Here is more must watch video from Liz Cheney who presents the best defense of the Bush administration national security record than just about anyone. What is really funny here is Rachel Wener’s Huffington Post comment in the link to the video: “The Cheney family argument that torture did save lives has been undermined by recently released memos.”
It is funny because in the video Joe Scarborough exposes the dishonesty of the Obama administration for releasing memos from those who say “enhanced interrogation techniques” don’t work, but they keep classified and refuse to release other memos from the CIA and others proving that they did, in fact, work and saved lived.
Hey Jake.
That is certainly to be expected, and I think you’ll need to switch gears a little here to get this, but you are correct, it is about context. Context is the only reason any of this has any value.
If a high value prisoner could sit there and think “only X more hours to go and then it’s done” there with be absolutely zero point in conducting the interrogation to begin with.
But you are right also in saying troops being waterboarded and a prisoner being waterboarded are two different animals, so my comparison isn’t really the best argument on the subject. I have no issue admitting when I’m wrong.
It is valuable to consider, however, still, in raw form, our soldiers being subjected to that treatment does say something about the act itself.
It’s very very simple to say the world is black and white, but our very own justice system defines even murder in degrees, and further divides it into manslaughter. That is based on intent and implements a grayscale of severity and maliciousness that defines the act and the penalty.
To call waterboarding torture, grouping it along with swallowing boiling water and watching your five year old daughter dismembered in front of you, introduces a moral scale that is hopelessly warped. If torture is given such enormously broad boundries that making someone unhappy or uncomfortable is deemed morally the same as flaying their leg, you’re going to need to divorce yourself completely from reality.
Frightening someone, or humiliating someone, even causing minor physical pain to them, (and lets bring intent into it) to save lives, yes, I am okay with. Does it make me happy? No. Do I like it? Absolutely not. It is a reality that we must deal with in order to effectively stop people from being murdered.
I’ll ask the prime question that always comes up in this debate. Just how exactly do you get someone to tell you sensitive information that could save lives by not putting them in an uncomfortable or frightening situation?
If you’ve handcuffed and detained them, you may already be guilty of torture by the left’s standards.
Dear lord. Clinton went the whole 8 years without being at war in Iraq. A bombing strike is not a war. There were also many different players, and those players that were the same were in different wars. the colation was different the reaons were different Historians regard the two as seperate things.
Ali Soufan, the former FBI interrogator who wrote a riveting op-ed against the use of torture — and he should know, since he was interrogating Abu Zubaydah himself — testified under oath today that he got information out of Zubaydah quickly using basic FBI methods; and that information was then used successfully to capture “the bad guys.” Then, when the CIA forced torture on Zubaydah, they got nothing
Get it? We got the info without waterboarding his ass. Now I’ll ask you. Are mock executions torture? Because by rationale it is not.
I forgot to quote the above, you can read his op-ed here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Thanks jmc,
Now, get the White House to release the documents requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney that says the exact opposite and it ought to get interesting.
It’s easy to play poker when you refuse to give your opponent cards.
Did Ali Soufan mention what basic FBI methods were, and did they involve icecream? And further, what makes you think we’re only talking about Abu Zubaydah?
I’ll go read the op-ed in the meantime.
Hyper said
“No, I just happen to take seriously the notion of the universality of human rights;”
As shown by his comment in a previous thread on abortion where he stated that under certain circumstances it is okay for a doctor to kill a newborn.
“I think we need to maximize the respect we show towards those who hate us–even if it doesn’t affect their opinion of us whatsoever–“
As shown by his obvious respectfullness towards conservatives on this board who dont actually hate him but disagree with his thinking.
“while ensuring that law enforcement is capable of dealing with internal threats;”
Law enforcement is 99% reactive and about 1 percent preactive.
” whereas conservatives seem to think that we should take all possible measures towards defending ourselves”
As long as they are reasonable.
” and then whatever room is left for respecting individuals is all the respect we are required to afford them.”
Not true.
“You might think this is crazy, but true courage requires putting just and righteous principles ahead of the concern for one’s own safety (as well as the safety of one’s loved ones).”
Until of course you slap a liberal in which case they get indignant and want to hit you back.
“Compromising principles of decency towards our fellow humans–even the shitty ones who want to kill us–is cowardice.”
See comment above where hyper advocated doctors killing newborns under certain circumstances.
Great job making a total fool of yourself hyper and proving that you dont believe a word that you say.
