminals are going to court arguing that it is inhumane. Inhumane? Was it not inhumane that you raped torured and stabbed her 60 times, not inhumane? Think, military personal are trained!? to consider torture. You don't have to be a barbarian to torture someone, justice can want the same thing. Love in itself can be torture. Define torture. I wrote a paper on justice from all asspects in colledge, there is no such thing! A professor at Yale did a study that disgusted him. He took students and divided them into guards and prisoners. The outcome horrified him. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. It can be that simple. You can find a catch 22 in almost every situation. If you play catch me if you can 21 times and on the 22nd you get caught well then consider your self damned. Because hell you had 21 times to rectify things. The CIA is too!!!! arrogant! Needs to be rectified. Needs to consider the importance of an honest man. The CIA needs to consider the fact that there are 2 hundred and 40 plus american citizens to consider. and their families.
|
|
| 2 | judy
ID: 371044221 Mon, Nov 07, 2005, 14:29
|
2 hundred and 40 million plus. Sorry about that.
|
|
| 3 | Jazz Dreamers
ID: 17513015 Tue, Nov 08, 2005, 16:19
|
This administration has proven time and time again a willingness to say anything and everything to win elections and try to deflect attention from its failures. Remember Dick Cheney's 2000 VP nomination speech...ironic, just a little too, no?
****
Obviously both Gore and Kerry were flawed candidates. But for those who voted for Bush in one or both of the previous elections, have you gotten anything close to what you hoped for or even expected (knowing that nobody can live up to all of their promises)?
Has honor been restored to the White House? Has wasteful government spending been curbed? Has Social Security been reformed? Have you gotten a "stiff dose of truth" instead of "legalisms and carefully worded denials"? "There will be no more spreading of fear and panic...no more dividing of generations against one another...no more delaying and excuse making and shirking of our duties to the elderly." "Rarely has so much been demanded of our armed forces, and so little given to them in return."
"We can restore the ideals of honesty and honor that must be a part of our national life, if our children are to thrive." Nothing restores the ideal of honor like torturing and abusing suspected terrorists. Nothing restores the ideal of honesty like denying it despite the preponderance of evidence indicating what is taking place. With this high level of honesty and honor, our children will no doubt thrive despite inheriting a massive debt.
****
Cheney: 'Big Changes Are Coming to Washington' Dick Cheney Wednesday, August 2, 2000 Editor's note: Following is the speech made by George W. Bush's vice presidential running mate, Dick Cheney, at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday. Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens:
I am honored by your nomination, and I accept it.
I thank you for giving such a warm welcome to Lynne and me and our family.
And, my friends in the Wyoming delegation, I especially want to thank you for your support.
The first campaign stop that Lynne and I were privileged to make with Governor and Laura Bush was in Casper, Wyoming ... our home town, where Lynne and I graduated from high school 41 years ago.
The love and support and enthusiasm of the people of our home state, have buoyed our spirits and strengthened our resolve.
We are going to win this election.
We will prevail.
I have to tell you that I never expected to be in this position.
Eight years ago, when I completed my years as secretary of defense, I loaded a U Haul truck and drove home to Wyoming.
I didn't plan on a return to public office.
Lynne and I settled into a new private life.
There was time for fishing and grandchildren, and we were content.
But now I am glad to be back in the arena, and let me tell you why.
I have been given an opportunity to serve beside a man who has the courage, and the vision, and the goodness, to be a great president:
Governor George W. Bush.
I have been in the company of leaders.
I was there on August 9, 1974, when Gerald Ford assumed the presidency during our gravest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.
I saw how character and decency can dignify a great office and unite a great nation.
I was a congressman when another man of integrity lived in the White House.
I saw a president restore America's confidence, and prepare the foundation for victory in the cold war.
I saw how one man's will can set the nation on a new course.
I learned the meaning of leadership from President Ronald Reagan.
I left Congress to join the cabinet of President Reagan's successor.
And I'm proud to say that I'm not the only man on this ticket who has learned from the example of President George Bush.
I saw resolve in times of crisis...the steady hand that shaped an alliance and threw back a tyrant.
He earned the respect and confidence of the men and women of America's armed forces.
I have been in the company of leaders. I know what it takes.
And I see in our nominee the qualities of mind and spirit our nation needs, and our history demands.
Big changes are coming to Washington.
To serve with this man, in this cause, is a chance I would not miss.
This country has given me so much opportunity.
When Lynne and I were growing up, we had so many blessings.
We went to good public schools, where we had fine, dedicated teachers.
Our mothers, like our fathers, worked outside the home so that we could go to college.
We lived in a caring community, where parents were confident that their children's lives could be even better than their own.
And that is as it should be, and as it can be again.
We can make our public schools better.
We can reform the tax code, so that families can keep more of what they earn ...more dollars that they can spend on what they value, rather than on what the government thinks is important.
We can restore the ideals of honesty and honor that must be a part of our national life, if our children are to thrive.
When I look at the administration now in Washington, I am dismayed by opportunities squandered.
Saddened by what might have been, but never was.
These have been years of prosperity in our land, but little purpose in the White House.
Bill Clinton vowed not long ago to hold onto power "until the last hour of the last day."
That is his right.
But, my friends, that last hour is coming.
That last day is near.
The wheel has turned ... and it is time...it is time for them to go.
George W. Bush will repair what has been damaged.
He is a man without pretense and without cynicism. A man of principle, a man of honor.
On the first hour of the first day...he will restore decency and integrity to the oval office.
He will show us that national leaders can be true to their word...and that they can get things done by reaching across the partisan aisle, and working with political opponents in good faith and common purpose.
I know he'll do these things, because for the last five years I've watched him do them in Texas.
George W. Bush came to the Governor's office with a clear view of what he wanted to achieve.
He said he would bring higher standards to public schools, and he has.
Walk into those schools today, and you will see children with better scores ... classrooms with better discipline...and teachers with better pay.
He pledged to reduce taxes, and he has. He did it twice, with the biggest tax reduction in state history.
And not only is the budget in balance, it's running a surplus of more than a billion dollars.
He promised to reform the legal system...to get rid of junk lawsuits...and he has.
Today the legal system serves all the people, not just the trial lawyers.
None of these reforms came easily.
When he took office, both houses of the Legislature were controlled by Democrats, and the House of Representatives still is.
But Governor Bush doesn't accept old lines of argument and division.
He brings people together...reaching across party lines to do the people's business.
He leads by conviction, not calculation.
You will never see him pointing the finger of blame for failure...you will only see him sharing the credit for success. That is exactly the spirit that is missing from Washington. In the last eight years, that city has often become a scene of bitterness, and ill will, and partisan strife. American politics has always been a tough business...even in 1787 here in Philadelphia, when George Washington himself wondered if delegates could ever agree on a constitution. They did agree, as Americans always have when it mattered most...guided by the public interest and a decent regard for one another. But in Washington today, politics has become war by other means...an endless onslaught of accusation...a constant setting of groups one against the other.
This is what Bill Bradley was up against, and others before him.
The Gore campaign, Senator Bradley said, is "a thousand promises, a thousand attacks."
We are all a little weary of the Clinton-Gore routine.
But the wheel has turned.
And it is time...it is time for them to go.
In this election, they will speak endlessly of risk.. we will speak of progress.
They will make accusations...we will make proposals.
They will feed fear...we will appeal to hope.
They will offer more lectures, and legalisms, and carefully worded denials.
We offer another way...a better way... and a stiff dose of truth.
For eight years, the achievement gap in our schools has grown worse...poor and disadvantaged children falling further and further behind.
For all of their sentimental talk about children, Clinton and Gore have done nothing to help children oppressed by bureaucracy, monopoly, and mediocrity.
But those days are ending.
When George W. Bush is President and I am Vice President, tests will be taken, results will be measured, and schools will answer to parents...and no child will be left behind.
For eight years, Clinton and Gore have talked about Social Security reform...never acting, never once offering a serious plan to save the system.
In the time left to them, I have every confidence they'll go right on talking about it.
Those days are passing too.
There will be no more spreading of fear and panic...no more dividing of generations against one another...no more delaying and excuse making and shirking of our duties to the elderly.
George W. Bush and I, with the united Congress, will save Social Security.
For eight years, Clinton and Gore have extended our military commitments while depleting our military power.
Rarely has so much been demanded of our armed forces, and so little given to them in return.
George W. Bush and I are going to change that, too.
I have seen our military at its finest...with the best equipment, the best training, and the best leadership.
I'm proud of them.
I have had the responsibility for their wellbeing.
And I can promise them now...help is on the way.
Soon, our men and women in uniform will once again have a commander- in-chief they can respect.. one who understands their mission and restores their morale.
And now, as the man from Hope goes home to New York...Mr. Gore tries to separate himself from his leader's shadow.
But somehow we will never see one without thinking of the other. Does anyone ... Republican or Democrat ... seriously believe that under Mr. Gore, the next four years would be any different from the last eight?
If the goal is to unite our country ... to make a fresh start in Washington ... to change the tone of our politics ... can anyone say with conviction that the man for the job is Al Gore?
They came in together.
Now let us see them off together.
Ladies and gentlemen, the wheel has turned, and it is time
... it is time for them to go.
This campaign will not be easy.
Governor Bush and I face a real fight.
We're ready for it.
We know the territory, we know the opposition, and we know what's at stake.
We will give all we have to this cause.
And in the end, with your help, George W. Bush will defeat this vice president, and I will replace him.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are so privileged to be citizens of this great republic.
I was reminded of that time and again when I was in my former job, as Secretary of Defense.
I traveled a lot...and when I came home, my plane would land at Andrews Air Force Base, and I'd return to the Pentagon by helicopter.
When you make that trip from Andrews to the Pentagon, and you look down on the city of Washington, one of the first things you see is the Capitol, where all the great debates that have shaped 200 years of American history have taken place.
You fly down along the Mall and see the monument to George Washington, a structure as grand as the man himself.
To the north is the White House, where John Adams once prayed "that none but honest and wise men [may] ever rule under this roof."
Next you see the memorial to Thomas Jefferson, the third president and the author of our Declaration of Independence.
And then you fly over the memorial to Abraham Lincoln...this greatest of presidents, the man who saved the union.
Then you cross the Potomac, on approach to the Pentagon.
But just before you settle down on the landing pad, you look upon Arlington National Cemetery...its gentle slopes and crosses row on row.
I never once made that trip without being reminded how enormously fortunate we all are to be Americans, and what a terrible price thousands have paid so that all of us ...and millions more around the world...might live in freedom.
This is a great country, ladies and gentlemen, and it deserves great leadership.
Let us go forth from this hall in confidence and courage, committed to restoring decency and honor to our republic.
Let us go forth, knowing that our cause is just, and elect George W. Bush the forty-third president of the United States.
Thank you.
|
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 30550117 Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 16:15
|
At the risk of getting some blowback from Toral for linking to Andrew Sullivan:
US transferred al-Marri in order to torture him
Just to clarify: They dropped the charges against him, then declared him an "enemy combatant" in order to torture him for information.
|
|
| |
| 6 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 18:40
|
and we all now know how important a CIA operative's cover is. so it seems like it was all they could do.
|
|
| 7 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 18:42
|
I think I would trust a Congressional panel with that cover. Administration goof-balls? Probably not.
|
|
| 8 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 19:29
|
now you trust congress bili i thought different of you
|
|
| 9 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 19:34
|
I trust them not to be so unamerican and foolish as to leak NOCs.
I don't trust them with, say, working out a solution to the subprime crisis.
|
|
| 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 30114068 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 19:34
|
We certainly can't trust the Administration.
|
|
| 11 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 19:39
|
the tapes had to be destroyed or the operatives would have been outed, i thought that was against the law.
|
|
| 12 | walk
ID: 2530286 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 19:42
|
It's quite the story...almost a new one everyday.
|
|
| 13 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 19:42
|
i guess they could have fuzzied there faces but then that would have taken editing of the tapes
|
|
| 14 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 19:45
|
Outed to who? Congress?
|
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 30114068 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 20:00
|
Apparently that's what J-B is trying to say. Maybe he doesn't realize that, since the OJ trial (#1), that there are ways to disguise people in videotapes.
|
|
| 16 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 20:04
|
bili you are right, i know that there has never ever been any unnamed source and staffers that leak stories from Congressional panels to the media. silly me. i don't know why they didn't just say that they must have been in Berger's drawers.
|
|
| 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 30114068 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 20:33
|
So, it is better to destroy the evidence, yes? To trust that they did nothing wrong? Because we wouldn't want to risk a leak, right?
After all, the Congress, who is regularly briefed by the CIA on all sorts of clandestant operations, is an information sieve while the Administration has no history of political leaking of the names of CIA operatives, and the destruction of the tapes would not be in their best interest anyway.
Right?
|
|
| 18 | bibA
ID: 241157521 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 20:41
|
J-Bar, you are honestly saying, with a straight face, that you actually believe that the reason the tapes were destroyed was because the CIA felt that if any of their faces were shown in images seen by Congressmen, that said Congressmen would have done whatever they could to reveal the full identities of those shown? And also given up personal information on these agents such as family members, addresses, etc.?
No other motivation possible here, such as how bad they may have looked carrying out their interrogations?
|
|
| 19 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 20:52
|
evidence of what, they videotaped an interrogation and when it was determined that it was no longer useful it was destroyed. because it wasn't available for the 10 second edit job to be plastered all over the airwaves does not automatically mean that anything was done that was against the policies and procedures in place at the time. innocent until proven guilty is the way the country i want to live in operates.
wrong, never said that, but nice interpretation, i guess it made you feel better
|
|
| 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 21:13
|
They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.
There ya go JB. Defend that.
|
|
| 21 | Tree
ID: 14119620 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 21:14
|
good lord, is this the desperation that the conservatives in this country have reached?
defending the destruction of potential evidence against those who might be violating the law?
i've said it before, and i'll said it again.
GW Bush and his cronies have done more to destroy this country than Osama Bin Laden and his ilk could have even hoped to do on their own.
|
|
| 22 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 22:09
|
Tree -- huh
Sarge- more unnamed sources to prove what point that we could possibly have fished until we got our 10 second edit exactly my point. controversial doesn't mean illegal
oh by the way has Hillary provided those files that she was asked for.
|
|
| 23 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 22:11
|
oh by the way the tapes were around for about 3 years and now it is a problem that they were destroyed prior to ever being a part of any investigation. cracks me up
|
|
| 24 | walk
ID: 2530286 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 22:12
|
innocent until proven guilty is the way the country i want to live in operates.
I think that's what they were arguing to SCOTUS the other day on behalf of some of the Guantanamo detainees.
If it looks like a rat, and smells like a rat...the most plausible reason for the destruction of the tapes...is not cos they were obsolete or cos they were afraid of more Plame-like outtage.
|
|
| 25 | walk
ID: 2530286 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 22:16
|
The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing on the case of the terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which was appointed by the president and Congress, and which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.
Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee between 2002 and 2006, said that she told C.I.A. officials several years ago that destroying any interrogation tapes would be a “bad idea.”...A spokesman for Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee between 2004 and 2006, said that Mr. Hoekstra was “never briefed or advised that these tapes existed, or that they were going to be destroyed.”
The courts asked for these tapes, and instead, they were destroyed. Not right.
|
|
| 26 | walk
ID: 2530286 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 22:18
|
Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed. If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.
This seems pretty heavy.
|
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 30114068 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 22:28
|
controversial doesn't mean illegal
True. But you have no idea if the actions on the tapes were illegal or not. Neither do I. That's the whole point.
It looks bad when an agency destroys evidence. Especially when they are making a habit of it.
Truth be told, people in government service who break the law deserve to have their face plastered across a TV screen. It is called "justice" J-Bar. And losing their CIA status should be the least of their worries.
|
|
| 28 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 23:10
|
pd-what point old and obsolete classified information is destroyed all of the time. because an unnamed source says something doesn't make it fact and that the destruction is wrong.
Walk just because something is requested does not mean that it has to be provided the judge has to order it 'It was unclear whether the judge had explicitly sought the videotape depicting the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah.' amazing that the trial transcript wouldn't show definitively if it was court ordered.
The unbiased opinion of Mr. Marcus that it COULD be obstruction holds very little weight with me because i believe he served in both the carter and clinton administrations.
sorry PD that they didn't let NYT use the NFL format of viewing countless hours of material to find that 20 min NFL presents special. plastered just like the 10 second clip of the 7 min video that depicts police brutality only to be exonerated later but never with the same coverage as the 10 second clip.
|
|
| 29 | walk
ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:36
|
I guess it depends on whether you believe, in your heart then (cos the article, like almost all accounts of this sort, cannot be considered laden with hard facts) that a covert espionage organization was destroying select interrogation evidence to avoid identifying agents or to avoid disclosing potentially disturbing interrogation techniques. Given what the CIA does, and given the greater latitude to use aggressive interrogation techniques of late, and given the recent controvesy of using aggressive interrogation techniques (i.e. maybe torture), I FEEL that it is more LIKELY that the tapes were destroyed to obscure the nature of the aggressive interrogation techniques, not to avoid the identification of certain agents. At this stage then, I'd argue about plausibility. It's seems more plausible, at least to me, and a few others here, that they destroyed the tapes to avoid releasing the recorded torture of detainees.
|
|
| 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 23113877 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:45
|
amazing that the trial transcript wouldn't show definitively if it was court ordered.
This coming from a guy who believes that the tape would definetely be leaked, edited, and used politically and therefore had to be destroyed if it got out of the hands of members of the Executive Branch.
We'll see how he changes his tune when a Democrat gets into office. Get yer swinging high horse ready, J-Bar. In a little over a year it'll be time for you to switch sides.
BTW, here's a hint for you: Judicial requests for evidence which might contain national secrets (or, which mean reveal national secrets if their existence is known, are never part of a court transcript. I know--amazing! A branch other than the Executive Branch knows how to keep secrets!
|
|
| 31 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 10:21
|
Marcus worked under Clinton and Bush43.
But since that and their own sense of right and wrong won't be enough for some people here:
Heralded conservative blogger Ed Morissey If the tapes showed the faces of the interrogators, they would be correct to consider such tapes dangerous if leaked. Given the general sloppiness of the 9/11 Commission, one could understand their reluctance to allow access to the tapes. But why destroy them? Is the CIA incapable of protecting two videotapes from exposure? That sounds like a stretch for an explanation, especially after waterboarding became such a controversial issue at about the same time.
Frankly, the timing stinks. The tapes sat unmolested in a vault for at least two years without the CIA worrying about the potential damage from a leak. The Inspector General had long since concluded that the interrogations did not break the law. However, as soon as Congress began debating the specific interrogation technique that the tapes depicted, someone decided that they represented a danger to the agents. It looks a lot more like destroying evidence than tightening security.
Hayden will spend the next few weeks explaining this to Congress. Instead, Congress should be talking with the people in charge of the CIA in 2005 to find out who gave the order to destroy the tapes, and why. As is usually the case with stories that reflect poorly on the Bush administration, you won't find many rightist opinions out there the day after the story broke.
|
|
| 32 | walk
ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 13:06
|
Committee Passes Non-Torture Bill
This bill would be consistent with the Geneva Conventions. If Bush vetoes, Congress should override or the Dems should really go after Bush as being pro-torture, plain and simple. However, I'd rather they just OVERRIDE it. I mean, c'mon! Do we have to use these tactics to get this info from suspects? It's not right. It's not American. The opponents of the bill say it undermines our ability to obtain critical info that has mitigated terrorist activities and attacks. I don't believe it. I believe we can obtain that info through other non-anti-Geneva conventions means. It's about what's morally right. For this freakin reason ALONE, I hope McCain gets the nomination (or Paul).
|
|
| 33 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 13:11
|
oh by the way the tapes were around for about 3 years and now it is a problem that they were destroyed prior to ever being a part of any investigation. cracks me up
The CIA was asked by congress repeatedly, prior to 2005, to see any tapes of torture. They said they didn't exist, then destroyed them.
Yeah, freakin' hysterical.
The comedy clubs you frequent must just show re-runs of Abu Ghraib highlights on continuous repeat.
Keeps the twisted fcuks rolling in the aisles.
|
|
| 34 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 13:13
|
I should say "interrogations" not torture, cause we can't say for sure...