So jmc,
Are you saying that Abu Zubbydub die a should have been held indefinetly until He decided to betray His false God? Regardless of how many of us sane rational people die? Geez, You must be a pubic defender?
JMC
You seem to contend that your definition of torture is the only one that matters. I happen to believe that waterboarding (as described as what happened at GITMO) is not torture despite what you or anyone else says. I do believe that poking people with hot irons, cutting off limbs, slicing their skin off etc is torture.
If you want to talk about principals of our founders than you would say that slavery is okay as most of them owned slaves. You would also think that killing seriously wounded prisoners on the battlefield is okay as that was common practice on up through the civil war. Yet again you selectively pick and choose and then try to show off how smart you are when people disagree with you.
Your opinion isnt the only one that matters. Get used to it. Climb off your high horse. Opinions are like assholes. Just about everyone has one and some stink more than others. Yours is smelling up the thread.
Sorry for the typo jmc
I meant “pubic” not “public”
interesting point, does it matter if we gave him ice cream if we got good intel? Would you rather hold back on the ice ream and get bad intel? Does it make you angry that We got info from the nazi’s and north Koreans without waterboarding?
No, I didn’t think, you were talking only about Abu Zubaydah? but one of the ways you build a case, is to present evidence for your side of the argument in that case it worked better without it.
In your case no evidence has been released yet to show those methods worked well (If such evidence even exists) Although we do know it is logical to assume that torture will lead to at least some bad information. In fact during the Korean war these methods were used to get false confessions out of our troops. Leave it to Neo-cons to look at a program that got a bunch of a false info to say, “That’s just the kind of program we need.”
Do you think mock executions are torture?
Are you saying we should ignore there wonderful ideas like “all men are created equal and then emulate their hypocrisy? Talk about stinkin’ up a thread. Sad to see a millitary guy want to piss all over the principals we were founded on. Do you hate the dream of america?
Nothing gets by you. My point is, what are the traditional FBI methods that are so effective, yet do not introduce any discomfort or harm on the prisoner?
Very little makes me angry, jmc. Let’s ask a counter question, is an Islamic extremist the same person as a uniformed soldier? How many Islamic extremists do you see walking out of a warzone with their hands up surrendering?
Agreed. And Ali’s case is very compelling, and I have no reason to suspect he is lying. Now I sure would like it if the White House would release the requested documents so both sides of the story have a defense.
I can imagine that would be so too. No technique, no matter how kind or nasty is 100% effective, so the argument is moot.
You’re going to have to back that one up. If you present the claims as factual, you’ll need facts.
I’ll be away for several hours, so if theres a reply and no answer, that is why.
JMC
“Are you saying we should ignore there wonderful ideas like “all men are created equal and then emulate their hypocrisy”
Nope not saying that at all. I am saying that you specifically have a nice habit of wrapping your ideas in nice little snippets such as “our founding fathers ideas” and not looking at the whole package. You do this to try to deflect criticism as if someone criticizing your way of thinking is criticizing our founding fathers.
“Do you think mock executions are torture? “
No I dont. A mock execution is just making someone think they will die. You can pick a dozen amusement park rides and find people every day that at the time they are riding them think at least for a second or two that they are going to die. Same goes for folks going through haunted houses. How many people were waterboarded? 3. How many have had heart attacks after going through a haunted house or on an amusement park ride?
“Sad to see a millitary guy want to piss all over the principals we were founded on. Do you hate the dream of america? “
I still salute the flag every day as they play retreat at 5 pm on Ft Hood where I work. (3 PM on Thurs) Can you say anything remotely similar? Do even hold your hand over your heart for the Star Spangled Banner. Obama didnt until he got called on it.
If you want to talk about pissing on the principals our country was founded on how do you feel about the 2nd amendment. Oh wait. Most liberals dont like that one. How about freedom to exercise religion. Oh wait most liberals dont like that one unless you go into a closet somewhere.
How about freedom of speech? Oh wait I forgot most liberals think it is agreat as long as it isnt Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannidy and Ann Coulter but the NY TIMES is great.
How about following accepted rules of law that have been in place for most of this century? You know like the bankruptcy laws. Oh wait! Obama doesnt like that one because it interferes with his ability to pay back the unions.
BTW you never denied my statement
“You seem to contend that your definition of torture is the only one that matters.”
Shall I go on you nitwit dumbass?
Well jmc You nitwit dumbass. Your turn to look even more stupid than you already do.