... except they destroyed them, leading to any non-moron apologist with secret water-boarding fantasies to speculate they were very likely engaging torture.
|
|
| 35 | walk
ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 13:20
|
Oh, I forgot one more liberal rant about why torture is bad -- now it also lets our enemies say: "Hey, they do it, we can do it to them, too" (but then we say: "but they were doing it alreadyyyyyyyyyyy; they were doing it anywaaaaaaaay; they did it first!"). Only McCain speaks with any credibility on this issue from the hawks side. The rest are chicken hawks.
|
|
| |
| |
| 38 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 21:30
|
3 people have been waterboarded for a total of 2 minutes, yet you guys go on as if it were an every day occurance.
|
|
| 39 | angryCHAIR
ID: 35101022 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 21:46
|
SEE WWII and what happened when the Japanese did that to us!
|
|
| 40 | Tree
ID: 411581219 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:09
|
Jag - so if tonight, 3 people bang your wife for a total of 2 minutes, you'll excuse it since it's not an every day occurance?
|
|
| 41 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:14
|
Tree, you really are a dip shit.
|
|
| 42 | Tree
ID: 411581219 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:45
|
i'll take that as a "yes, i'll excuse it"...
|
|
| 43 | Perm Dude
ID: 141511220 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:55
|
Since his wife is Paris Hilton, it is hard to tell, tree.
Last week it was Jelena Jensen...
|
|
| 44 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 23:55
|
Tree, you are the epitome of a troll. You have not added one bit of substance in the last year. You toss one insult after another, then cry like Hilary Clinton when one is lobbed back. It is only because of your far left Liberal stance, you are tolerated by the Leftist elite on this forum. We all know there is a double standard here. Normally, even the most imbecilic of trolls knows not to bring family into a discussion, but intelligence and class has never been your strong suit.
|
|
| 45 | Tree
ID: 19132135 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 06:42
|
rich, coming from you Jag. i've said it before, and i'll say it again. i'll compare my "body of work" on this site to yours any day.
while i'm far from the "best" or "most knowledgeable" poster here, nor do i have the "best penmanship" or do i "play well with others" as well some of the other folks here, i feel confident that beyond a shadow of a doubt that what i post here not only easily surpasses your "substance", or, for that matter, that of your sugar daddy Baldwin for at least the past year as well.
regarding your "double standard" comment, this was discussed in length, and the argument ultimately dropped by Boxman when it became apparent how wrong he was. it's laughable, but at least it gives MITH and i something to laugh about in regards to our often acrimonious disagreements where he calls me out.
|
|
| 46 | walk
ID: 221481011 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 07:48
|
Jag, we've admitted to waterboarding 3 people for 2 minutes each. Do you think it's at likely that we have tortured folks beyond what we've admitted? I do. I think our gov't is sorta throwing this waterboarding thing a bone by saying we've done it only rarely and for a little bit of time, but in reality, we may have done it, other other things worse, or similar, elsewhere, in our secret prisons, in Gitmo, etc. Ultimately, it's a moral question, and I thought our country was supposed to be a moral leader. I think that somehow the bar or standard for morality, all in the name of fear, has been grossly distorted, and when folks like AC describe WB as "dripping some water down someone's nose," it serves to further lower our moral standards.
Hurting folks intentionally is just wrong. Torture is wrong. There really is not much else to argue about unless one is willing to compromise our morality and subject our own captured forces to torture themselves.
|
|
| 47 | WiddleAvi
ID: 251113917 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 08:28
|
As mentioned before......America executed some Japanese after WW2 for torture that included waterboarding. link . But then again we are Americans so we can do what we want.
|
|
| |
| |
| 50 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 06:27
|
regarding your "double standard" comment, this was discussed in length, and the argument ultimately dropped by Boxman
Not dropped at all actually. That is still my contention that you folks are a clique. Mith makes a token comment, but really its just window dressing compared to the drivel you vomit here daily.
|
|
| 51 | Tree
ID: 50124145 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 07:24
|
token comment. heh. thanks for providing myself and MITH another hearty laugh.
|
|
| |
| 53 | walk
ID: 221481011 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 12:07
|
Box, I guess I would not bash folks if they are aligned politically or agree. I do not conspire with anyone on this board to gang up on the minority conservatives, if that is what you are implying by our "clique." We all speak passsionately about issues, and fantasy sports, and if we are perceived as ganging up, I think it's because there are just more of us thinkers of this elk here, now. Sorry though if it comes across that way, not intended to be clique-y. I hate cliquery! :-)
Totally rockin out to TOOL right now on my home stereo (a nice one). This is my colossal two day break from life in between corp ho banking jobs. After I start the new company next week, I doubt I'll be "part of the clique much anymore." :-(
|
|
| 54 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 13:11
|
walk -- not sure I follow. Is there a particular reason you oppose the ability to separate prisoners for the purposes of interrogation? A 10-second skim of the AFM suggests that it restricts the usage of that technique. Just throwing one out there.
The broader point is that Lederman argues that the AFM should be the standard, and that McCain should be specific about where it fails. Fair enough, although it also obviously puts McCain in a situation where he has to get into detailed specifics that make it more difficult -- by rhetorical construction if not substance -- to be persuasive.
To illustrate the conundrum, you could flip the standard of evidence, and ask Democrats why the AFM should be the standard and not the DTA and it's prohibition against "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment". Is there a good set of arguments against the DTA and in favor of the AFM? I haven't heard them leap into the specifics to defend their point of view, either. But maybe I missed that.
|
|
| 55 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 13:38
|
Nice to see you posting, Madman. I do hope this is winds up being more than a brief visit.
|
|
| 56 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 13:51
|
Mith, if he goes away you still have me!
|
|
| 57 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 14:23
|
Thats what we were afraid of Jag.
|
|
| 58 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 14:23
|
as much as Madman and i have disagreed over the years, 1000 of you posting for 1000 years couldn't make posts that are at the level of Madman's.
i echo MITH's sentiments Madman. i hope you're back as well.
|
|
| 59 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 14:48
|
Tree/MITH -- thanks. I still have a lot going on; I have to write shorter posts. Just saw it on my favorite link and had to respond to PD's linkage to Hassett's budget piece in the other thread, since that had raised my ire in my "real life". And am getting suckered in again, ha!
|
|
| 60 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 14:51
|
You're back Madman - just don't put so much thought into your posts and you'll simultaneously have enough time to post and fit in better around here...
|
|
| 61 | walk
ID: 221481011 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 19:55
|
Madman! Hello.
Regarding #54, I just oppose cruelly interrogating prisoners, whether they are separated or not. Interrogation is okay, torture I oppose on moral grounds. If I missing your point or question, lemme know.
|
|
| 62 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 22:52
|

The lamest of lame ducks.
|
|
| 63 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 06:56
|
This is what separates the Left from the Moderates and the Right, a vile terrorist, who films chopping off the head of an innocent man, masterminds 9-11 and is responsible for killing thousands gets dunked for a total of 2 minutes ( I have had much worse happen to me in my lifetime and never considered it torture) and Liberals go into moral outrage. I have never seen such a misdirection of priorities.
|
|
| 64 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 08:38
|
You just dont get it Jag. Noone disputes that such a man deserves whatever he gets. The dispute, is that WE (as in the USA) do not violate basic human rights in that fashion. WE, are "above" such conduct. WE, are supposed to be better than that. WE, are not the NVA of the 1960s.
|
|
| 65 | Perm Dude
ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 11:18
|
Bush with the full court fear mongering
By banning something which he says doesn't happen (much), there sure seems to be a lot riding on this.
Meanwhile, the House GOP appears to be so uninterested in the fact that Administration officials won't answer subpoenas that they go outside the building to stick their heads in the sand their.
|
|
| 66 | walk
ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 13:39
|
Jag, it's a principle thing. As a policy, we should not torture. I think you'd likely agree with the guy you hate, Bill Maher, who says: "Look, we've always likely done this type of interrogation, but it should not be policy. Just do what you have to do, and don't tell us, and don't make a known policy, capiche?" Very few people would likley really hurt someone who hurt or is threatening to hurt someone you know, love, or a whole group of innocent people. However, to make it a policy that it's "ok, in certain circumstances, to use certain harsh interrogation techniques (torture)" is against, what I thought our moral code was in America, and invites others to do the same to us, without really any righteous response from the U.S.
Given all that, whaddya think?
|
|
| 67 | walk
ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 13:42
|
Ummm, I hate when I post with typos, sorry.
Correction: "Look, we've always done this...and don't make IT a known policy"
Correction: Very few people would likely NOT really hurt someone who ..."
|
|
| 68 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 13:58
|
Jag, it's a principle thing. As a policy, we should not torture. I think you'd likely agree with the guy you hate, Bill Maher, who says: "Look, we've always likely done this type of interrogation, but it should not be policy. Just do what you have to do, and don't tell us, and don't make a known policy, capiche?" Very few people would likley really hurt someone who hurt or is threatening to hurt someone you know, love, or a whole group of innocent people. However, to make it a policy that it's "ok, in certain circumstances, to use certain harsh interrogation techniques (torture)" is against, what I thought our moral code was in America, and invites others to do the same to us, without really any righteous response from the U.S.
Isn't that really the same thing from two different ways of saying it?
I think by going public with the debate about waterboarding folks are deducting in their own minds that we've done this to thousands and thousands of people. Now according to the guy on the Maher show, we've done it to the 3 people. Those were the worst of the worst and I think it's reasonable that we use aggressive interrogations with those people.
To blindly say that we should use torture all the time is equally as stupid as saying we should never use it at all period and 100% take it off the table. It has to be an option under certain criteria.
|
|
| 69 | Perm Dude
ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 14:04
|
We have no idea how often it is done Jag. Only that it is more than one and the Administration has copped to three.
If your reason for using torture is to extract information, then it should be off the table because it is ineffective.
Keeping it on the table is to say that you want to keep on the table morally dubious techniques which don't work. What kind of idiot would say that?
Oh.
|
|
| 70 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 14:13
|
ROFLMAO...Pd, between your post above and your reply to Boldwin; I have to hand it to you friend. You're in GRAND form today.
|
|
| 71 | Perm Dude
ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 14:15
|
:)
It's Friday. What can I say?
|
|
| 72 | walk
ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 14:31
|
Box, I see what you're saying, but agree with PD in #69. I am not in favor of torture, personally, whether it's a known policy or an under the table kinda thing (pun). I think that we have copped to 3 incidents, but we've never seemingly publicly admitted to such stuff before, so my guess is that we are in a new era of being a little more "liberal" with our definition and use of torture. Conversely, I'd love to see a policy that says: "we don't torture under any circumstances" (and then I will admit that our agents may very well do so anyway cos only know like one millionth of what really goes on in the world of politics and gov't stuff anyway). So, on a moral ground (and practical one, too, cos as PD says, there's conclusive data supporting the effectiveness of torture), I'd like to see no policies allowing for the possibility for torture. It's not civilized.
I also don't think this argument should be restricted to waterboarding (which has somehow been construed by many proponents of torture as simulated drowning, dripping water down one's nose, psychological torture...it is real drowning, and if the procedure does not stop, a person will drown and die); it should include all aversive forms of interrogation (really cold temps, sleep deprivation, standing). These methods get people talking, but we don't know if it gets them telling the truth. I guess I don't know either.
I find it a very slippery slope for us, America of all countries, to say it's okay to keep someone locked up without charges, under the assumption they are the "worst of the worst," without a lawyer, and then also potentially tortured. It is not what this country stands for, and it is potentially making our national security worse due to increasing anti-Americanism amongst fanatics. We can be effective within the guidelines of the Geneva Convention and our criminal justice system.
I also believe that the Bush level rationale for allowing these types of interrogations along with unwarranted wiretapping, are based on exaggerated claims of effectiveness and national security. This is management by fear, and we succumbing to our enemies when we lower our standards. Sorry for the liberal rant, but I'd don't think we risk further attacks and security by stopping torture and re-imposing habeus corpus.
|
|
| 73 | walk
ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 14:41
|
Sullivan: Stress Positions
We use stress positions, not in the same as pictured here by the nazis, but my point, and Sullivan is making it, too, is that our harsh interrogation options are not just waterboarding, and all of them should be against policy. As a species, you'd like to think we could/should evolve towards greater humanity, not towards greater inhumanity. I don't buy into the fight fire with fire thinking (gotta be tough against terrorists).
|
|
| 74 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:07
|
You guys say waterboarding doesn't work as if there is no doubt to the subject. While I have seen some info to back your ascertains, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
When it comes to dealing with Muslim terrorists, fire with fire is the best technique, within reason. These maniacs don't care what nice moral people we are, infact in their eyes it makes us appear weak and the kiss kiss smooch smooch approach only empowers them.
|
|
| 75 | Perm Dude
ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:09
|
there is plenty of evidence to the contrary
Where?
You seem to forget that the battle isn't over terrorists (who have already thrown their lot), but over the hearts and minds over would-be terrorists or America-haters in the Middle East and the rest of the world.
|
|
| 76 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:25
|
These maniacs don't care what nice moral people we are, infact in their eyes it makes us appear weak and the kiss kiss smooch smooch approach only empowers them.
I'll never understand the concept of allowing the enemy's opinions of our tactics determine them. The United States of America didn't officially denounce torture for he first 225 years of existance because we thought it would satisfy ou enemies standard for morality. Its because we have held that as our own standard.
Today's political right sadly believes that this traditional American standard is a bar set too high. They prefer that we emulate the vile behavior of our enemies, without concern that in doing so we effectively legitimize them. How very sad.
The notion is so prevelant today that many on the right insist now that this is not an extremist or even a rightist position but a moderate one. What a terrible and sad time this is.
I remember a time shortly after 9/11, when rightists on this forum were real philosophical conservatives and understood what made them such beyoond the oversimplifications of the current left/right dichotomies, when the topic of torturing Osama Bin Landen himslef came up and not a single person at this forum, right or left, would suggest that such a thing should be done.
|
|
| 77 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:37
|
there is plenty of evidence to the contrary
Where?
You seem to forget that the battle isn't over terrorists (who have already thrown their lot), but over the hearts and minds over would-be terrorists or America-haters in the Middle East and the rest of the world.
I have posted links on this forum, where waterboarding was credited for making Khalid Sheikh Mohammed talk.
You can't win the war on terrorism by trying to win the hearts and minds of Muslims. You have to stop state sponsors and financial backers. That is the ONLY way.
|
|
| 78 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:41
|
You can't win the war on terrorism by trying to win the hearts and minds of Muslims. {or Jews, or Athiests, or Catholics, or red-heads, or blondes, or short people, or...} (contents provided to illustrate a point, not because its my belief)
That jag-off, is one of the most vile, prejudiical posts I have ever read upon this forum.
|
|
| 79 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:47
|
You are right, Sarge, fundamentalist Muslims are just like us. Get a clue.
|
|
| 80 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:48
|
Well in this regard, they're more like you than Sarge or me.
|
|
| 81 | walk
ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:51
|
#76 MITH. Awesome post.
Jag, it's not the only way...we have every right to defend ourselves, but not proactively attack and not torture. I'm not saying we should over dinner and wine, but torture is not right.
|
|
| 82 | Perm Dude
ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:53
|
I have posted links on this forum, where waterboarding was credited for making Khalid Sheikh Mohammed talk.
No one is questioning whether he talked. The question is whether what he said was of value.
When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, was waterboarded, he revealed valuable details about the operations of al Qaida, the Bush administration says. But CIA agents say Mohammed also “confessed’’ that al Qaida was plotting to kill former presidents Clinton and Carter and Pope John Paul II, making them realize that he was inventing sensational information to satisfy his interrogators. Another al Qaida operative who was waterboarded, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libbi, blurted out details about the connection between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, saying that Iraq had trained terrorists in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But al-Libbi later recanted, and the CIA concluded that he “had no knowledge of such training or weapons, and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.”
People under torture will say anything to stop the torture. That's why the FBI doesn't use it. Nor the Army. Bunch of pussies, eh?
|
|
| 83 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 15:56
|
If one honestly cannot tell that torture doesnt work...just look at the vast number of "false confessions: obtained via normal LEO interrogation techniques. Simply questioning someone for hour after hour after hour, will in all too many instances, cause that subject to say whatever is necessary in order to stop the questioning.
Its an undeniable, well proven phenomena.
|
|
| 84 | walk
ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 16:01
|
Right, Sarge and PD, the effectiveness argument seems to always get waterboarded, too. And what's the hit-rate anyway? We don't know, and proponents don't care, cos if we get one right, then we've saved thousands in lieu of a coupla dozen terrorists we hurt via torture. I don't think we are saving thousands, those are "24" stories of glamor. I guess we don't know, but it's our moral obligation to find out the truth without acting like our enemies...or else why even fight them? If we act like them, we might as well join them. That's an argument that makes no sense, unless one sees us as stooping to a level that is evil...like the "evil doers." I don't want to be an evil doer. Torture is evil.
|
|
| 85 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 16:45
|
Regarding #54, I just oppose cruelly interrogating prisoners, whether they are separated or not. Interrogation is okay, torture I oppose on moral grounds. If I missing your point or question, lemme know.
I don't know that McCain has flipped on that (post 52). The amendment he opposed requires compliance with the AFM. He instead supported/supports the DTA.
What I don't know are the specific techniques and interpretations that form the difference. But the difference was quite explicitly provided for in the DTA, so he and others have something in mind. I don't think you can have an informed debate about his position unless you know what that difference is (and I don't, although I did mention the separation technique above as one possibility).
|
|
| 86 | walk
ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 17:25
|
Hey Madman, but I thought, basically, that McCain said it was okay to torture if done by the CIA (really simplyfing here)...I guess your saying if we don't know the specific techniques, we don't know if they are torture. I find it hard to believe this stuff aint about stretching the standards for interrogation, but I know you are a devout empiricist and need to see the details.
|
|
| 87 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 17:38
|
Not sure I see that in his statement. He supports one "fix" for the current problem -- the Detainee Treatment Act. Democrats want a different one -- full compliance with the Army Field Manual.
So far, neither side has articulated a substantive difference ... although we do know that both sides believe there is one. It is true that McCain hasn't given specifics for his position compared to the Dems. But the Democrats haven't been able to describe why McCain's solution won't work, either. Both solutions seem to prescribe most, if not all, of the techniques discussed in the popular press.
Given the lack of an argument on either side, I don't think it's fair to criticize McCain for "altering" his view just because he doesn't support the Democratic alternative. The difference between the DTA and the AFM seem so narrow that I doubt there would be a hullabaloo if McCain wasn't running for President.
McCain, however, wants to make it look like there's a difference so he can appear to stake out a reasonable "middle ground" while not *entirely* offending Bush supporters. Dems want there to be the appearance of a difference in order to retain a talking point and paint McCain closer to Bush.
I strongly suspect that this is one of those politized points that diverges substantively from reality because of ideology and ignorance. It's in no one's best interest to supply us with, you know, facts.
|
|
| 88 | Perm Dude
ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 17:47
|
Well, in general I think you are right on McCain Madman. But McCain has staked out strong positions against torture (both before and during the campaign). A vote against defining what is torture and what isn't would seem to necessitate a clarification from McCain. Sure, we can say that he hasn't articulated his position and thus criticism appears to be premature, but this is a bill in which the particulars appear to fit his position and McCain votes against it without a word.
Obama & Clinton, by voting yes, having given us some clarity as to their position (though they are not completely transparent, and might have differences should one become President). McCain's vote has the opposite affect, however, and we know even less about how he'd act if he became President.
|
|
| 89 | walk
ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 18:20
|
What he said...Madman raises the bar for written communications and clarity.
|
|
| 90 | walk
ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 18:23
|
he being PD, that is. Clarity thing.
|
|
| 91 | Madman
ID: 14139157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 19:32
|
PD -- McCain's position is for the definition of torture in the DTA, plain and simple. This bill attempted to not only define torture but enforce compliance with the AFM. Obama and Clinton haven't said why they support this approach as opposed to the DTA's approach, just as McCain hasn't given any specifics for his reasoning.
Again, I strongly suspect that this is much more about politics than it is about substance.
|
|
| 92 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 19:40
|
Madman #87: My perception is that there are primarily two extreme camps: torture them all and let God sort them out and then torture no one for any purpose...ever.
Neither stance is correct. Now the AFM should not permit torture as I do not believe that 10,000s of folks that are lower on the chain of command should have the power to torture someone. Strange that we give them the power to blow up people into unrecognizable bits, but God forbid they torture. I'm getting off track.
The power of the decision to torture has to be given specifically to a select group of people high up in the food chain that are ultimately legally and professionally responsible for its use. It's an option that has to exist. Much like how nuclear weapons, in an ideal world the most vile weapon ever created, needs to exist.
|
|
| 93 | walk
ID: 2530286 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 19:47
|
Interesting, Box, #92, Much like how nuclear weapons, in an ideal world the most vile weapon ever created, needs to exist. I am not sure why this option, torture, has to exist. It must be based on the premise that it's morally acceptable in certain circumstances, and potentially effective. I'd disagree with the former, and I guess I cannot say one way or the other, about its effectiveness (but from what I've read, support is equivocal at best).
|
|
| 94 | WiddleAvi
ID: 251113917 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 20:43
|
You can't win the war on terrorism by trying to win the hearts and minds of Muslims. - ummm that actually might be the best way to win this as it will help prevent another generation of terrorists. The next generation is not stupid. By us keeping the moral high ground the future generations of Muslims will question what is this war they are fighting.
|
|
| 95 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 21:31
|
It must be based on the premise that it's morally acceptable in certain circumstances, and potentially effective. I'd disagree with the former
Morality has nothing to do with it. Are nuclear weapons moral? Cruise missiles? Hand grenades? 50 caliber machine guns? Smart bombs? In theory, isn't any weapon immoral just by the virtue of the outcome of its intended usage?
While immoral, they are necessary for our security and must be used appropriately.
|
|
| 96 | Perm Dude
ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 21:33
|
#94: That is exactly my point. No widespread social change can occur by looking at just the people right now. We need to win these people over by means other than torturing their bad seeds.
|
|
| 97 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 14:17
|
To even worry what the average Middle Easterner thinks is a waste of time. They get their news from anti-American rags, kinda of like the NYT of the Middle East, and they have so many conspiracy nuts, that they make the 9-11 guys look sane.
|
|
| 98 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 14:17
|
To even worry what the average Middle Easterner thinks is a waste of time. They get their news from anti-American rags, kinda of like the NYT of the Middle East, and they have so many conspiracy nuts, that they make the 9-11 guys look sane.
|
|
| 99 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 14:17
|
To even worry what the average Middle Easterner thinks is a waste of time. They get their news from anti-American rags, kinda of like the NYT of the Middle East, and they have so many conspiracy nuts, that they make the 9-11 guys look sane.
|
|
| 100 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 14:26
|
Trying to reconcile one Jag post with the next is like trying to make Tree understand the irony behind positing an obnoxiously large photo of a baby as a way to call someone childish.
Jag, arguing against America's traditional anti-torture position: in their eyes it makes us appear weak and the kiss kiss smooch smooch approach only empowers them.
Jag again, arguing against America's traditional anti-torture position: To even worry what the average Middle Easterner thinks is a waste of time
|
|
| 101 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 16:56
|
No one is pro torture, but in some extreme cases, it may be necessary. The waterboard instances actually seem mild compared to so called intensive interogations. I don't like ruling out any options. The Left likes these generic, one size fits all rules and it never works.
|
|
| 102 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 17:09
|
By 'it", you apparently mean things like "human rights", "due process", "Geneva Conventions", etc.
|
|
| 103 | Tree
ID: 511251614 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 17:28
|
The Left likes these generic, one size fits all rules and it never works.
the unintentional irony and humour in that line may be your single greatest moment.
|
|
| 104 | WiddleAvi
ID: 251113917 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 21:21
|
Jag - How would out government respond if the enemy tortured one of our soldiers to get info ?
Heck I recall an uproar that our soldiers were being shown on TV !!!!
|
|
| 105 | WiddleAvi
ID: 251113917 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 21:21
|
Jag - How would out government respond if the enemy tortured one of our soldiers to get info ?
Heck I recall an uproar that our soldiers were being shown on TV !!!!
|
|
| 106 | Jag
ID: 5112883 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 21:48
|
They beheaded an American on television!
Sarge, the Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists.
I guess none of you are old enough to remember Jimmy Carter and how Iraq took hostages, only to release them right before a president with a backbone took office. This why I would never want a Liberal as president or even as a coach for my favorite football team. Belichick is a great coach because he studies his foes and adjusts his game plan for them. The Left want to deal with terrorists as if they are dealing with Brazil, Sweden or some other country.
|
|
| 107 | WiddleAvi
ID: 251113917 Sat, Feb 16, 2008, 21:56
|
You know I was not refering the beheading. I am talking about when they showed American POW's on Iraqi TV.
|
|
| 108 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Feb 17, 2008, 07:31
|
106.....Yes, they were released soon after Reagan took office. And shortly after that, we began sending missiles to Iran. Purely coincidental? I think not.
Further, no the Conventions dont cover terrorists. This is true. But then, we have been detaining people for YEARS, without PROVING them to be terrorists. So, apparently in your eyes, the fact that someone in this vastly over-reaching-fear-whoring administration suspects someone MIGHT be a terrorist or maybe not but might know someone else who might be a terrorist, is sufficient grounds for us to torture them. Sorry pal...but I disagree vehemently with any similar position to that one. (As does our entire historic way of life.)
|
|
| 109 | walk
ID: 381351512 Sun, Feb 17, 2008, 10:34
|
McCain Draws Criticism on Torture Vote
Perceptions are key here...regardless of the exact techniques used in the DTA, the perception is that McCain is aligned with Bush in that there are circumstances where torture would be allowable.
|
|
| |
| 111 | Perm Dude
ID: 581331621 Sun, Feb 17, 2008, 16:43
|
The Left likes these generic, one size fits all rules and it never works.
Stupid Constitution.
|
|
| 112 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 13:33
|
Box -- "The power of the decision to torture has to be given specifically to a select group of people high up in the food chain that are ultimately legally and professionally responsible for its use. It's an option that has to exist." Why does it have to exist? Sorry if you've explained earlier.
Earlier, you mentioned that it had to exist under certain criteria. What part of our government is responsible for (a) creating that criteria, and separately, (b) who is responsible for ensuring that the criteria is followed?
|
|
| 113 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 14:01
|
Madman, what brings up back to this here neck a the woods...good to see you.
|
|
| 114 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 16:12
|
nerve -- dunno. Just been awhile and was wondering what was going on -- clicking through old "favorites". Then PD's budget post got me riled up. And the election brings renewed interest, as always.
Good to see you, too.
|
|
| 115 | walk
ID: 825589 Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 10:57
|
Bush Vetoes Interrogation Bill
I guess it's going to now become a part of the campaign, and I think it should. I don't buy the "we have not been attacked since 9/11 cos of these practices." I think we can have strong national security without the option of harsh, torturous interrogation methods.
|
|
| 116 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 16:03
|
Shrub is certainly securing his legacy as the trampler of the US Constitution, nemesis to the Geneva Conventions, and just plain all around a-hole.
|
|
| 117 | walk
ID: 2530286 Sun, Mar 30, 2008, 20:20
|
Dang, anyone here see that first segment on 60 Minutes just now? Do you believe the guy? Held captive for five years and released from Gitmo only cos Merkel of Germany asked Bush to release him. Tortured continuously, bogus charges, and still considered an unlawful enemy combatant. Who's telling the truth? These prisons do not let us get to the bottom of it.
|
|
| 118 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823 Sun, Mar 30, 2008, 23:44
|
What's the confusion, walk? All sides agree that there is absolutely no evidence that he ever was a militant. The US government will eventually pay dearly when he sues them.
|
|
| 119 | Perm Dude
ID: 3232828 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 11:21
|
The Yoo memo, declassified
One thing I gotta hand to the Republicans: They shure are focused on the end result. They don't mind selling off the soul of the country to get there.
|
|
| 120 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 10:10
|
Bush even gets booed at a ball game these days...
|
|
| |
| 122 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Thu, May 01, 2008, 14:36
|
Re 121
That is so utterly repulsive, I'm at a loss for words! Here the media can't keep its eyes of the Rev. Wright car crash when something that really deserves our outrage goes unnoticed.
Yeah, Rev. Wright is an idiot because he thinks Louis Farrakhan is neat. On the other hand, there are covert illegal government programs created by the Administration, Congress is trying to investigate, and the press sits on its hands. Pathetic.
|
|
| 123 | walk
ID: 181472714 Fri, May 02, 2008, 10:36
|
WORD, SZ.
|
|
| |
| 125 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823 Sun, May 04, 2008, 10:12
|
First, most of the inmates were probably innocent all along
Kafka has indeed come to America.
In reality, it would take an exceptional enemy to damage America’s image and interests as much as President Bush and Mr. Cheney already have with Guantánamo.
|
|
| |
| 127 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823 Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 05:23
|
Research fodder:
When was the last review of whether executive orders are even constitutional and to what extent do they constitute a second set of laws? How have they been reified? How does a president waving his pen trump congressional perogative to write law and overturn/ignore constitutional law? Can someone locate a list of the executive orders that are known?
|
|
| |
| 129 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 18:37
|
Seven years is far, far, far too long to wait for this.
In the first hearing on the government’s justification for holding detainees at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, a federal judge ruled Thursday that five Algerian men were held unlawfully for nearly seven years and ordered their release. The judge, Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington, also ruled that a sixth Algerian man was being lawfully detained because he had provided support to the terrorist group Al Qaeda. One for six, I'm sure Geroge W. may think that's a winning record, but I sure don't. I can hear the response on talk radio now, "I don't care if we have to hold a thousand innocent people for a decade, if we detain at least one Arab who 'provided support' for Al-Qaeda"... I'm sure there will be those who decry the judge as some liberal.
Judge Leon, in a ruling from the bench, said that the information gathered on the men had been sufficient to hold them for intelligence purposes, but was not strong enough in court. “To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation,” he said. He directed that the five men be released “forthwith” and urged the government not to appeal. Judge Leon, who was appointed by President Bush, had been expected to be sympathetic to the government. In 2005, he ruled that the men had no habeas corpus rights. I'm still trembling with anticipation for a January 2009 executive order closing this horrible blight upon America's history. There are so many unsung heroes who have toiled for years representing these men. I'm sure they all uncorked a cry of happiness and relief along with many a champagne magnum back on the 3rd.
|
|
| 130 | tree on the treo
ID: 361053417 Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 19:00
|
waiting for baldwin to call this judge a "traitor" and an "activist judge"...oh..and some mention of clinton, obama, and ayers... 3 2 1...
|
|
| 131 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 20:33
|
I can't make any judgement one way or the other without knowing the evidence. I would be curious if the intelligence officers claimed that they could not reveal everything they held without revealing sources and methods. I'd also like to know how that particular court treated information like that. I'm never comfortable with excluded evidence that would benefit either side and fear in these cases that will free the guilty. Usually it works the other way. The justice system is intolerable.
|
|
| 132 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 20:53
|
"The Justice Department lawyers argued in motions filed Tuesday that there were flaws in the ground rules of other judges for the Guantánamo cases that would require the government to reveal classified evidence"
If you are going to assume the government is lying everytime they say something like this, then this is going to be a revolving door.
|
|
| 133 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 20:55
|
Maybe Shepherd Fairey can just make a glowing propaganda piece of some salafist and I spose liberals will be just as happy under that boot of oppression. Any tyrant will do it seems.
|
|
| 135 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 10:40
|
Tasteless, shameless, moron.
|
|
| 136 | Tree
ID: 51011420 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 11:38
|
it's so weird when you talk to yourself.
and let's be real. if that were coulter or palin in that photo above, it would be your desktop wallpaper.
|
|
| 137 | Baldwin
ID: 351123109 Wed, Dec 10, 2008, 21:21
|
Nat Hentoff detects a decidedly incomplete halfhearted distancing from torture in the Dem camp so far. Quotes aplenty... _________
I will however point out another angle I found surprising...In the Nov. 2 New York Post, a customarily conservative newspaper, Smith notes that the much publicized Guantanamo detainees "represent fewer than 1 percent" of the thousands of prisoners held beyond the rule of law (by the Bush administration).
Along with reporters in Europe and here, Smith has found locations of some of these black holes. He cites, among other sites, Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti, Diego Garcia, Ethiopia, Bosnia, Morocco and U.S. prison ships, harkening back to the hulks of Charles Dickens. And, he adds tellingly: "Not one of these ghost prisoners has ever encountered a human right, let alone a lawyer." I'm surprised by the size of the problem. I think we need hard numbers. Who would have guessed a 1% figure?
|
|
| 138 | walk
ID: 181472714 Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 09:43
|
North Korea Prison Camp Story'
Amazing sad, horrific story in today's Wash Post. I put it here cos this thread was about torture. This story is not related to our U.S. Pres and admin policy on torture.
|
|
| 139 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Thu, Dec 11, 2008, 17:22
|
John McCain tells Donald Rumsfeld that he is a lying, torturing a$$hole. Yes, George, you do torture and it is a disgrace. The rest of the Senate agrees.
A report released Thursday by leaders of the Senate Armed Services committee said that top Bush administration officials, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, bear major responsibility for the abuses committed by American troops in interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other military detention centers. It explicitly rejects the Bush administration’s contention that tough interrogation methods have helped keep the country and its troops safe.
The report also rejected previous claims by Mr. Rumsfeld and others that Defense Department policies played no role in the the harsh treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 and in other incidents of abuse. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the report says, “was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own” but grew out of interrogation policies approved by Mr. Rumsfeld and other top officials “conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees.” When you factor in the fact that a huge percentage of these people tortured had no intelligence to give because they were wrongly identified as Al Qaida or terrorists, this is even more disgusting.
“These policies are wrong and must never be repeated,” said Mr. McCain
That's the McCain I remember.
|
|
| 140 | walk
ID: 181472714 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 10:00
|
Bush Official Confirms Detainee was Tortured
This is interesting timing. I hope we can restore our higher moral ground about such tactics, and not torture...even the very bad one's.
|
|
| 141 | Baldwin
ID: 410521218 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 10:09
|
All true and serious but there should be way more attention on prison camps in China and N. Korea in the world press before anyone would rightfully conclude the media didn't have an agenda other than human rights by focusing on these lesser scale tho unacceptable situations. When someone points out that the USA is running death camps and executing prisoners to order for their matched body parts as they are in China, I'll revise that. I appreciate that Walk, if not the world press at least brought up the N. Korea situation [as well as I have many times].
|
|
| 142 | Perm Dude
ID: 330351317 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 10:19
|
It is unacceptable. End of story. This isn't a comparative.
|
|
| 143 | Baldwin
ID: 410521218 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 11:42
|
And yet the world goes on ignoring the world's worst cases and throwing hissy-fits when it suits the PD's of the world.
|
|
| 144 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 11:54
|
You mean like you're throwing hissy fits about two border agents who shot a guy in the back? Where are you in dealing with those massive abuses? Hmmm?
Something about glass houses and rocks comes to mind...
|
|
| 145 | Perm Dude
ID: 330351317 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 11:56
|
I don't think you have any idea of what suits me, Baldwin.
But when we torture, we lose the ability to criticize others for doing the same.
|
|
| 146 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 12:34
|
the US has almost always been THE standard-bearer. if we can't keep ourselves from torturing prisoners, then we are no better than China, North Korea, or any other country that tortures, and, as PD pointed out, we are in no position to criticize those other nations if we are no different.
|
|
| 147 | walk
ID: 181472714 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 13:34
|
Right, Tree and PD. That's the point, Baldwin. Not that we torture as much as, or more than, China or N. Korea, but that we do AT ALL. And as the others say, not only is any torture morally wrong in its own standing, but then we lose the moral superiority to say that China and N. Korea and others are really, really wrong ("well, you do it, too!").
|
|
| 148 | Baldwin
ID: 410521218 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 17:17
|
But when we torture, we lose the ability to criticize others for doing the same. - PD
Quite true, which reminds us of it's corollary:
If it's wrong, it's always wrong.
For example if a Jew were to be rightly excercized about Hitler's death camps and not equally concerned about Kim Il's death camps, he would be doing a terrible injustice to his own argument against putting Jews in death camps, as well as an injustice against people currently in death camps around the world.
This is what I see happening. Liberals in general, not perhaps Walk in this case, tend to leave the impression that Gitmo and Abu Graib were the most serious cases of human rights abuses in the world. In point of fact every prisoner in a North Korean death camp would kiss the ground if he could by some miracle be transported to Gitmo.
Where is the daily coverage of North Korean death camps? That might be all it would take to force better treatment. We'll never know. Political prisoners in China today suffer significantly worse brutality than prisoners in USSR Siberia and no one EVER points that out. Tell me why? How could you even complain about Gitmo and remain silent about infinitely worse situations around the world ongoing today? Tell me why? It's about time unbearable situations stopped being born in silence by the media and everyone else.
|
|
| 149 | Baldwin
ID: 410521218 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 17:22
|
It also reminds me of another corollary:
If you make the case for moral equivalence between Gitmo and N. Korea you in fact let N. Korea off the hook.
Is that really what we want to say about torture ongoing in the world? Proportionality.
|
|
| 150 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 18:23
|
Liberals in general, not perhaps Walk in this case, tend to leave the impression that Gitmo and Abu Graib were the most serious cases of human rights abuses in the world.
that couldn't be further from the truth, and is either another outright lie from you, or something you've made up and repeated over and over in your mind to a point you've convinced yourself is true.
while it's a small sampling size, i doubt there is one person on this message board you consider a liberal who would assert that Gitmo and Abu Gharib were worse than camps in places like North Korea or some other nation of your choosing.
in fact, i have never heard anyone say "wow, Gitmo is worse than a North Korea death camp."
on a related note, no doubt it's wrong everywhere. but in a nation that is supposed to be the one leading the way, it comes off as 100 times worse, because that nation is supposed to be the shining of example of what is CORRECT, not what is wrong.
|
|
| 151 | Perm Dude
ID: 50551417 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 18:59
|
If it's wrong, it's always wrong.
Absolutely. I wonder why you are unable to simply sat that the US torturing is wrong. Can't do it, can you?
What's wrong--Coulter got your tongue?
|
|
| 152 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 19:21
|
I've been against torture consistantly on this board and the fact that you can't get that thru your head is testimony that you cannot hold your non-reality based worldviews without simultaneously holding a non-reality based list of your opponents' positions.
|
|
| 153 | Perm Dude
ID: 50551417 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 19:27
|
You've been against a lot of things. But you have a political tic in which you cannot criticize a Republican without also criticizing something on the Left (typically, some kind of comparative or laying the blame on Democrats).
Tell you what: Point to a place on this board, any position, at any time, in which you blamed a Republican (or the GOP) for a problem they have done or made worse, in which you also didn't try to mitigate the blame by mentioning Democrats, the "Left," buzzwords for the same (such as MSM, Michael Moore, etc).
Take your time. A blind spot takes a while to see...
|
|
| 154 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 19:42
|
Keeping all things in proportion, keeping the big picture in mind, is not a flaw.
|
|
| 155 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 19:46
|
"I've done all that I could, to see the evil in the good" - Jackson Browne
Now there is a flaw. There is a self-loathing obsession.
|
|
| 156 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 20:35
|
And we pity that in you.
Up about ten posts or so back, you asked why people would be so up in arms about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and not so up in arms about China and North Korea. Which was a fair question. I'll give you three reasons:
1. We know that China and North Korea are bad dudes. But we really thought we were better than those guys. And not just better in the sense of "sure, we torture them, but we don't usually kill 'em, so on a moralistic scale we're okay" better, but really, honestly, better. To see that idealistic self-viewpoint (as far from self-loathing as you can get) torn asunder in front of our very eyes is very disheartening to say the least. We expect better of ourselves.
2. At the same time, we understand that as much as we might, we cannot change everything. You have to pick your battles. Americans railing against North Korean rights abuses aren't at all likely to make an impact. Americans railing against American human rights abuses has a chance of making a real impact.
3. I think that you are conveniently glossing over quite a few examples of Americans (primarily liberal Americans) speaking out against human rights abuses and problems in other parts of the world. Off the top of my head, you have people complaining about Nike sweatshops, quite a few actors/etc. from the Hollywood Left that you so despise trying to speak out, Bono and all his work, etc. These aren't the world's most perfect examples, I freely grant, but I don't have the time or the inclination to come up with twenty or thirty more, even though I'm sure I could.
I'm not sure if you ignore these because they come from people that you don't like, or if you ignore them because they don't fit your point, but they're out there.
|
|
| 157 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 21:31
|
I really should come up with an ordered list of the problems of the world ranked by severity, because no one seems to be able to keep it in perspective.
I truly believe if the world's media had not let China off the hook for Tiananmen Square, that the world and especially China would be a better place now.
I truly believe that countries like N. Korea and the Suddan are far more concerned about and vulnerable to world opinion than their bravado suggests.
While I understand your idea that americans have far more leverage in the USA than in China, in practice those who practice moral equivalence are operationally the best friends tyrants have.
|
|
| 158 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 22:22
|
I don't know that it's a moral equivalence though. It may be, in a small number of cases--those people are crackpots. Or they're using it for hyperbole to make a point.
It's one thing to say that torture is bad, no matter who does it. I think (hope) we can agree on this.
It's another thing to say that because we do it in some cases, we can't say that people doing even worse things are bad. I think (hope) I can agree with you on this.
I'm not sure that moral equivalence is the right term. More like moral triage (If that's not a real phrase, I'm claiming the copyright), wherein the really bad, far-away thing that we are very unlikely to affect is left to die because we haven't the capacity to save everyone.
|
|
| 159 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 22:53
|
Moral equivalence was a deliberate Stalin era psyops meme exported by the KGB, and I refuse to join the ranks of the 'pathetic memebots of a dead tyrant'.
I will agree with you that a prisoner in Afghanistan in a stress position for hours isn't feeling much better than an american POW in Hanoi hanging by his wrists tied behind his back. Better, but not much better.
However in my view those in full throated howl over abu graib for several years were far more interested in torturing Bush and america than they were concerned about Iraqi prisoners. If they were genuinely that concerned about human rights they would be members of amnesty international and have a few more talking points on the subject of human rights abuses.
|
|
| 160 | bibA
ID: 440381216 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 02:18
|
However in my view those in full throated howl over abu graib for several years were far more interested in torturing Bush and america than they were concerned about Iraqi prisoners. If they were genuinely that concerned about human rights they would be members of amnesty international and have a few more talking points on the subject of human rights abuses.
One can seem to assume that you do not count yourself among those concerned about human rights? Except in other countries? This sure seems to be what you are really saying. You aren't a member of Amnesty International are you?
|
|
| 161 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 04:02
|
No, and I'll tell you why. Even Amnesty International practices moral equivalence, tho on a lesser scale. They are incapable of proportionality. I think their having one level of alarm is problematic tho it does have some plusses namely more liberal members. Granted if you happen to be the one person in a country being tortured, it's just as serious.
Honestly if you have an international body that enables N. Korea to shrug and say 'everybody does it', their bending over backward to appear even-handed is backfiring in their mission to pressure against torture.
|
|
| 162 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 04:04
|
Perhaps they feel they need to do that to get more access to do their job, which was CNN's excuse to appease Saddam, of course.
|
|
| 163 | walk
ID: 139332920 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 06:28
|
NYT, Gail Collins
Staying on the Shrub theme...this is very good.
But still, what could he possibly tell the country that would change anybody’s opinion about the last eight years?
“My fellow Americans, before I leave you next week I want you to know that ...
A) “Although things have gone very wrong, I take comfort in the realization that Dick Cheney was actually in control from the get-go. Honest, I never even knew half the people in the cabinet.”
B) “Laura and I have come to realize that all things considered, retirement to a mansion in Texas is just totally inappropriate. And so we take our leave to begin a new life as missionaries at a small rescue station in the Gobi desert ...”
C) “Surprise! This has all actually been a bad dream. It’s really still November of 2000 and tomorrow Al Gore is going to be elected president.”
|
|
| 164 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 10:20
|
And the other half of the country think your half is crazy too...
|
|
| 165 | bibA
ID: 440381216 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 11:51
|
B- If you admit that you are not concerned about human rights, why do you constantly bring up N. Korea and China?
|
|
| 166 | Perm Dude
ID: 53045150 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 12:02
|
He's interested in trying to slap around the Left, that's why.
|
|
| 167 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 18:35
|
bibA
I did not admit anything of the kind. Out of the treasures of the heart the mouth speaks.
|
|
| 168 | walk
ID: 181472714 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 09:46
|
"Half of the country"...? If you are referring to Bush's popularity, or perceived effectiveness, more like the other quarter or eighth. If you are in that quarter, eighth, etc., then I do not understand.
|
|
| 169 | Baldwin
ID: 490541618 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 20:04
|
Safe to say that half the country does not suffer your full blown 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'.
Even the ones who dislike him for being a neocon globalist nation builder, betrayer of the Reagan legacy, big government, big spender, skull & bones, pro-illegal immigration and whatever other things the conservative half of the nation legitimately holds against his reputation.
The ones who buy the 'official version of events' and are grateful for seven years of no terrorist attacks on american soil, will think the deranged left just didn't get it and wouldn't have given Bush any credit no matter what he did.
|
|
| 170 | tree on the treo
ID: 521142259 Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 09:50
|
if the "deranged" left are the only ones not giving bush credit, then we're in a very clear majority, based on his lower than low approval ratings.
no surprise, baldwin, that your comments reflect bush's perceived "anti-conservative" flaws, and not his "anti-american way of life" flaws, which include waging war, being pro-torture, stomping on the constitution, flaunting law breaking, and so forth.
7 years with no foreign terrorist attacks on us soil is nice...clinton had a similar record..carter batted 1.000....and so on...
we've had so few foreign attacks on US soil, that to claim we haven't had one in 7 years is no big deal...
as a testament to how bad the bush presidency was and how often it screwed up, it seems that 9/11 was such a long time ago that it couldn't have also happened under bush's watch...
but it did.
|
|
| 171 | Baldwin
ID: 490541618 Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 10:25
|
Being deranged, you of course can't imagine that any of his unpopularity is coming from his not being enuff like Reagan. It must be coming entirely from Micheal Moore think-alikes.
Derange on.
|
|
| 172 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 11:29
|
and of course, you can't respond without insulting someone. i'd be curious as to the percentages of your posts that insult someone.
anyway, the derangement, however, is yours.
after all, if being Reagan was what it was all about, Sarah Palin (per your own decrees as some sort of Reagan in a skirt) would be the most popular person in this country, where in reality she's nowhere near the most popular person in her own state.
in early polling for the 2010 Republican Primary in the Alaskan senate race, she's nearly 25 points BEHIND Murkowski.
|
|
| 173 | Baldwin
ID: 2403183 Sun, Jan 18, 2009, 04:15
|
Can we please now say that the "Cut and Run"-ers were dead wrong. That America could be successful in Iraq and that it wasn't the Sunnis who did it; it was Americans who supported an unpopular "surge" strategy that proved to be the real solution to the security problem...
The number of daily attacks in Iraq has dropped nearly 95 percent since last year, a U.S. military official said yesterday.
Iraq suffered an average of 180 attacks per day this time last year. But over the past week, the average number was 10, Army Brig. Gen. David G. Perkins, a Multi-National Force Iraq spokesman, said.
"This is a dramatic improvement of safety throughout the country," Perkins told reporters during a wide-ranging news conference in Baghdad yesterday.
He added that the country's murder rates [not counting Saddam's own murder rate presumably - B] have dropped below levels that existed before the start of American operations in Iraq. In November, the ratio was 0.9 per 100,000 people. ...as opposed to the infinite quagmire every last BDS sufferer predicted. But of course Bush was the raging incompetent and the BDS sufferers are brilliant visionaries.
|
|
| 174 | Perm Dude
ID: 20121712 Sun, Jan 18, 2009, 09:29
|
[not counting Saddam's own murder rate presumably - B]
Heh. So true.
|
|
| 175 | bibA Leader
ID: 261028117 Sun, Jan 18, 2009, 12:12
|
The "success" of the surge begs a couple questions.
Sure, the US probably has the power to invade and occupy the great majority of the countries in the world. Were we to again invade another country that is similar to Iraq, would or should it be termed a "success" if it takes over half a decade of death and destruction to achieve our goals in that country? (Not sure what our goals even were in Iraq - if they were to defeat and kill Sadaam, this was accomplished several years before the "success" of the surge. If it was to seek out and remove Iraq's stockpiles of WMD, well, it is pretty well accepted, even by Bush, that they didn't really exist. Was our goal to defeat the forces of those responsible for 9-11? Most believe they were located elsewhere - in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan).
The main problem I have with those currently hailing the great "success" of the surge is that a victory on a battlefield does not necessarily make it morally right to have initiated the battle in the first place.
|
|
| 176 | Perm Dude
ID: 12021208 Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 14:41
|
Glenn Greenwald with some cautious optimism about Gitmo being closed.
|
|
| 177 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 15:20
|
Bush has admitted to authorizing the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed....the alleged mastermind behind 911. He says he got a legal opinion. link So if waterboarding is torture, then Bush has admitted to authorizing it.
|
|
| 178 | Baldwin
ID: 360281920 Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 16:35
|
Any room in the county jail near you, PD?
|
|
| 179 | Perm Dude
ID: 12021208 Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 16:40
|
The innocent do not need to be jailed, Baldwin. Nor tortured. And that's what Gitmo represents: An area outside of US law, where people can be kept without charges, tortured, and held for years.
Did Chief Prosecutor Darrel Vandeveld's testimony mean nothing to you? It should.
This might have escaped you, but no one is calling for those guilty of crimes, or awaiting trials, to be released.
Charge them. Or release them.
|
|
| 180 | Baldwin
ID: 360281920 Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 16:45
|
A. Lots who were in fact released went back to killing americans.
B. They can't prosecute them if it now means intel sources must be compromised in the legal process, so yes, the guilty will now go free. NIMBY, take them in yourself.
|
|
| 181 | Perm Dude
ID: 410112116 Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 17:15
|
A. Being tortured for no reason might cause people to be a bit sensitive about their captors. Are you saying we should pre-emptively hold innocent people without charges and torture them so they don't hate us when they get out?
B. Jeez--the Bush Administration used illegal and unethical means to gather what limited information they have (in most cases they have *nothing*) and we now should have a pity party for them?
Transparency and the rule of law. Two things you are solidly against and two things Obama brings to the table and insists upon. Even if we have to suffer the consequences of the Bush Administration. I know you are not big on taking responsibility ever since taking the Bush Kool-aid, but there you go.
|
|
| 182 | Baldwin
ID: 360281920 Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 17:38
|
They should be tried in military courts.
Also Obama knows that they often would be executed if returned. I say drop the 'exonerated' off in your backyard.
|
|
| 183 | Perm Dude
ID: 410112116 Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 18:06
|
They should be tried--yes indeed. That is exactly what isn't going on in Gitmo. And if we don't have enough to try them, they should be released. That's what we do with the innocent. And people for whom we cannot even charge with a crime, let alone bring to a trial.
Don't make this about me. The full consequences of the Bush Administration has yet to be realized, but you need not blame anyone for saying that we need to do the right thing.
|
|
| 184 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 20:19
|
Americans advocating the torture and imprisonment of innocent people.
wow. no matter how bright the sun shines, there will always be an evil element that sees no problem in that sort of behaviour.
|
|
| 185 | Baldwin
ID: 360281920 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 02:49
|
Who let the five year old in?
|
|
| 186 | walk
ID: 181472714 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 08:40
|
Obama Says, by actions, We Will Not Torture
Way to make America, America again.
As Obama says, it's a "false choice," that we have to compromise our civilized values to be secure. We are better than that, better in terms of our values and better in terms of our abilities to provide security without lowering our values.
Reason.
|
|
| 187 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 08:46
|
Who let the five year old in?
typical non-response.
seriously Baldwin - TRY - TRY to actually engage me, instead of insult me. are you THAT afraid of being taken to school by someone you think so little of that you can't keep away from the playground insults - perhaps it's because your political views are so rudimentary and simple (left, BAD!!! right, good!! Me beat chest now!), that you see no other option for yourself?
|
|
| 188 | Boldwin
ID: 17042224 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 16:51
|
Out of curiosity are there even credible accounts of torture in Gitmo? Abu Ghraib, perhaps, cia black locations, for sure sometimes, rendition, yes, some countries just do that as a regular practice...but Gitmo? I really don't think so, let alone did anyone here say we should torture them.
|
|
| 189 | Perm Dude
ID: 410112116 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 16:57
|
Read the link I provided in #176.
|
|
| 190 | walk
ID: 181472714 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 17:16
|
What about the report citing a Bush official who claims we have tortured? Repeated link from post #140.
|
|
| 191 | Boldwin
ID: 17042224 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 19:27
|
I'm getting the vibe that they have been perfecting torture techniques that sound deniable. Isolation and temperature extremes, well isolation, that goes on in prisons everywhere. Temp extremes...there's extremes and then there are extremes.
I know in Afghanistan they have techniques where they knee them in the thigh, and many people wouldn't think that rises to the level of torture, but I think they go way overboard virtually turning his muscles to hamburger, and who is to say which it is? Stress positions that don't sound so bad until you try them for hours.
BTW the dem leadership was briefed on these techniques years and years ago and signed off on them, only raising the issue for political opportunism much later on. Don't be so sure this stuff stops.
Nat Hentoff, his outrage is genuine...wild-eyed Pelosi, not so much.
|
|
| 192 | Perm Dude
ID: 410112116 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 20:09
|
No, they didn't sign off on them. This was, and is, an urban legend. They were briefed on what the Administration was doing, but there was never an approval, never a vote. And even those briefings were sanitized.
This is an attempt to smear Dems, frankly, with actions by the Administration that should be completely off limits.
|
|
| 193 | walk
ID: 139332920 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 22:13
|
And semi-moot. We tortured, led by Cheney and Bush, and Obama is trying to stop it.
|
|
| 194 | Baldwin
ID: 140312221 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 22:31
|
Well no, they didn't raise a whisper of protest till looong after they were briefed. Like during election season.
|
|
| 195 | Perm Dude
ID: 410112116 Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 22:45
|
And, if true, that makes torture OK because...?
Since when do you allow Democratic actions guide your ethics?
|
|
| 196 | Baldwin
ID: 140312221 Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 09:55
|
I didn't say it made it ok. It is however significant. Especially if you believe this is one of the many ways that the two parties are the same.
Further if they can't figure out a way to try these guys without revealing intel sources, you are going to see a whole lot more 'kill 'em all and let god sort them out' conduct from the military.
|
|
| 197 | Perm Dude
ID: 47047238 Fri, Jan 23, 2009, 10:10
|
The problem with the intel is that the Bush Administration took an extreme position on what they will and will not reveal, to the point of refusing to provide evidence to JAG lawyers assigned to represent the detainees.
Doing so would reveal the extent of how tainted the little information they have on the detainees are. Make no mistake: The Bush Administration isn't withholding information because they think it will somehow be compromised. They are withholding information because it either hurts their case or hurts their cause.
Conduct the trials in the military court system, with the standard rules of evidence (it is what most of the Left has been pushing for).
I take your point about the military rounding up these guys, but I think that most military people (including members of my own family, who have fought in Afghanistan) want these people brought to justice, and the longer this drags out the more those people are thinking their efforts are being wasted.
|
|
| |
| 199 | Seattle Zen
ID: 402241610 Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 13:08
|
This is the begining of the case against GW Bush and his administration for crimes against humanity.
ON a bright sunny day two years ago, President George W. Bush strode into the East Room of the White House and informed the world that the United States had created a dark and secret universe to hold and interrogate captured terrorists. “In addition to the terrorists held at Guantánamo,” the president said, “a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.”
At these places, Mr. Bush said, “the C.I.A. used an alternative set of procedures.” He added: “These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful.” This speech will stand, I believe, as George W. Bush’s most important: perhaps the only historic speech he ever gave. In his fervent defense of his government’s “alternative set of procedures” and his equally fervent insistence that they were “lawful,” he set out before the country America’s dark moral epic of torture, in the coils of whose contradictions we find ourselves entangled still.
At the same time, perhaps unwittingly, Mr. Bush made it possible that day for those on whom the alternative set of procedures were performed eventually to speak. For he announced that he would send 14 “high-value detainees” from dark into twilight: they would be transferred from the overseas “black sites” to Guantánamo. There, while awaiting trial, the International Committee of the Red Cross would be “advised of their detention, and will have the opportunity to meet with them.” And what a bombshell of a report it is. It details every type of torture used and the extreme level of oversight the DOD had in the interrogations. It seems to state that for at least some prisoners, every question was sent from DC/VA and every response was sent back, with instructions how to proceed. Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Geroge Tenet and John Ashcroft were all very involved.
“I was taken out of my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck; they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room.”
The prisoner was then put in a coffin-like black box, about 4 feet by 3 feet and 6 feet high, “for what I think was about one and a half to two hours.” He added: The box was totally black on the inside as well as the outside.... They put a cloth or cover over the outside of the box to cut out the light and restrict my air supply. It was difficult to breathe. When I was let out of the box I saw that one of the walls of the room had been covered with plywood sheeting. From now on it was against this wall that I was then smashed with the towel around my neck. I think that the plywood was put there to provide some absorption of the impact of my body. The interrogators realized that smashing me against the hard wall would probably quickly result in physical injury.”
After this beating, Abu Zubaydah was placed in a small box approximately three feet tall. “They placed a cloth or cover over the box to cut out all light and restrict my air supply. As it was not high enough even to sit upright, I had to crouch down. It was very difficult because of my wounds. The stress on my legs held in this position meant my wounds both in the leg and stomach became very painful. I think this occurred about three months after my last operation. It was always cold in the room, but when the cover was placed over the box it made it hot and sweaty inside. The wound on my leg began to open and started to bleed. I don’t know how long I remained in the small box; I think I may have slept or maybe fainted.
“I was then dragged from the small box, unable to walk properly, and put on what looked like a hospital bed, and strapped down very tightly with belts. A black cloth was then placed over my face and the interrogators used a mineral water bottle to pour water on the cloth so that I could not breathe. After a few minutes the cloth was removed and the bed was rotated into an upright position. The pressure of the straps on my wounds was very painful. I vomited.
“The bed was then again lowered to horizontal position and the same torture carried out again with the black cloth over my face and water poured on from a bottle. On this occasion my head was in a more backward, downwards position and the water was poured on for a longer time. I struggled against the straps, trying to breathe, but it was hopeless.”
After being placed again in the tall box, Abu Zubaydah “was then taken out and again a towel was wrapped around my neck and I was smashed into the wall with the plywood covering and repeatedly slapped in the face by the same two interrogators as before.
“I was then made to sit on the floor with a black hood over my head until the next session of torture began. The room was always kept very cold.
This went on for approximately one week.” If that doesn't make you sick, I don't know what is wrong with you. Not only is this prisoner being horribly tortured, but the military/CIA people ordered to carry out this torture have to have suffered. Reread that passage and imagine yourself doing this to a dog. How could you? Now imagine you have to do this to a human. If that did not affect you, you have to be a psychopath.
Abu Zubaydah, Walid bin Attash, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed — these men almost certainly have blood on their hands. There is strong reason to believe that they had critical parts in planning and organizing terrorist operations that caused the deaths of thousands of people. So in all likelihood did the other “high-value detainees” whose treatment while secretly confined by the United States is described in the Red Cross report.
From everything we know, many or all of these men deserve to be tried and punished — to be “brought to justice,” as President Bush vowed they would be. The fact that judges, military or civilian, throw out cases of prisoners who have been tortured — and have already done so at Guantánamo — means it is highly unlikely that they will be brought to justice anytime soon.
For the men who have committed great crimes, this seems to mark perhaps the most important and consequential sense in which “torture doesn’t work.” The use of torture deprives the society whose laws have been so egregiously violated of the possibility of rendering justice. Torture destroys justice. Torture in effect relinquishes this sacred right in exchange for speculative benefits whose value is, at the least, much disputed. What we can say with certainty, in the wake of the Red Cross report, is that the United States tortured prisoners and that the Bush administration, including the president himself, explicitly and aggressively denied that fact. We can also say that the decision to torture, in a political war with militant Islam, harmed American interests by destroying the democratic and Constitutional reputation of the United States, undermining its liberal sympathizers in the Muslim world and helping materially in the recruitment of young Muslims to the extremist cause. By deciding to torture, we freely chose to embrace the caricature they had made of us. The consequences of this choice, legal, political and moral, now confront us. Time and elections are not enough to make them go away. There is a much longer review of the book by this author at the New York Review of Books: US Torture: Voices from the Black Sites
I started watching W last night, Olver Stone's movie on The Schlub, but it brought back so many horrible, horrible memories that I killed it. I, like Michelle Obama, was not proud of America during those eight dark, dark years.
|
|
| 200 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 13:15
|
What is Abu Zubaydah guilty of specifically?
|
|
| 201 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 13:17
|
I never really understood the concept of torture unless you know there is an imminent attack and this bastard has to pay in order to save innocent lives.
Life at the SuperMax in Colorado seems a lot worse than death to me. Put him there.
|
|
| 202 | Perm Dude
ID: 22231611 Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 13:24
|
I completely agree (which is one of the reasons why I'm against the death penalty).
And, as has been documented over and over by people who understand about extracting information from people, torture is about the most inefficient means of obtaining solid information one can use.
|
|
| 203 | Seattle Zen
ID: 402241610 Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 13:34
|
What is Abu Zubaydah guilty of specifically?
Well, he has been suspected to be Al Qaeda.
From the NY Review of Books story: We believe that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden....
But we'll never really know as he cannot be tried here in the US because we acted all "cowboy".
|
|
| 204 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Mon, Mar 16, 2009, 13:37
|
Well yeah. I'd bulls#it my way out of it too.
Yes yes Martians are going to land on the White House lawn. Anything! Just get the bamboo shoots out from under my fingernails!
There's got to be a reason why governmental organizations believe torture is effective. Someone somewhere told them this works.
Other than trying to ward off an imminent attack the only reason for torture must be for evil purposes. I.e. Jew extermination, political prisoners, things like that.
I'm against the death penalty because I don't want our country in the death business unless we're at war. That goes for abortion, death penalty, all that stuff. Err on the side of life.
|
|
| 205 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 08:53
|
Boxman, at the risk of you responding to me by treating the forum to another of your revealing self protraits, I have to ask, was post 204 written with the memory of your previous opinions on the topic in mind? Or did you miss the detatchment of that post from your earlier posts in this thread?
Assuming the missing phrase from this incomplete sentence would have clarified that you generaly oppose torture: "Other than trying to ward off an imminent attack the only reason for torture must be for evil purposes. I.e. Jew extermination, political prisoners, things like that.", that opinion seems rather contradictory to such statements as:
Now according to the guy on the Maher show, we've [waterboarded] 3 people. Those were the worst of the worst and I think its reasonable that we use aggressive interrogations with those people
Is it that you forgot to include a clause for high-ranking enemies when you wrote #204 or that you're certain enough that we only waterboarded those people in order to stop imminant attacks or that your opinion has evolved somewhat in the past year?
|
|
| 206 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 09:16
|
Boxman, at the risk of you responding to me by treating the forum to another of your revealing self protraits
Since you're such a fan...

Is it that you forgot to include a clause for high-ranking enemies when you wrote #204
Have you ever considered contractual law? I negotiate contracts all the time and your detail is amazing.
Would it be safe to presume that the "worst of the worst" i.e. your Khalid Sheik Muhammeds would know of imminent attacks given that they've ordered them before?
|
|
| 207 | Perm Dude
ID: 25225178 Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 10:32
|
Even if he had the information, all the more reason to make sure what we get out of him is accurate.
There is a reverse side, of course, to the "ticking bomb" and torture: pain and ill-treatment, by creating an unbearable pressure on the detainee to say something, anything, to make the pain stop, increase the likelihood that he will fabricate stories, and waste time, or worse. At least some of the intelligence that came of the "alternative set of procedures," like Zubaydah's supposed "information" about attacks on shopping malls and banks, seems to have led the US government to issue what turned out to be baseless warnings to Americans. Khaled Shaik Mohammed asserted this directly in his interviews with the ICRC. "During the harshest period of my interrogation," he said,
I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop.... I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent...wasted a lot of their time and led to several false red-alerts being placed in the US.
For all the talk of ticking bombs, very rarely, if ever, have officials been able to point to information gained by interrogating prisoners with "enhanced techniques" that enabled them to prevent an attack that had reached its "operational stage" (that is, had gone beyond reconnoitering and planning). Still, widespread perception that such techniques have prevented attacks, actively encouraged by the President and other officials, has been politically essential in letting the administration carry on with these policies after they had largely become public. Polls tend to show that a majority of Americans are willing to support torture only when they are assured that it will "thwart a terrorist attack." Because of the political persuasiveness of such scenarios it is vital that a future inquiry truly investigate claims that attacks have been prevented.
Mark Danner, reporting on the Red Cross Report
|
|
| 208 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 10:47
|
Even if he had the information, all the more reason to make sure what we get out of him is accurate.
No one is disputing the need for accurate information.
In an imminent attack situation time is of the essence. The attack is imminent. Therefore there's no time to cajole and whisper sweet nothings into his ear.
Now I'm sure there are cases where people lie just to make the torture stop. Yet in time sensitive cases that's all we have in the chance the person actually spills the beans.
|
|
| 209 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 12:00
|
Would it be safe to presume that the "worst of the worst" i.e. your Khalid Sheik Muhammeds would know of imminent attacks given that they've ordered them before?
Well no, not necessarily, given what we know about al Qaeda.
That said, if you're not capable of discussing the issue with me without trying to destroy the forum in the process, please just don't respond.
|
|
| 210 | Perm Dude
ID: 6259179 Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 12:04
|
Now I'm sure there are cases where people lie just to make the torture stop.
The problem is clear: We have no idea when people are lying when the information comes from torture. None.
The "ticking time bomb" scenerio, trotted out by Cheney and others to justify torture, has yet to be revealed as ever actually happening. Ever. Let me make that clearer: There has never been a case in which torture by the U.S. has resulted in information being extracted to prevent a timely attack.
So let's all stop hiding behind the skirts of Dick Cheney and call it like it is. Torture doesn't work and gives us bad information. Which is exactly why it should not be used in those cases pro-torture advocates want to reserve it for.
It isn't just that everyone wants good information. It is that good information is most important at those times in which torture gives us bad information--this is worse than no information at all.
|
|
| 211 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 12:26
|
The "ticking time bomb" scenerio, trotted out by Cheney and others to justify torture, has yet to be revealed as ever actually happening. Ever. Let me make that clearer: There has never been a case in which torture by the U.S. has resulted in information being extracted to prevent a timely attack.
Then it was wrong to torture them, but that doesn't mean the ability to use it should be wholly discarded. It was just applied in an entirely inappropriate way.
|
|
| 212 | Seattle Zen
ID: 34320611 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 02:49
|
Medical personnel were deeply involved in the abusive interrogation of terrorist suspects held overseas by the Central Intelligence Agency, including torture, and their participation was a “gross breach of medical ethics,” a long-secret report by the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded.
In its 40-page report, the Red Cross roundly condemned the C.I.A. detention program not only for using torture and other cruel treatment, but also for holding prisoners without notice to governments or families. “The totality of the circumstances in which the 14 were held effectively amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty and enforced disappearance, in contravention of international law,”
The report also provided new details of the Bush administration’s failure to cooperate for several years with the Red Cross’s inquiries and investigations of American detention programs. Repeated inquiries and reports from the organization beginning in 2002 received no response from American officials, the report said, though the United States sent a diplomatic message addressing some inquiries in 2005. If you aren't going to seek criminal charges, at the very least any licensed medical care provider must have their license to practice revoked. We aren't going to throw away the Hippocratic Oath in the name of "National Security", are we?
|
|
| 213 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 05:54
|
If we're going to apply the "do no harm" clause to doctors who supervise torture then let's start with the guys in Florida that watched Schiavo starve to death.
|
|
| 214 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 07:02
|
Comparing the entirely legal ending of the faux-life of someone in a persistant vegetative state at the request of her husband with men who can think and remember and whom we have no doubt can actually feel all of the pain who were robbed of their liberty by the world's supposed protector of freedom and then ordered tortured by said protector is a sick and pathetic attempt at the already pathetic response of 'i-dont-have-to-answer-to-that-because-they-do-it-too'.
Unless you are actively attempting to recruit for the political left with this line you've settled on, I suggest you look for another tract.
Here's a suggestion: "Yes it's terribly shocking what was done by the former administration in the name of the war on terror. We on the political right must do a better job at seeing the values of our faith more consistantly incorporated into the morality of our politics and our policies."
How can anyone take the political right seriously when you can't even stand up against torture, opting instead for an insulting and frankly twisted attempt at shifting blame to the other side?
|
|
| 215 | Tree, at the airport
ID: 2733979 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 10:43
|
i continue to marvel at the conservative members of this board who keep using the same argument that my brother and i used as children when one of us got to do something the other didn't..."how come HE gets a Big Mac??!?!?!"
|
|
| 216 | Baldwin
ID: 132854 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 11:28
|
Hitler had 'life-not-worth-living' and MITH has 'faux-life'. How reassuring.
Instead of 'never again', the lesson from WWII should have been 'history always repeats itself'.
|
|
| 217 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 11:30
|
Look Ma! I'm like Hitler!
|
|
| 218 | Seattle Zen
ID: 5334710 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 11:37
|
Time to add "medical ethics" to the list of things Boxman does not understand.
I will need to add a terabyte hard drive to store this list.
|
|
| 219 | Perm Dude
ID: 23343612 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 11:43
|
It is like debating a high school freshman, who thinks he can win a point and so continues to come back to that point time after time after time.
Debate on the Civil War: "But the slaves were far better off under slavery in the 1850s in the South than they were in the 1850s in the North..."
Debate on the causes of the Depression: "You know, most slaveholders in the South, despite treating their slaves well, were actually self-identified Democrats. Democrats--holding slaves!!"
Debate on going into Iraq in 2003: "Democrats shouldn't worry about how well the Iraqi citizens are treated. After all, many of them were slaveholders in the 1800s and treated those slaves quite well compared to their Northern liberal neighbors.
|
|
| 220 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 12:16
|
the entirely legal ending of the faux-life of someone in a persistant vegetative state
I'm referring to Schiavo not Tree, but please continue though.
|
|
| 221 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 12:28
|
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to take 4 hours of video of a balloon floating in front of Tree's face to get a 5 second clip in which it looks like he is able to see it.
|
|
| 222 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 12:38
|
217: Godwin would be proud.
|
|
| 223 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 13:00
|
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have to take 4 hours of video of a balloon floating in front of Tree's face to get a 5 second clip in which it looks like he is able to see it.
1) Don't be so sure of that.
2) In a comparative to your hypothesis, we do have 1,000s of posts by Tree and seemingly none of which have a researched or even well thought out response.
|
|
| 224 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 15:08
|
Way to raise the bar!
|
|
| 225 | tree, on the treo
ID: 55220277 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 15:12
|
nice attempt at a deflection boxman, but this about you, not me.
I have no problem admitting some of my posts are fluff. I can't remember the last time you had one that wasn't fluff...
the personal insults though, are something you're learning well from your master...when in doubt, attack.
hooray for you.
|
|
| 226 | Boxman
ID: 3821468 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 15:21
|
I have no problem admitting some of my posts are fluff.
So you must believe the Titanic only took on a little water then?
|
|
| 227 | tree, on the treo
ID: 55220277 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 15:42
|
keep flappin' 'em. nothing coming out but white noise, and every post you make shows is even more.
enjoy yourself boxman.
|
|
| 228 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 12:58
|
NYT WASHINGTON -- The Central Intelligence Agency announced on Thursday that it will no longer use contractors to conduct interrogations, and that it is decommissioning the secret overseas sites where for years it held high-level Al Qaeda prisoners.
In a statement to the agency's work force, the director, Leon E. Panetta, said that the secret detention facilities were no longer in operation, but he suggested that security and maintenance have been continued at the sites at taxpayers' expense.
"I have directed our agency personnel to take charge of the decommissioning process, and have further directed that the contracts for site security be promptly terminated," Mr. Panetta said. "It is estimated that our taking over site security will result in savings of up to $4 million."
Mr. Panetta's statement, along with a classified letter about interrogation policy that he sent Thursday to the Senate and House intelligence oversight committees, underscored the new administration's sharp break with one of the most controversial programs of the Bush administration.
Starting in 2002, with the approval of President Bush and the Justice Department, the C.I.A. used harsh physical pressure against about 30 Qaeda prisoners, agency officials have said. Some of the treatment, including the technique known as waterboarding, has been described as illegal torture by an array of legal authorities, human rights groups, the International Committee of the Red Cross and several Obama administration officials, including Mr. Panetta.
A 2007 Red Cross report made public this week by The New York Review of Books concluded that the agency's entire program violated international law, both by using torture and through the "enforced disappearance" of terrorist suspects. The report, based on interviews with 14 Qaeda prisoners now held by the United States military at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, described prisoners being slammed into walls, forced to stand for hours with arms handcuffed to the ceiling, confined in a small box, kept awake for days on end and exposed to cold temperatures.
In the statement, Mr. Panetta vowed to continue the "global pursuit" of Al Qaeda and its allies. But he said that interrogators will use traditional methods and not physical force, and that the interrogators will be government employees.
"C.I.A. officers, whose knowledge of terrorist organizations is second to none, will continue to conduct debriefings using a dialog style of questioning that is fully consistent with the interrogation approaches authorized and listed in the Army Field Manual," Mr. Panetta wrote. Hilzoy:Thank God. Now if the administration would only free the Uighurs, release the torture memos, and renounce the state secrets doctrine ...
|
|
| 229 | Seattle Zen
ID: 573291810 Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 02:10
|
This is such an outstanding editorial, I am pasting the whole thing. Heads must roll!
To read the four newly released memos on prisoner interrogation written by George W. Bush’s Justice Department is to take a journey into depravity.
Their language is the precise bureaucratese favored by dungeon masters throughout history. They detail how to fashion a collar for slamming a prisoner against a wall, exactly how many days he can be kept without sleep (11), and what, specifically, he should be told before being locked in a box with an insect — all to stop just short of having a jury decide that these acts violate the laws against torture and abusive treatment of prisoners.
In one of the more nauseating passages, Jay Bybee, then an assistant attorney general and now a federal judge, wrote admiringly about a contraption for waterboarding that would lurch a prisoner upright if he stopped breathing while water was poured over his face. He praised the Central Intelligence Agency for having doctors ready to perform an emergency tracheotomy if necessary.
These memos are not an honest attempt to set the legal limits on interrogations, which was the authors’ statutory obligation. They were written to provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly illegal, immoral and a violation of this country’s most basic values.
It sounds like the plot of a mob film, except the lawyers asking how much their clients can get away with are from the C.I.A. and the lawyers coaching them on how to commit the abuses are from the Justice Department. And it all played out with the blessing of the defense secretary, the attorney general, the intelligence director and, most likely, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
The Americans Civil Liberties Union deserves credit for suing for the memos’ release. And President Obama deserves credit for overruling his own C.I.A. director and ordering that the memos be made public. It is hard to think of another case in which documents stamped “Top Secret” were released with hardly any deletions.
But this cannot be the end of the scrutiny for these and other decisions by the Bush administration.
Until Americans and their leaders fully understand the rules the Bush administration concocted to justify such abuses — and who set the rules and who approved them — there is no hope of fixing a profoundly broken system of justice and ensuring that that these acts are never repeated.
The abuses and the dangers do not end with the torture memos. Americans still know far too little about President Bush’s decision to illegally eavesdrop on Americans — a program that has since been given legal cover by the Congress.
Last week, The Times reported that the nation’s intelligence agencies have been collecting private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans on a scale that went beyond the broad limits established in legislation last year. The article quoted the Justice Department as saying there had been problems in the surveillance program that had been resolved. But Justice did not say what those problems were or what the resolution was.
That is the heart of the matter: nobody really knows what any of the rules were. Mr. Bush never offered the slightest explanation of what he found lacking in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when he decided to ignore the law after 9/11 and ordered the warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ overseas calls and e-mail. He said he was president and could do what he wanted.
The Bush administration also never explained how it interpreted laws that were later passed to expand the government’s powers to eavesdrop. And the Obama administration argued in a recent court filing that everything associated with electronic eavesdropping, including what is allowed and what is not, is a state secret.
We do not think Mr. Obama will violate Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did. But if Americans do not know the rules, they cannot judge whether this government or any one that follows is abiding by the rules.
In the case of detainee abuse, Mr. Obama assured C.I.A. operatives that they would not be prosecuted for actions that their superiors told them were legal. We have never been comfortable with the “only following orders” excuse, especially because Americans still do not know what was actually done or who was giving the orders.
After all, as far as Mr. Bush’s lawyers were concerned, it was not really torture unless it involved breaking bones, burning flesh or pulling teeth. That, Mr. Bybee kept noting, was what the Libyan secret police did to one prisoner. The standard for American behavior should be a lot higher than that of the Libyan secret police.
At least Mr. Obama is not following Mr. Bush’s example of showy trials for the small fry — like Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib notoriety. But he has an obligation to pursue what is clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners — in violation of international law and the Constitution.
That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.
These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.
After eight years without transparency or accountability, Mr. Obama promised the American people both. His decision to release these memos was another sign of his commitment to transparency. We are waiting to see an equal commitment to accountability. Emphasis MINE!
Thank you, Grey Lady.
|
|
| 230 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 06:26
|
Let's not be childish and stop using the term "Shrub". PD has a problem with presidential nicknames or perhaps it only relates to Obomba.
|
|
| 231 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 09:47
|
you're the first person in 3 1/2 years who has used that term in this thread.
in fact, your usage of it is the only time it appears inside any actual post in this thread.
|
|
| 232 | Perm Dude
ID: 183581817 Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 09:50
|
Nah, walk used it.
Boxman has turned into a child. He has no actual political arguments to make, so he turns to name calling. He probably has no genuine idea of why the GOP is losing at the polls, badly, through this technique.
|
|
| 233 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 10:18
|
you're right PD. i forgot that the search function only works for the last 50 posts unless you expand it.
your second point is the true one, however.
|
|
| 234 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Fri, Apr 24, 2009, 10:40
|
"We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture"
|
|
| 235 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Apr 25, 2009, 16:12
|
Astounding piece from The National Interest:As a former senior military interrogator, it’s deeply troubling to me after reading the recently released torture memos that we doubted our ability to win the battle of wits in the interrogation booth and resorted to torturing and abusing prisoners. There is no profession that is successful 100 percent of the time. Doctors can’t cure all patients.
When I was in Iraq leading an interrogation team hunting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda, we experienced failures. The highly skilled soldiers that my task force sent out to capture and kill terrorists based on my team’s information sometimes failed. And, occasionally, pilots missed their targets. We must accept that we can lose battles and still win the war.
On the path to Zarqawi, my interrogations team encountered al-Qaeda leaders who never cooperated. Those sessions were opportunities to refine our skills. It made us better interrogators and we later used those refined skills to string together a series of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.
Those who tout the successes of waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah are omitting at least one important fact. Neither man gave up Osama bin Laden. Every good interrogator knows that a detainee can give up information that sells out the men and operations below him. They need only protect their leader for the organization to survive. The fact that Osama bin Laden is still alive is proof that waterboarding does not work. The more important fact, however, is that our policy of torture and abuse has cost us American lives.
As a senior interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than three hundred interrogations and monitored more than one thousand. I heard numerous foreign fighters state that the reason they came to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Our policy of torture and abuse is Al-Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool. These same insurgents have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our troops in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi civilians. Torture and abuse are counterproductive in the long term and, ultimately, cost us more lives than they save.
The more important argument, however, is the moral one. One of al-Qaeda’s goals is to prove that America does not live up to its principles. They assert that we are a nation of hypocrites. By engaging in torture and abuse, we are playing into their hands. This war has two fronts—protecting our security by thwarting terrorist attacks and preserving American principles. We cannot become our enemy in seeking to defeat him.
Americans are plenty smart enough to convince al-Qaeda members to cooperate. My interrogation team did it time and time again with the most hardened al-Qaeda terrorists, even when they were familiar with our methods. Criminal investigators face the same challenge every day in America with suspects who watch Law & Order or NYPD Blue and learn interrogation techniques. Yet, every day detectives elicit confessions, just as I did when I was working as a federal agent.
I told my interrogators in Iraq, “The things that make you a great American are the same things that will make you a great interrogator. Leverage your culture—tolerance, cultural understanding, compassion, intellect and ingenuity.” Those are things that win wars.
|
|
| 236 | Seattle Zen
ID: 123442611 Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 18:43
|

The rule of law insists that the memos authors must be tried and punished.
|
|
| 237 | Perm Dude
ID: 13122516 Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 18:58
|
The rule of law says that they should be investigated.
It also says that Obama is not the person to do it.
|
|
| 238 | Baldwin
ID: 553441513 Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 22:00
|
The rule of law says he doesn't even qualify to be president.
|
|
| 239 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 23:00
|
over under on the next Baldwin post mentions Clinton, Schiavo, or unborn fetuses.
come on, give it a rest. you've already been disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt on the "obama is not an american" line of silliness.
|
|
| |
| 241 | Seattle Zen
ID: 513122623 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 01:10
|
It also says that Obama is not the person to do it.
I don't think anyone is insisting that the President himself conduct an investigation, he's busy with the new dog. You do know that the branch of government that enforces the laws is the Executive, however, so he has to at minimum order the investigation - DOJ or Special Prosecutor. Congress can hold hearings, but that is not an investigation.
|
|
| 242 | holt
ID: 303502019 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 02:40
|
good old two-party politics. f@ck the other party every chance you get, actual benefit to the country be damned. It's so easy for fanboys of either party to rationalize, justify, and approve of propaganda/smear campaigns. nevermind the overall erosion involved.
I'm just completely dumbfounded that people actually want to go down this path. Not surprised by any means, just disgusted and further jaded.
the democratic party must think they have some permanent ground to gain here. They're just wrong. every notch they take the republicans down, they'll lose a notch or two along with it. kick every single last politician out of Washington... screw it. not in my lifetime.
|
|
| 243 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 07:28
|
holt -
explain to those of us who feel that an investigation - and if necessary - prosecution - is not in the best interest of this country.
if a potential crime was committed, be it one from a congressional page or the POTUSA himself, should it not be investigated?
if the POTUSA - the most important elected office in the world - commits a crime that puts that questions the integrity of that office - is it not our obligation in a fair and democratic society to pursue the matter?
or should we just let him get away with murder, because he's the President?
an investigation like this has nothing to do with political affiliation, and everything to do with America.
|
|
| 244 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 08:17
|
I'm just completely dumbfounded that Americans want to stick their heads in the sand of the torture of detainees in our own country.
Holt, what would you be saying today if this debate were taking place in a country where it was Americans who were the detainees who were tortured? Would you be so defending Iranians or Taliban or Islamist Pakistanis who committed war crimes against American prisoners in their custody? Would you be so appaled the portion of those countries that wanted to get to the bottom of what was committed in their name?
Would you simply dismiss those people as partisans who are simply out to f@ck the other party every chance you get.
Interesting position for you to take, Holt. You seem to claim the non-partisan moral high ground of torture appeasement.
And I'm the "fanboy". Right.
|
|
| 245 | Frick
ID: 3410551012 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 09:01
|
In some ways I agree with Holt, what will be gained from the investigations? If Bush had granted Presidential Pardons for any involved, what could have been done about it? Actually, let me rephrase that. What would have been done? Absolutely nothing, a sitting President is not going to potentially decrease their pardon power, knowing that their pardons could be reversed by next President.
Do I think we should torture anyone? No, but physcological torture is a much grayer area than physical torture. Is waterboarding torture? I think so, but to my understanding it doesn't cause physical harm.
Is providing a less than adequate diet a practice that is used? Could it be considered physical torture?
Regardless, I think it is a terrible precedent that an action that was legally approved could be considered illegal later.
|
|
| 246 | Razor
ID: 371502414 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 09:19
|
Regardless, I think it is a terrible precedent that an action that was legally approved could be considered illegal later.
The issue is really whether it should have been legally approved in the first place. If you have lawyers willfully ignoring or misinterpreting the law to justify torture, then I think that absolutely needs to be investigated or else we set a precedent of future Administrations hiding behind some BS legal memorandums that justify whatever they want them to.
|
|
| 247 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 09:33
|
what will be gained from the investigations?
With all due respect Frick, in civilized nations we investigate crimes and potential crimes. I don't think I understand the point of the question. Is this an argument that war crimes should be less accessable to official investigation than other crimes?
You can look up what the Army Field Manual and the Geneva Convention (to which the USA was a signatory) say. No doubt about water boarding. Stress positions, diet manipulation and sleep deprivation are depending on severity, I believe.
Are you aware that after WW2, we had Japanese officers executed for waterboarding American detainees in their custody?
I think it is a terrible precedent that an action that was legally approved could be considered illegal later.
Heads of state need to know that there can be a grave consequence to committing war crimes. How can we argue before teh world for the prosecution of war criminals if we refuse to even investigate war crimes committed by our own government?
How can we set standards of morality and personal freedoms for the rest of the world to emulate if we refuse to adhere to our own standards when push comes to shove? I'm not asking for anything beyond the way our own leaders have said we should conduct ourselves. there's a couple of terrific items on Andrew Sullivan's blog today:
George W Bush - 6.26.03:"The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy" Here's a couple of excerpts from The UN Convention on Torture, which Ronald reagan signed in 1984: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.
Article 2 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. And here's Reagan's signing statement (link also contains the full text of the convention):"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."
|
|
| 248 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 09:42
|
i think the standard of morality is the defining point.
as Shep Smith said, "We are America. We do not f*cking torture. We don't do it."
we have American journalists being held in several countries around the world, in some cases, accused of being spies.
if we don't say THE BUCK STOPS HERE and prosecute those in this country that torture and authorize torture, who are we to say to Iran and North Korea and anyone else, "hey, don't torture our guys, ok?"
we have a responsibility, AS AMERICANS, to prevent this from happening, and if we don't prosecute those responsible, what's the deterrent to the next President who thinks it's acceptable to torture.
Ronald Reagan's statements on torture are a true find, and no doubt vexing to those right wingers who essentially are playing politics by saying we shouldn't investigate.
i can say beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no politics on my end. if at the end of Obama's presidency it came out that he signed off on torture and believed it acceptable, i would be heartbroken, and i would call for the same investigation into him and anyone else involved, as i am for Bush and his people.
|
|
| 249 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 10:08
|
Clearly, Reagan was a RINO.
|
|
| 250 | Frick
ID: 3410551012 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 12:13
|
Mith, my question was asked due to my understanding that the people being investigated were the front line workers. They recieved a valid legal opinion that their actions were legal. If the investigation is for the people who granted the opinion, I retract the question.
I still stand by the statement that a Presidential Pardon would render the whole argument moot and no President would attack a predecessor's Pardons.
Has the reasoning behind the legal opinion been released?
|
|
| 251 | Perm Dude
ID: 28392711 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 12:14
|
You can't attack pardons. They are irrevocable.
|
|
| 252 | bibA
ID: 443582419 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 12:43
|
It would seem to me that successfully prosecuting those who wrote opinions for the administration which justified extreme interogation methods would be problematical at best. Proving that they willfully ignored or misinterpreted the law to justify torture would be so difficult. The defense of those accused would be pretty easy - just have to say they were giving what they believed to be valid opinions based on their knowledge of the law.
That's not to say that the methods used and okayed by the abdministration were anything but shameful, and a dark blot on the US. The overall approval of so many for the use of these methods is disgusting to most of the world, and it depresses me that people justify it by saying either that "they do it, only they are worse", or "it's okay if it works".
Probably best to move on and allow torture to be a big part of the Bush/Cheney legacy.
|
|
| 254 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 13:10
|
Frick
Investigations haven't started yet. In fact we haven't even reached the first stage of forming a committee to conduct an investigation. Further, I don't think it's accurate (in the way you seem to intend) to suggest they would target certain people or groups of people for investigation. If an investigation is as thorough as it should be, they'll investigate how the US government came to settle on and approve the practice of torturing detainees, how frequently those practices were used, the'll parse the justifications in each of those cases, review exactly what the practices were, try to determine the short, medium and long term impacts on the detainees, the (positive and negative) impacts on our foreign policy agendas and whether and to what extent the use of these procedures saved American lives and the liklihood that we could have saved those lives without torturing anyone.
And if it's as thorough as it should be, they'll follow every last lead to every place they are taken, spare no effort in tracking down every last person who might have information to interview.
I assume that at some point during that process the DOJ will begin to form their approach to prosecutions.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the pardon suggestion. My understanding is that you pardon people who are convicted of crimes. We haven't charged anyone with anything yet.
|
|
| 255 | holt
ID: 303502019 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 13:19
|
"an investigation like this has nothing to do with political affiliation, and everything to do with America. "
If it were a Gore administration rather than Bush, and terrorists were water boarded in an effort to save lives and property, you would very easily take a different position. I don't believe for one second that you wouldn't. It all depends on what side of the aisle you're on.
I can't believe people are seriously considering dragging our country through this crap. What possible good can come from it? As if we don't have enough to deal and live with right now. I just really can't believe that people have this on their minds atm.
Seems funny to me that it's ok to bomb the sh!t out of the enemy but then pour some water over them to gain intelligence and the torches and pitchforks start coming out.
|
|
| 256 | Razor
ID: 371502414 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 13:35
|
Seems funny to me that it's ok to bomb the sh!t out of the enemy but then pour some water over them to gain intelligence and the torches and pitchforks start coming out.
Ya, like things like circumstance and nuance seem to evade the GOP these days.
Obama is more liked than Gore ever was but the Left, but he has been taking heat for not wanting to go after the memo-writers on this. The previous administration's actions made this an issue, not Obama.
|
|
| 257 | WiddleAvi
ID: 343531513 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 13:38
|
Holt - How do we justify putting to death Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US soldiers but just ignore it when it is us doing the waterboarding ?
What is to gain by putting a criminal on trial ? The crime was already commited, lets just move forward.
To say that the admin was legally torturing because thats what the lawyers told them does not make it legal. We have clear precident in this country that it is illegal (Reference the fact that we prosecuted those Japanese soldiers for doing it).
|
|
| 258 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 13:41
|
Holt #255
What possible good can come from it?
Frick already asked that question in #245 and received a response.
|
|
| 259 | Perm Dude
ID: 28392711 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 13:49
|
you would very easily take a different position.
As long as we are speculating, why in the world would a Gore administration be torturing?
I think it bears repeating that the reason that the Bush Administration was torturing was to find evidence of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-qaeda. They did it, in other words, to justify their policy decisions that they already made.
|
|
| 260 | Seattle Zen
ID: 23412711 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 14:03
|
MITH: My understanding is that you pardon people who are convicted of crimes.
You can certainly pardon people for any potential crimes, even ones they for which they have yet to be charged. See: Caspar Weinberger.
bibA:Proving that they willfully ignored or misinterpreted the law to justify torture would be so difficult.

No, I don't believe it would. I strongly urge people who are interested in this subject to read Jane Mayer's The Dark Side. Here's a short Q&A with Mayer from last year. She has a ton of inside information on what went down inside the debates that preceded these memos. As I have stated in many other threads, the main legal argument this all rested on was Executive Supremacy: The firm belief that the Executive may do ANYTHING it deems necessary to protect the nation at times of war and Congress, the courts and international treaties may not, in any way, infringe upon it. I have a hard time seeing any court agreeing with that notion.
The definition of torture is as clear as the definition of rape. If the Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo advising that CIA officers could rape suspected terrorists in certain circumstances, so long as it didn't cause "serious physical or mental trauma" and was done in a way that would elicit important information, do you think anyone would be defending the memo's author?
If anyone thinks that the methods approved by OLC was calculated to remain safe, just ask Manadel al-Jamadi if he felt safe during his interrogation. Oh, wait, you can't ask him, he was killed while being hung by his wrists with a bag over his head. The CIA interrigators had broken his ribs and his lungs were constricted when his arms were placed behind and above him, so he sufficated. The coroner called it a homicide.
Can the CIA legally kill a prisoner?

Yeah, let's just sweep this under the carpet.
|
|
| 261 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 14:10
|
SZ Thanks for clearing up.
PD As far as I know that claim rests on the Senate testimony of Maj. Charles Burney and an anonymous "former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue" who was cited in this McCaltchy article. I don't dismiss the claims but obviously, torture employed to justify a war started under false pretenses is a far uglier and far more reprehensible use of torture than trying to obtain intelligence that would be used to prevent acts of terrorism on civilian populations. So I need a little more to hang my hat on that very serious accusation.
|
|
| 262 | Perm Dude
ID: 73352713 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 14:35
|
I believe that is Paul Burney. Given that his story is part of the Armed Services Committee record already I would hope you'd weigh it a bit more that, say, a news article.
Meanwhile, via Andrew Sullivan: Rep Boehner is playing poltics with the torture facts. No surprise there--like all good Rove disciples, everything is politics for these people.
Everything we know about how this Administration handled the reasoning for going to war follows the same pattern as in the allegations.
|
|
| 263 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 17:16
|
If it were a Gore administration rather than Bush, and terrorists were water boarded in an effort to save lives and property, you would very easily take a different position. I don't believe for one second that you wouldn't. It all depends on what side of the aisle you're on.
then you'd be wrong. as you possibly read a few posts later, i said very clearly that if Obama were involved in a similar situation, i'd call for him and his people to be investigated as well.
i stand by that. i make no bones about the fact i lean left, but i am also an american, and my stance on torture has been clear through out - we don't do it. period.
but, perhaps you didn't read that post, since you didn't comment on it.
there is no gray area. it is black and white. the "bad guys" torture. if we, as the USA, are supposed to be the "good guys", then we don't torture.
otherwise, we dont have a leg to stand on when our men and women start getting tortured.
|
|
| 264 | Frick
ID: 3410551012 Mon, Apr 27, 2009, 18:55
|
Tree, do you think Israel has used torture as an information gathering technique?
|
|
| 265 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Tue, Apr 28, 2009, 00:04
|
Exceptional question.
|
|
| 266 | WiddleAvi
ID: 343531513 Tue, Apr 28, 2009, 08:01
|
I just ready or heard recently that Israel has a law against the use of waterboarding. I am having trouble finding a link to back it up though. I did find this link that Israel was faced with a ticking time bomb and denied it used torture to get the info to prevent it.
|
|
| 267 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Tue, Apr 28, 2009, 09:43
|
Learning from Lincoln:
Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, the Bush Cheney stress position duo are still demonstratively near the bottom of the barrel in terms of human character. I suppose there aren't too many defenders out there these days anyway.
Had Bush and Cheney really believed that there was an emergency requiring torture, they would have 1) said so publicly; 2) taken responsibility for the decision and defended it; 3) gotten Congressional approval; and 4) limited it as much as possible.
But they couldn't have done that, because torture was never about a national security emergency. It was about proving an Iraq-Al Qaeda link for political purposes. Or establishing precedent for unilateral executive rule. Or about military dropouts and draft dodgers like Bush, Cheney, and Addington showing how tough they were. Or something.
Following Lincoln's 1861 precedent would thus have defeated the entire purpose of the torture program. And that shows us just how much these guys were a bunch of moral cretins.
|
|
| 268 | Frick
ID: 3410551012 Tue, Apr 28, 2009, 11:10
|
Bili, if the memos that Cheney asked to be made public depicted a scenario like in the link that WiddleAvi posted would you feel the same way?
I'm not a Bush supporter and I think torture is wrong, but until we know what was actually learned, it is speculation as to the reasons.
That being said there is some truth in Bili's post.
|
|
| 269 | sarge33rd
ID: 33582719 Tue, Apr 28, 2009, 11:31
|
First, most data gleaned via torture..is false, meaningless drivel. A captive in extreme pain, will tell their interrogator whatever that captive believes they want to hear, in order to end the pain. Truth or validity of the 'confession", has little to nothing to do with what is being said.
Secondly, we were taught in the Army, to avoid revealing anything "sensitive" for 24 hours if possible. After that, spill your guts if you have to in order to stay alive. The sensitive info you were aware of when captured, will be changed or under going change, within 24 hours of your capture. IOW, that data is severely dated, and will be obsolete shortly after your capture.
In short, torture does not work.
|
|
| 270 | Perm Dude
ID: 73352713 Tue, Apr 28, 2009, 11:35
|
I can't speak for bili, but it is pretty clear that the GOP is trying to cherry pick the information. You don't hear Cheney (or any other GOP member) calling for the release of the CIA reports which conclude that torture is not altogether effective, for instance.
|
|
| 271 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, Apr 28, 2009, 11:42
|
Tree, do you think Israel has used torture as an information gathering technique?
i think it's quite possible they have. i mean, if the United States - the example setter - is using torture, why should another nature avoid its use?
and while not necessarily relevant to the topic of prosecuting the leadership of the United States if we engage in torture, my position doesn't change from nation to nation.
torture is wrong. here in this country, if we had leadership that allowed and/or authorized it, we should investigate and if necessary, prosecute.
if the israeli government wants to hold itself to similar standards in regards to attitudes against torture and a government that advocates, then they should follow similiar suit.
that being a said, a bit of research shows that in 2000, per an article in the BBC, an official Israeli report has acknowledged for the first time that the Israeli security service tortured detainees during the Palestinian uprising, the Intifada, between 1988 and 1992.
an, in a bit of a parallel to what is going on here in the U.S., the report was kept secret until the Supreme Court recommended it no longer remain secret.
two years after the report was written, but three years before it was published, the Supreme Court banned the use of physical force in interrogations.
also if interest is this article from the Washington Post. It's an interesting insight into the minds of Israelis, their thoughts on torture, and comparisons and contrasts with the U.S. in regards to torture.
i think what intrigues, and possibly disturbs me the most, is the overwhelming majority of Israelis condone torture in regards to how it is by their country.
|
|
| 272 | biliruben
ID: 461142511 Tue, Apr 28, 2009, 14:19
|
Frick -
First, I didn't say how I feel, other than repeat my off-stated feelings on what stinky swine our former national executives were.
As for WiddleAvi's example - Zasloff, who I quoted, was assuming exactly that sort of situation in his post. If we were faced with a ticking time-bomb and felt that torture was an absolute necessity, then the least you should do is what Lincoln did:
1) Take Reponsibility. Josh Marshall has been writing about this recently as well. Lincoln didn't pretend that some flunkies had taken these steps; he didn't say that he wasn't really suspending habeas corpus, only authorizing "expedited detention processes." He did it, and took reponsibility for it. Does Dick Cheney really think these things are necessary? Then he should have the basic courage to admit that he did them and advocate for a change in the law. I'm not holding my breath.
2) Go Public. This is obviously related to #1. The Bush Administration's policies were particularly insidious because no one knew they were happening; there could be no public debate about the issue. Lincoln, by contrast, issued a proclamation. And no, it's no excuse to say that there couldn't be a public debate about this. As with #1, make an argument that we should withdraw from the international conventions against torture that Ronald Reagan advocated.
3) Get Backing From Congress. After issuing his order, Lincoln called Congress back into a special session to validate his move. But Congress didn't have to do so. Unlike Bush, Lincoln wasn't a royalist: he didn't think that the President could do anything he wants if he thinks it's important. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, did their best to hide from Congress everything that they were doing.
4) Limit the Scope in Both Time and Space. What is so amazing about LIncoln's action is how limited it was: in the middle of the Civil War, it only applied to one particular rail line. Two years later, he violated this principle by attempting to suspend the writ all over the country, which historians have looked on quite rightfully as illegal and wrong. In the Bush Administration by contrast, Cheney and Rumsfeld authorized these techniques seemingly for anyone and everyone; they told interrogators to do what they needed to do whenever. Moreover, because Lincoln called Congress back into session, it was clear that his action was temporary; by contrast, Bush and Cheney used the excuse of a war that would never have a clear end to make it indefinite. Presidents can get away with a lot if they make it clear that their actions are temporary and geared only to a particular emergency; Bush and Cheney's entire purpose was to seize power permanently.
That was the whole point.
|
|
| |
| 274 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 11:02
|
Do you believe American presidents and the secret agencies have been operating be pristine standards until Bush and Cheney showed up?
My understanding is that they were interogating prisoners in Viet Nam by taking a squad up in a helicopter and throwing them out one by one until one spilled the beans.
Not acceptable but dealing with the real world instead of pretending is always preferable.
|
|
| 275 | Perm Dude
ID: 57351298 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 11:12
|
Do you believe American presidents and the secret agencies have been operating be pristine standards until Bush and Cheney showed up?
I don't believe that they were pristine. But this doesn't excuse bad, immoral, and illegal behavior.
You're right: It is not acceptable.
|
|
| 276 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 11:22
|
Do you believe American presidents and the secret agencies have been operating be pristine standards until Bush and Cheney showed up?
Of course not. So what?
|
|
| 277 | Frick
ID: 3410551012 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 11:35
|
Re: 276
Do you think all past Presidents should have investigations launched against them?
Has Bush pushed the envelope further than any other President, or has the amount of information out there become greater? Or did reporters in the past have knowledge or suspicions, but they elected (or were coerced) into not following up on them?
Regardless we have moved forward and with that knowledge comes the reality that the American people don't want torture to be a practice that we engage in.
I hope that the fall-out from that decision isn't catastrophic. I wonder how much that effect plays into the general Israeli acceptance of torture.
|
|
| 278 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 11:49
|
I think there is no inevitable march of human progress and nothing will change at the sub rosa level. Cheney and Cheney's cousin. Same as it ever was.
Ignore political posturing and oportunism. When your back is turned they are all globalists and they all believe in torture. Just ask Orwell.
|
|
| 279 | sarge33rd
ID: 42357299 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 11:53
|
Why not ask Tolkien? He wrote fiction too.
|
|
| 280 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 12:48
|
Do you think all past Presidents should have investigations launched against them?
I'd see as many past atrocities uncovered as can be found, Frick. The only way to stop the atrocities is to keep a light shined on them. I'm sick and tired of being accused of playing politics simply because I want to see our government face the hard questions and, if necessary, enforce it's own laws.
Baldwin is on record at this forum decrying the stiff obstruction that whistle-blowers often face in exposing criminal activity. But sadly to him those of us who support gettting to the bottom of the human rights abuses that took pace on our watch - and in our name - is just "political posturing and oportunism".
You think this is easy for those on the political left who do think beyond the headlines of the day? Mark my words, the testimony of honest whistleblowers and the motives of dedicated seekers of the truth will be twisted by the far right, just as was done to John Kerry's testimony at the Fullbright Hearings about the Winter Soldier investigation. The smear campaign employed by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, which used quotes from the Fullbright Hearing taken wildly out of context as their centerpiece ("Kerry called us baby-killers!") possibly cost John Kerry the 2004 Presidential Election.
You think politicians lining up on the anti-torture side of this debate don't know that their push to shed light on what happened will be twisted into anti-patriotism and worse by their political opponents in the next election cycle? They know there will be a political price for some of them to pay. And included among them will obviously be President Obama.
I'm curious, Frick, what did you think of the impeachment of President Clinton? President Clinton lied about a marital affiar during questioning involving a civil suit. That was all it took to warrant the impeachment of the president of the United States just over 10 years ago. I don't think it's necessary to recall the (literally) many hundreds of quotes from well respected Republicans and Democrats about the importance of the rule of law and the significance that no man of any position is above that law.
The strongest argument against the Clinton impeachment was that it was over such an inconsequential issue, not like he lied about criminal activity of any kind, much less war crimes or human rights atrocites. But we were told that what was crucial was the preservation of the rule of law. Do you believe no president before Clinton committed perjury of such or greater significance as a marital affair? Do you believe the rule of law becomes less important when the severity of the infraction raises from the level of lying about a marital affair to committing atrocious war crimes?
I don't recall anyone in 1998 arguing that we should just move forward and that with the knowledge of Clinton's perjury comes the reality that the American people don't want lying under oath about marital affairs to be a practice that we engage in. I don't think it would have gone over very well with the people who accuse people like me of "political posturing and oportunism" today.
|
|
| |
| 282 | Frick
ID: 3410551012 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 15:52
|
Excellent article PD.
I thought the impeachment of Clinton was grandstanding by the GOP. Perjury is a crime and the Rule of Law applies, but I also believe that the Rule of Common Sense should apply also.
Do I think Presidents lie to the public on a regular basis. Absolutely and I think they should. There are time when information should not be made public and could cause harm by becoming public. But, I would like to think that Presidents have not perjured themselves on a regular basis. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but perjury is lieing under oath.) If a sensitive matter needs to be discussed in public the sensitive matters should be held behind closed doors and release when appropriate. I believe documents can become public record at some time in the future. Aren't some of the Kennedy records now or have become public some what recently?
To many people feel that everything has to be black or white. It could just be reading the written word versus talking to someone, but nuance appears to be disappearing from our society. Using texting as a preferred method of communication compared to even the e-mail or god forbid face to face debates only seems to be hastening this trend.
|
|
| 283 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 16:48
|
MITH
Nothing wrong with making Kerry own his actions on that committee which were dispicible and dishonest. -------- Perhaps a fair comment you made about a price to be paid on the left for opposing torture. But if the actual policy doesn't change and Obama merely uses it as a selective tool against his opponents, there is no honor or benefit in that. -------- Clinton was being persecuted for his many crimes by proxy over his perjury. Those who chose that tack instead of attacking his greater crimes did him a big favor and his financial supporters an even bigger favor. That said, his example of the chief law enforcement officer in the land treating every legal enquiry with contempt lowered the bar for presidents forever after.
|
|
| 284 | sarge33rd
ID: 42357299 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:01
|
dispicable and dishonest?????????
To retell, the testimony of first-hand personal accounts, when the retelling disjoints from your own perspective, is somehow 'dispicable and dishonest'? Strikes me, as honesty in the extreme.
|
|
| 285 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:11
|
His charges in that committee were complete fabrications. If anyone was guilty of carelessness towards the rules of conduct it was him.
|
|
| 286 | Perm Dude
ID: 5352911 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:14
|
If anyone, it was him? Telling the truth to power is carelessness now?
|
|
| 287 | sarge33rd
ID: 42357299 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:16
|
So Boldy, since you weren't in Vietnam, how can YOU possibly state that his testimony as to what others who were there, and what others testified to, was fabricated? Seems to me, a fair number of Uniformed Vietnam vets stood behind him as he testified to the Senate; and they not one time raised the prospect of said testimony being other than truth. So just precisely who the hell are you, to lay the allegation of 'fabrication' upon that testimony?
|
|
| 288 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:17
|
No one was more likely to plug a civilian. He had zero compunction. It was all about getting his presidential potential back to the states at any and all cost.
|
|
| 289 | Perm Dude
ID: 5352911 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:19
|
When backed into a corner about torture (of all things), you reply with the belief that John Kerry would shoot citizens?
Deep end, meet Baldwin.
21% dude. That's how many people self-identify as Republicans. And you still have no clue as to why.
|
|
| 290 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:20
|
The interviewed vets at the Winter Soldier Investigation claimed they were ordered to kill babies and commit all manner of atrocities.
Kerry was present at the investigation and was asked about it during his testimony at the Fullbright Hearings.
He recounted the winter soldier testimony. But the dishonest narrative on the far right (which stuck) was that Kerry's testimony before the Senate was his personal account of what happened, rather than an answer to the question of what was said at Winter Soldier. The oft-quoted excerpt from the Swiftvets website, which takes quotes from Kerry's testimony blatantly out of context:Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
|
|
| 291 | sarge33rd
ID: 42357299 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:27
|
re 288...proof of your claim that "No one was more likely to plug a civilian. He had zero compunction."
Provide documentation, born out by an investigation, or crawl back into your WND hidey-hole.
|
|
| 292 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:27
|
Demonstrate how that was out of character with the rest of his testimony.
|
|
| 293 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:30
|
Demonstrate how that was out of character with the rest of his testimony.
Hmmm... how could I demonstrate that...? Here's a novel idea - provide the actual quote (pulled from the link in #280)!"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."Were you able to read that? I could make it bigger.
|
|
| 294 | Perm Dude
ID: 5352911 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:32
|
What would be the point? You'd still miss it. The soldiers told Kerry that they participated in these acts.
Maybe you are confused by the word "story" which is a word meaning "narrative." It doesn't mean "fiction."
|
|
| 295 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:36
|
Let me restate the exact point I made in #292.
Did he disagree with that testimony? Was it in character with the rest of his tone or not?
|
|
| 296 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:45
|
The dishonest narrative from the right is that Kerry accused American soldiers of atrocities.
The reality is that Kerry's testimony before the Senate was unambiguously on behalf of men who claimed to have committed those atrocities.
As far as you're concerned, that might be the same thing. But clearly, for the disingenuous political right, it was necessary to distort the record and claim that the account was specifically that of John Kerry.
|
|
| 297 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:51
|
Full transcript of Kerry's Fullbright Hearing testimony.
For the record I did not vote for John Kerry. I will admit to rooting for him in 2004, given that he ran against an incumbant who lied to the country in effort to sell us an unnecessary war. But even against Bush I could not bring myself to cast a vote for him. He's a man of weak character and made a terrible presidential candidate.
But the truth is the truth and in this case it's a thing entirely separate from the right's claims about his Senate testimony re the Winter Soldier Investigation.
|
|
| 298 | Seattle Zen
ID: 323312910 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:58
|
Frick: Do I think Presidents lie to the public on a regular basis. Absolutely and I think they should.
But do you also subscribe to the Supreme Executive theory of the Bush Administration? You know, they believed that they could do anything they felt legitimately advanced the cause of the US during wartime, regardless of US law or international treaty.
If you do not believe in a supreme executive, how do you prevent future executives from behaving this way?
|
|
| |
| 300 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Fri, May 01, 2009, 07:58
|
Christendom is where christians were sent when they were unfaithful.
|
|
| 301 | Frick
ID: 3410551012 Fri, May 01, 2009, 08:40
|
RE: 298
I don't think that the President is a Supreme Executive, that isn't the structure of our government. I voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004. (Both times as the lesser of two evils IMO, the South Park episode of a Douche vs a Turd sums up the elections.) I would not have voted for him after his 2nd term.
Our government was designed so that we had a system of checks and balances. The reason that the Attorney General must be approved by Congress is part of that design. The AG can also be called before the Supreme Court.
I personally don't like either party. I would like to see 2-3 new parties form so that no one party can control the Executive and Legislative branches. That will require multi-party co-operation.
I'll admit that I don't know the exact mechanics that would have been required to launch an investigation into the matter. But, the current method to me, reeks of political gamesmanship. If the Senate felt that the AG or the DoJ had rendered an opinion that was illegal, wouldn't the proper process have been to appeal it to the Supreme Court? I'm assuming that opinion and/or the actions associated with it were required to be Senate select intelligence committee. If the disclosure wasn't made properly, that would be open and the first step in the investigation.
Re: 299 I noticed they didn't give a +/- for the results and only interviewed specific populations. I could create a web poll that would get more scientific results.
|
|
| 302 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Fri, May 01, 2009, 10:35
|
Christendom is where christians were sent when they were unfaithful.
what the hell are you even saying right there?
Re: 299 I noticed they didn't give a +/- for the results and only interviewed specific populations. I could create a web poll that would get more scientific results.
that's on the reporter, and not the research. the Pew site will have the margin of error information.
|
|
| 303 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Fri, May 01, 2009, 10:43
|
Similarly Jews were sent to Babylon when they were unfaithful.
|
|
| 304 | Perm Dude
ID: 5044818 Fri, May 01, 2009, 10:52
|
If the Senate felt that the AG or the DoJ had rendered an opinion that was illegal, wouldn't the proper process have been to appeal it to the Supreme Court?
Not exactly. One of the biggest problems is that the Bush Administration hid as much evidence as possible, lied to many people, and refused, in some cases, to follow court rulings against them. And the extent of the memos only came to light recently, with the change in administrations.
The unitary executive philisophy Seattle Zen refers to is the belief (personified by Cheney) that in wartime the President's job as Commander in Chief trumps everything, and it is at his discretion that laws are followed or not. In other words, if the President believes it important for national security to do something, then he (or someone he designates) can do it, regardless of what the law says.
|
|
| 305 | Seattle Zen
ID: 47425111 Fri, May 01, 2009, 13:06
|
If the Senate felt that the AG or the DoJ had rendered an opinion that was illegal, wouldn't the proper process have been to appeal it to the Supreme Court?
Not at all. The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions (neither Congress nor the Pres. can "ask" the Supreme Court to make a ruling on controversy between them - there is some important case all first year law students know that is completely escaping me today), so the Senate cannot simply ask SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of Executive legal declarations.
The only proper way to have the Court hear the issue is through a case where the plaintiff has standing (the right to bring the case) and the controversy is the result of one ramification of the legal declaration. The only way I can envision that happening is to charge the authors of these documents with violations of US laws against torture.
I'm glad you are not a subscriber of the Supreme Executive theory, I doubt there are more than 15% of Americans who do. Simply believing in this theory is not criminal, but if you order US government officials to violate the laws of the US because you argue that the Executive may ignore the laws in times of war, I think criminal charges are imperative.
|
|
| 306 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, May 01, 2009, 13:40
|
so the Senate cannot simply ask SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of Executive legal declarations. I think it is not that they can not ask scotus for ruling, i think it is that they have go in order, not directly to the top.
|
|
| 307 | Perm Dude
ID: 5044818 Fri, May 01, 2009, 13:49
|
SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on any disputes between Legislative & Executive branches.
There are a few other kinds of cases they have original jurisdiction as well--border disputes between states, etc.
|
|
| 308 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Fri, May 01, 2009, 13:56
|
If there was a real war going on, then emergency powers may not be as bad. But this War on Fright is a joke and, by definition, it will never be over. And these emergency powers will never be over, by extension.
|
|
| 309 | holt
ID: 303502019 Fri, May 01, 2009, 20:09
|
re 299 "Epic failure on the part of churches and religion..."
Great poll there. A phone poll, 742 respondents. Party breakdown and margin of error:
Republicans 188 8% +/- Democrats 254 7% +/- Independents 260 7% +/-
7-8% seems pretty optimistic. Epic failure.
|
|
| 311 | holt
ID: 303502019 Fri, May 01, 2009, 20:13
|
But hey, the fact that 260 of these people wouldn't claim either of the major parties is encouraging.
|
|
| 312 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, May 06, 2009, 11:47
|
NYT:Torture Memos: Inquiry Suggests No Prosecutions
WASHINGTON — An internal Justice Department inquiry has concluded that Bush administration lawyers committed serious lapses of judgment in writing secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations but that they should not be prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on its findings.
The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask state bar associations to consider possible disciplinary action, which could include reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said.
The conclusions of the 220-page draft report are not final and have not yet been approved by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The officials said that it is possible that the final report might be subject to further revision but that they did not expect major alterations in its main findings or recommendations.
The findings, growing out of an inquiry that started in 2004, would represent a stinging rebuke of the lawyers and their legal arguments.
But they would stop short of the criminal referral sought by some human rights advocates, who have suggested that the lawyers could be prosecuted as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate the anti-torture statute. President Obama has said the Justice Department would have to decide whether the lawyers who authorized the interrogation methods should face charges, while pledging that interrogators would not be investigated or prosecuted for using techniques that the lawyers said were legal.
The draft report is described as very detailed, tracing e-mail messages between the Justice Department lawyers and officials at the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency. Among the questions it is expected to consider is whether the memos were an independent judgment of the limits of the federal anti-torture statute or were deliberately skewed to justify the use of techniques proposed by the C.I.A. Hilzoy:That said, I think disbarment would absolutely be appropriate. The difficulty with prosecution is establishing intent. When a lawyer makes a stupid legal argument, it's always possible that s/he is not malicious, just a terrible lawyer. When you've narrowed the options to criminal intent or complete ineptitude, you have not got enough to prosecute. You have, however, got enough to disbar someone, since while total ineptitude is not an indictable offense, it is a good reason not to let someone go on practicing law.
If Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury did not write their memos in order to provide a shield for criminal activity, then I think they had to be completely inept as lawyers. Their job, remember, was to interpret the law for their clients, and to advise them on what was legal and what was not. By getting the law spectacularly wrong, they exposed their clients to serious legal liability, and in so doing completely failed to meet their obligations to their clients. Moreover, they made some fairly stunning mistakes, like failing to cite any of the cases in which the US government had prosecuted people for waterboarding when those cases were plainly relevant.
|
|
| 313 | Seattle Zen
ID: 30454610 Wed, May 06, 2009, 12:00
|
Boo!
Disbar the clowns and disrobe Bybee post-haste.
|
|
| 314 | Frick
ID: 4945458 Wed, May 06, 2009, 12:42
|
I wonder if disbarment is the first step for them. Would a civil suit be likely following disbarment?
I think the Obama administration is handling this well.
To the lawyers out there, how likely is it for them to be disbarred based on their opinions and advice?
|
|
| 315 | Seattle Zen
ID: 30454610 Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:12
|
Would a civil suit be likely following disbarment?
By whom? I'm sure there are plenty of civil suits out there by torturees right now, but the real target of those is the US government.
how likely is it for them to be disbarred based on their opinions and advice?
Everyone's favorite morbid pastime here in WA is reading the Disciplinary Actions section of the Bar magazine. It's amazingly scatter shot. The surest way to get disbarred is to pocket a dollar of your client's cash. Don't sleep with your client, either.
It isn't common, but attorneys who become so entwined with their client's criminal enterprise that they are advising them how to avoid prosecution not only will be disbarred, but are acting criminally themselves. That's what has happened here. These attorneys were working with the Administration to come up with novel "legal theories" (in the loosest sense of the term) to appear to not violate the Geneval Convention and various federal anti-torture statutes.
So, how likely is it for me to be disbarred for my advice? Not likely. Those clowns... very likely.
|
|
| 316 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:03
|
That would explain your principled stand when the Clinton White House Legal Office wrote up the 'White House Task List' to deliberately stonewall and coverup 39 scandals.
|
|
| 317 | Perm Dude
ID: 4845611 Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:32
|
Risk assessment. It was a risk assessment.
You could probably write one up for yourself. Doesn't mean you are guilty of crimes.
|
|
| 318 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, May 06, 2009, 16:58
|
Yeah, if your task list says 'add more lime to basement' there is probably some substance to the scandal. I am sure you went over that list with a skeptical eye.
|
|
| 319 | Perm Dude
ID: 4845611 Wed, May 06, 2009, 17:10
|
Just a trifle more skeptical than yours.
|
|
| 320 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, May 06, 2009, 17:44
|
How does someone following political events as much as you have for the past ten years, become more trusting of politicians, any politicians, less sophisticated and more easily led about by the nose?
|
|
| |
| |
| 323 | Perm Dude
ID: 26439108 Mon, May 11, 2009, 10:09
|
#320: Because our guys are demonstrably not as bad as your guys in this area.
Maybe I trust people who act more Christian. It is my Catholic nature to trust deeds as much as words.
|
|
| 324 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Mon, May 11, 2009, 10:09
|
WaPo Government officials familiar with the CIA's early interrogations say the most powerful evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the "top secret" May 7, 2004, inspector general report, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents. The full report remains closely held, although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to declassify it for public release when the debate quiets over last month's release of the Justice Department's interrogation memos.
According to excerpts included in those memos, the inspector general's report concluded that interrogators initially used harsh techniques against some detainees who were not withholding information. Officials familiar with its contents said it also concluded that some of the techniques appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994.
Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that "it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks," according to the Justice Department's declassified summary of it. The threat of such an imminent attack was cited by the department as an element in its 2002 and later written authorization for using harsh techniques.
|
|
| 325 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Mon, May 11, 2009, 12:05
|
They never did find out who planted explosives in the three New York City skyscrapers on 9/11/01. So the torture did not work, anyways.
|
|
| 326 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Mon, May 11, 2009, 14:38
|
They had an agent inside the plot. Didn't you know that?
|
|
| 327 | Perm Dude
ID: 26439108 Mon, May 11, 2009, 15:52
|
There were all sorts of things that weren't true that they gave up under torture. I'm sure that the name would have come up sometime between Waterboard #185 through Waterboard #200.
|
|
| 328 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Mon, May 11, 2009, 15:53
|
In order to find out who blew up the buildings, they were torturing the wrong people. They wern't trying to find that out, though. And to this day, they are not trying to find out who did it.
|
|
| 329 | Perm Dude
ID: 26439108 Mon, May 11, 2009, 15:55
|
It isn't a matter of "torturing the wrong people."
Even if your assumption is true, you don't get that kind of intelligence through torture. What you get is bad intelligence, not good intelligence. It isn't a matter of better torturing.
|
|
| 330 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Mon, May 11, 2009, 16:07
|
If the people they were questioning did not know anything about placing explosives in the buidings, then they were torturing the wrong people. At least for finding out who did place the explosives.
|
|
| 331 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, May 11, 2009, 17:06
|
I'm sorry, are you simply caught up in the rhetoric or are you actually arguing that we should be (or should have been) torturing people to find out what happened to the WTC?
|
|
| 332 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Mon, May 11, 2009, 17:49
|
I don't know that we need to torture people. We could at least ask some questions. Or the 911 Commission should have asked some questions.
|
|
| 333 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 12, 2009, 08:45
|
On the value of torture:A former CIA high-value detainee, who provided bogus information that was cited by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war, has died in a Libyan prison, an apparent suicide, according to a Libyan newspaper.
A researcher for Human Rights Watch, who met Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi at the Abu Salim prison in Tripoli late last month, said a contact in Libya had confirmed the death.
Libi was captured fleeing Afghanistan in late 2001, and he vanished into the secret detention system run by the Bush administration. He became the unnamed source, according to Senate investigators, behind Bush administration claims in 2002 and 2003 that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda operatives. The claim was most famously delivered by then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in his address to the United Nations in February 2003.
Powell later called the speech a "blot" on his record, saying he was not given all available intelligence and analysis within the government. The Defense Intelligence Agency and some analysts at the CIA had questioned the veracity of Libi's testimony, which was obtained after the prisoner was transferred to Egyptian custody for questioning by the CIA, according to Senate investigators.
In their book "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," Michael Isikoff and David Corn said Libi made up the story about Iraqi training after he was beaten and subjected to a "mock burial" by his Egyptian interrogators, who put him in a cramped box for 17 hours. Libi recanted the story after being returned to CIA custody in 2004.
When President George W. Bush ordered the 2006 transfer to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of high-value detainees previously held in CIA custody, Libi was pointedly missing. Human rights groups had long suspected that Libi was instead transferred to Libya, but the CIA had never confirmed where he was sent.
"I would speculate that he was missing because he was such an embarrassment to the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski, the head of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. "He was Exhibit A in the narrative that tortured confessions contributed to the massive intelligence failure that preceded the Iraq war." Even if we could prove that the use of torture can sometimes result in information leading to the halt of a terrorist attack - is even that worth the risk of tricking ourselves into falsely believing we have the grounds to bomb, invade, conquer and occupy a sovereign nation, setting in motion a countrywide hell on earth that will last there for years?
There is an indisputable precedent still fresh in our minds to confirm the risk of the latter. And we really don't know whether the intelligence benefit of the former is a notion that is based in reality.
|
|
| 334 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, May 13, 2009, 11:11
|
Huffington PostClaiming that he was water-boarded as part of Navy Seal training he received during the Vietnam War era, Ventura [told larry King]:[Water-boarding] is torture... It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
|
|
| 335 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, May 13, 2009, 11:23
|
Claiming that he was water-boarded as part of Navy Seal training he received during the Vietnam War era.
why are we waterboarding are own soldiers? No wonder it was not considered torture since we were already doing it to our own.
|
|
| 336 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, May 13, 2009, 11:30
|
Pathetic cop-out illogic.
If you really believe such nonsense then you must also believe the USA owes restitution to the families of Japanese WW2 officers who were executed for water-boarding Americans.
|
|
| 337 | Perm Dude
ID: 354361211 Wed, May 13, 2009, 11:31
|
We do SERE training to help our soldiers understand and be ready to face torture as practiced by other countries.
|
|
| 338 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, May 13, 2009, 11:43
|
Pathetic cop-out illogic.
If you really believe such nonsense then you must also believe the USA owes restitution to the families of Japanese WW2 officers who were executed for water-boarding Americans.
was this aimed at me? I was making a generalization about how people think. As for execution of japanese soldiers, restitution go to victors and executions to the losers. they probably should not have been executed but that is what happens when your side loses.
|
|
| |
| |
| 341 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, May 16, 2009, 13:19
|
Major Matthew Alexander at VetVoice:Former VP Dick Cheney has requested the release of additional memos showing that torture and abuse saved American lives by preventing terrorist attacks. If the Obama Administration decides to release these memos, then I suggest they also release statistics from Iraq showing the number of foreign fighters that were recruited because of our policy of torture and abuse. It was tracked. I know because I saw the slides and because I heard captured foreign fighters state this day in and day out. The government can also release the statistics that show that 90% of suicide bombers in Iraq were these same foreign fighters. These foreign fighters killed hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers. After these revelations, Americans can judge whether or not a policy of torture and abuse kept us safe. Unfortunately, we'll never be able to evaluate the damage that was done to past or future interrogations. As I experienced firsthand, detainees were less likely to cooperate when they viewed us as hypocrites. We can't establish the trust that is required to convince a detainee to cooperate unless we live up to the principles that we preach.
I had one detainee in Iraq, a previous Al Qaida fighter, who provided me with all the information he knew willingly without me having to run an interrogation approach. He told me that Al Qaida had accused him of being a mole and tortured him before we rescued him. He then proceeded to say that the reason he was going to cooperate was because we didn't torture him and because of that, he knew everything that he'd been told about us by Al Qaida was wrong. H/T: ObWi
|
|
| |
| 343 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 19, 2009, 10:34
|
i can't tell if Jesse Ventura laid the smack down so hard on Hasselbeck that her brains instantly spilled from her head, or if she's just that dumb.
holy crap, did he whip her like a red-headed stepchild...
|
|
| 344 | Perm Dude
ID: 174121611 Tue, May 19, 2009, 11:24
|
Hasselbeck has been a tool for a long time.
"I'm more concerned about Nancy Pelosi"
(!!)
|
|
| 345 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 19, 2009, 11:35
|
You would think conservatives would be put out by such a political lightweight being the lone rightist representative on that show. But I've rarely heard any criticism of Elizabeth Hasselbeck from the right.
|
|
| 346 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, May 19, 2009, 12:02
|
Do people watch the view for political insight?
|
|
| 347 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 19, 2009, 12:07
|
I'm sure that many do, even if it isn't the primary focus of the show.
|
|
| 348 | Perm Dude
ID: 174121611 Tue, May 19, 2009, 12:23
|
It isn't that people tune in for political insight, but when insight is offered it should at least be factually accurate.
The need is probably greater on a show like that, since many of the people watching probably aren't tuning in elsewhere for political information.
Hasselbeck simply reads far-right blogs and mimics their talking points--she's done that for some time.
|
|
| 349 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 19, 2009, 12:36
|
Agree w/PD
|
|
| 350 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, May 19, 2009, 12:47
|
Honestly i don't see anything wrong with that, it is not like people don't do that hear and when can opinion be wrong?
|
|
| 352 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 19, 2009, 12:54
|
...and when can opinion be wrong?
Fair enough. My opinion is that I resent the use of moles and overmatched fools representing one side in political debate.
FNC sat Alan Colmes next to Sean Hannity specifically for the purpose of making leftist talking points sound weak. Whether deliberate or not, Elizabeth Hasselbeck has the same effect on The View. Its a blatant disservice to the show's viewers.
|
|
| 353 | Razor
ID: 371502414 Tue, May 19, 2009, 12:56
|
Opinion can be wrong with the underlying facts that support the opinion are either absent or wrong.
Hee Seop Choi is a better first baseman than Albert Pujols.
|
|
| 354 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:05
|
Whether deliberate or not, Elizabeth Hasselbeck has the same effect on The View. Its a blatant disservice to the show's viewers.
isn't that why she on the show? It is kind of like the only reason i still read these threads is to see what non sense boldwin is going to post today. I mean sitting around reading the rest of you high five each other for what you found on the internet today would get boring pretty quickly.
|
|
| 355 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:20
|
isn't that why she on the show?
I have no idea. All I ever see are clips from their politics discussions, which I don't believe comprises the bulk of the show.
|
|
| 356 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 19, 2009, 13:24
|
What I'm saying is that if I were a conservative, I'd be pissed that she was the representation for my side of the political aisle on one of the most popular shows on daytime television and that I think it says something about the state of American conservatism that there doesn't seem to be much criticism of her from the right. In fact, more often than not I believe she is warmly embraced.
|
|
| 357 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Tue, May 19, 2009, 14:20
|
I haven't seen that show since Rosie got booted off for daring to ask some questions about Building 7.
|
|
| 358 | Frick
ID: 4945458 Tue, May 19, 2009, 14:27
|
I only watch soundbites shown on other shows. Do the other 3 ever appear any better than Hasselbeck? They might be saying something you agree with, but the reverse of Hasselbeck could be applied to the other three (left-wing blog reading, talking point mimicking noise generators)
|
|
| 359 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Tue, May 19, 2009, 15:38
|
Many people follow the savvy political insight of Whoopi Goldberg. I know I do.
|
|
| 360 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Tue, May 19, 2009, 17:41
|
Whoopi, Barbara BS, Pelosi, Garafalo, Franken...get these girls out on the comedy circuit.
|
|
| 361 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 19, 2009, 18:32
|
still smartin' that Franken beat your boy fair and square. i'm sure when Coleman finally admits defeat, you'll turn on him and call him a RINO as well.
but hey, if you're pleased to have Hasslebeck speaking for you, well, so are we. and of course you'd be proud of her. she regurgitates the same stuff you do, and doesn't use her brain either.
|
|
| 362 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Tue, May 19, 2009, 19:08
|
the only reason i still read these threads is to see what non sense boldwin is going to post today - Boikin Any hands of those who drop by to be enlightened, amused and delighted by Tree?
|
|
| 363 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49491918 Tue, May 19, 2009, 19:40
|
FNC sat Alan Colmes next to Sean Hannity specifically for the purpose of making leftist talking points sound weak.
I don't think this is a similar situation. Hannity & Colmes is a spectacle, it's the Harlem Globetrotters. Hannity plays up the crowd, plays "keep-away" with Colmes, bounces the ball off his head, and dunks on him and the crowd laps it up. It is no more a political discussion than a Globetrotters show is a actual game.
I've never seen The View outside of clips, but I believe it is a variety show for women that happens to go on forays into politics. Hasselbeck may be a lightweight in political commentary, but perhaps she tested best overall.
|
|
| 364 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Tue, May 19, 2009, 19:53
|
She's more an occasional voice of common sense when the lefties go waaay off the deep end. Not really conservative. Plus she is quick on her feet, the only one there not intimidated by Babwa, and a comedian. Viera wasn't remotely conservative either but had enuff common sense that between the two, you could bare listening. Not that I listened for more than a cumulative 60 minutes a year. Or 30.
|
|
| 365 | Perm Dude
ID: 174121611 Tue, May 19, 2009, 20:34
|
She's not really a voice of common sense, either.
|
|
| 366 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Tue, May 19, 2009, 21:07
|
Compared to the others? Yeah.
|
|
| 367 | Perm Dude
ID: 174121611 Tue, May 19, 2009, 21:17
|
Compared to common sense. Forget the others--this isn't a comparison to anyone on the show.
I wouldn't excuse anyone on the show from a series of pointless factual errors because someone else (or even anyone else) on the show are somehow just as bad. You shouldn't either.
|
|
| 368 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Tue, May 19, 2009, 21:20
|
I don't tolerate it. Why I tolerate this place...
|
|
| 369 | Perm Dude
ID: 174121611 Tue, May 19, 2009, 21:34
|
If you are making the argument that Elizabeth Hasselbeck is anything other than an empty gong you'll lose that argument.
Even you see, I'm sure, that the only way you'll "win" the argument (i.e., successfully come to the rescue of a conservative voice) is by doing an comparative argument. Better just to sit out the Elizabeth Hasselbeck problem entirely.
|
|
| 370 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Tue, May 19, 2009, 21:55
|
She's not a conservative voice. She's only conservative when contrasted with crazy people.
|
|
| 371 | Razor
ID: 583182923 Tue, May 19, 2009, 22:55
|
Does she sound like the voice of common sense in that clip? Or any other clip you've seen of her?
|
|
| 372 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Tue, May 19, 2009, 23:56
|
Boldwin is telling us about crazy people.
|
|
| 373 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, May 20, 2009, 05:17
|
I do know berserk.
|
|
| |
| 375 | Perm Dude
ID: 174121611 Wed, May 20, 2009, 08:13
|
Which makes her the "voice of common sense?" You really don't want to go there.
|
|
| 376 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Wed, May 20, 2009, 09:09
|
I'd rather be good looking and not know anything about politics than not good looking and not know anything about politics.
|
|
| 377 | Perm Dude
ID: 174121611 Wed, May 20, 2009, 10:29
|
You'd probably get ahead that way. Especially if you didn't pretend to know anything about politics!
|
|
| 378 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, May 20, 2009, 11:49
|
Any hands of those who drop by to be enlightened, amused and delighted by Tree? I am but tree usually needs to be provoked before he comes out with something silly.
|
|
| 379 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Wed, May 20, 2009, 12:38
|
I am but tree usually needs to be provoked before he comes out with something silly.
that got a legit LOL, in several different ways. thanks boikin.
|
|
| 380 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Fri, May 22, 2009, 07:48
|
Jeff Goldberg:I asked [Senator McCain] about Dick Cheney and his defense of Bush Administration torture policies. He told me of his fundamental disagreement with Cheney: "When you have a majority of Americans, seventy-something percent, saying we shouldn't torture, then I'm not sure it helps for the Vice President to go out and continue to espouse that position," he said. "But look, he's free to talk. He's a former Vice President of the United States. I just don't see where it helps."
And then he got acerbic: Cheney, he says, "believes that waterboarding doesn't fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it's not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition."
|
|
| 382 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Fri, May 22, 2009, 08:35
|
i am really being tickled by the current run of Boondocks repeats. if there is a feeling these offer nothing to the forum, please let me know.
|
|
| |
| 384 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Sat, May 23, 2009, 14:46
|
I listen to that show about an hour a week and actually caught the first half-hour of that show but not when they were actually doing it.
All of three al queda leaders have been waterboarded. It prevented a terrorist attack in LA. It is torture.
If you actually find and post relevent and interesting stuff like this more than once a lifetime, I'd give you more respect, Tree.
|
|
| 385 | Tree
ID: 51457238 Sat, May 23, 2009, 14:52
|
If you actually find and post relevent and interesting stuff like this more than once a lifetime, I'd give you more respect, Tree.
i'm not looking for respect from you. your actions and words here for the last several months show that respect from you doesn't amount to much more than a mound of refried beans - which you'd probably try to have deported anyway.
sorry baldwin, i know your ego is huge, and your hubris mighty. but really, i couldn't give a damn about your respect.
|
|
| 386 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, May 23, 2009, 15:04
|
It prevented a terrorist attack in LA.
No, it did not.
|
|
| |
| 388 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Sat, May 23, 2009, 15:48
|
Apparently three and under is fine for Baldwin.
Which Gospel is that in, I wonder?
|
|
| 389 | Razor
ID: 583182923 Sat, May 23, 2009, 16:21
|
It really is confusing trying to follow Baldwin's arguments. So, waterboarding is torture, which is wrong, but it was okay in this instance because Bush administration officials lied about it foiling an attack in LA?
|
|
| 390 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Sat, May 23, 2009, 16:26
|
And we should trust the government. Unless there is a Democratic President, in which case we can assume that we will be lied to over big and small things, they will balloon the size of government, grab at power over and above what they already hold, trample on our rights, and use the message of fear to try to bully people into supporting them (apparently through guilt, if nothing else).
Does that clarify?
|
|
| 391 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Sun, May 24, 2009, 08:52
|
Sunday soldiers the day after the attack...
Edging over to stand with the terrorists and throw stones at the USA and it's defenders the next.
Same as it ever was...
...since 1968 anyway.
|
|
| 392 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Sun, May 24, 2009, 14:01
|
since 1968 anyway.
this is one your problems at the core. you're still fighting a culture war that started over 40 years ago. most of america have moved on.
additionally, that clip is just another false example. we keep hearing the ticking time bomb scenario brought forth by the Right.
i saw that episode of 24 as well. but in real life - ya know, where most of us live - that scenario has not yet exhausted, and you choosing to ignore posts 386 and 387 doesnt change that.
not the first time MITH (or something else on this board, for that matter) has challenged you, and proven you wrong, and instead of responding directly or admitting your error (your faux-christian hubris again), you go in a completely different and not terribly related direction.
|
|
| 393 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Sun, May 24, 2009, 17:01
|
Baldwin is always fighting 1968.
His video also pulls jump quotes out of context. He also seems not to realize that Schumer (a guy I really don't like, frankly), is talking about two different things: Whether to use torture in some very limited circumstances, and whether people who make the call to do torture should face the consequences of their action.
|
|
| 394 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Sun, May 24, 2009, 20:58
|
Schummer and Cheney were on the exact same page when it was politically expedient for Schummer.
This is not apples and oranges. Cheney was talking about limited circumstances. Schummer was talking about limited circumstances.
|
|
| 395 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Mon, May 25, 2009, 00:34
|
and you're talking about non-existent circumstances.
care to counter posts 386 and 387? or are you going to continue to act as if they don't exist?
|
|
| 396 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, May 25, 2009, 00:48
|
Baldwin, again you miss my point. I wasn't arguing that Schumer and Cheney were saying two different things (they are not--Schumer matches Cheney's in the first point Schumer is making). I was saying that Schumer is making two different points, and that your refusal to even recognize the fact demonstrates the extent to which you will lie to yourself and others
|
|
| 397 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Mon, May 25, 2009, 08:55
|
Of course he is making two different points. They are two different clips.
|
|
| 398 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Mon, May 25, 2009, 09:01
|
The first point being that in extraordinary cases virtually all congressmen from both sides would approve torture. And then when they do waterboard in three extraordinary cases...
[out of how many detainees? What percentage of the time would that be?]
...well we need to gleefully prosecute, tho innocent before proven guilty of course.
|
|
| 399 | sarge33rd
ID: 53455255 Mon, May 25, 2009, 10:14
|
and what of those we have detained, tortured etc for years; without ever prosecuting them Boldwin? You argue on the one hand to continue detention of the unconvicted and then lament the investigation of those who have all but confessed to their crimes.
|
|
| 400 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, May 25, 2009, 10:28
|
in three extraordinary cases
You have no idea how many were waterboarded. Neither do I, but it was more than 3.
When people break the law, including Republicans, we do, indeed, need to prosecute.
|
|
| 401 | Building 7
ID: 9329258 Mon, May 25, 2009, 12:03
|
All they have admitted to is 3. And all of them were 911 patsies. They just made up what they said, or got them to "agree" with the story they were told. And that story filled in the blanks to what happened on and before 911 and is a big part of the 911 Commission Report.
|
|
| 402 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 26, 2009, 10:24
|
still running from 386 and 387 Baldwin?
ok. cool. just checking.
|
|
| 403 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Tue, May 26, 2009, 15:41
|
Here your argument is destroyed...well not your argument. You aren't capable of making a coherent argument. Here Mith's cut-and-paste of the liberal talking points for the day are demolished.
|
|
| 404 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Tue, May 26, 2009, 15:53
|
Destroyed? I'm sorry--where did you find the information that waterboarding was necessary to disrupting the plot?
A nascent plan to "destroy" the Library tower is busted, so early in the process that the "ticking time bomb" scenerio is simply dreamed up by Cheney (and his bootlickers) as an after-the-fact reason for multiple waterboarding of prisoners under our control.
Sad. Very sad. You have absolutely no argument, so you continue, zombie-like, so make the argument but with more feeling this time. You don't even seem to care that some of your later points actually remove earlier points you were trying to make.
|
|
| 405 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Tue, May 26, 2009, 21:23
|
You just couldn't run that past your blocking, could you? Try again.
|
|
| 406 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 01:51
|
GOP leaks classified information to show that torture was effective
Bad on many levels, but I think the first to come to mind is: What dupes have the Republicans turned into, that they would reveal closed-door intelligence briefing information of what the CIA said about the effectiveness of their own techniques? Seriously--did they expect the CIA to say anything different? This is a group of professional liars--playing a bunch of politically-motivated politicians must have taken the CIA all of a single lunch hour to plan.
|
|
| |
| |
|