Yeah, doof. That’s why I corrected myself and said it was a strike. But, of course, bombings are in no way a warning of what’s to come, are they? War was farthest from Clinton’s mind, wasn’t it?
Very true, very little does get by me. if you want detailed information on police interogation I suggest you read this:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation1.htm posting it would take way too much time and it is a good article.
Let me follow your counter question with a counter question of my own, what does this have to do with a person in custody, we are trying to get information out of? This scenario seems to involve a prior to capture sitation, which seems outside the scope of the argument.
I’d have no problem with all the info being released, and I wished a good portion of it had not been destroyed As it was during the previous administration.
I disagree with that statement. Techniques should be judged realtive to each other. If one provides inaccurate info 60% of the time and another bad info 10% of the time, then the latter is superiror. neither is 100% effective but we are getting much better info in the second case.
I did not provide this because I know this is a fact. the same reason I would not have provided a link if I claimed Thomas Jefferson was our third president. However, since you don’t beleive me and are unaware of the fact yourself, and it is my claim (meaning the burden of proof is on me) here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html
I too will be gone for hours.
You don’t really know who came up with that dream, do you? I prefer to wake up from the dream state that is preventing equality.
No, I look at the whole package and emulate the good. you look at the negative as a justifcation for your sadism.
Oh good, then I hope someone sticks a gun to the heads of your loved ones for the fun of it. Maybe they can raise their hands like on a roller coaster.
Is this before or after you piss on the constituion? Sure I can say something similar. I have read the federalist papers, I have read the declarion of independence and the constitution. While you wrap yourself in symbols, I learn the ideas. While you sing old glory, i endavored to understand what our country was about. You are a nationalist. I am a patriot.
Actually i am quite fond of the second, and unlike you I believe in the 10th which basically argues that THESE FREEDOMS in the BIll of rights are not the only freedoms we get. You look to reduce rights at all opportunities. When gay men are arrested in Texas, and the supreme court rules that is wrong you cry “activist judges!” better the govermnet can decide who screws who. Yeah you really hate you some freedom don’t you?
How about the Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel? You hate that don’t you Coddling those damn crimnals.
You are full of shit. I think Rush is allowed to say what he wants and I am allowed to think he is an asshole for it. I just wish an idiot like you was for the first amendment. And yes the new york times is terrifc, which has nothing to with censorship dumbass.
Give me an example where he broke the law, because you are an idiot and I’m not inclined to take your word for it.
Hmm, I go with the definiton in place by the civilized world, you go with the fringe ideas of sadists.
Shall I go on moron, unpatriotic ass?
You are just mad I exposed you for the bufoon you are.
JMC and others liberal loonies continually try to use waterboarding techniques of the communists, japenese, etc and make them comparable to the 3 people waterboarded at GITMO.
This is like comparing the midevil practise of bleeding to modern day surgery.
a. In the past, people who have waterboarded have generally not had physicians and psychologists present.
b. In the past, people who have waterboarded have not really cared if their subjects lived or died as a result.
c. in the past, people who have waterboarded could care less if the people under their control had permanent and lasting physical injuries.
For another comparision this is like comparing a rollercoaster ride which is designed to safely give someone the scare of their life, and tested thoroughly to minimize harm to an absolute degree next to nil to the Mayans throwing shuman acrifices down their wells.
Of course that doesnt matter to the liberals who gleefully scream torture torture when standing someone up in a closet for long periods of time, while proudly standing up for the right to kill a million+ unborn children a year.
A strike is not war, which kind a shoots your argument that the war was 2 years apart doesn’t it moron? Go invest in the amero jackass.
JMC
I thought you were be gone for a while.
“No, I look at the whole package and emulate the good. you look at the negative as a justifcation for your sadism.”
You claim to look at the good. The only sadism going on is trying to follow your posts.
“Oh good, then I hope someone sticks a gun to the heads of your loved ones for the fun of it. Maybe they can raise their hands like on a roller coaster.”
It still isnt torture. Regardless of the actions. Men in the military have been ordered to charge machine gun nests. Do you think they thought they were going to die? That they werent scared. Dont you think men in combat live with the thought of dying in every firefight? Yet it isnt torture now is it.
Once again your question was asked and answered.
“Is this before or after you piss on the constituion? Sure I can say something similar. I have read the federalist papers, I have read the declarion of independence and the constitution. While you wrap yourself in symbols, I learn the ideas. While you sing old glory, i endavored to understand what our country was about. You are a nationalist. I am a patriot.
“
Yep Stalin and Lenis said the same thing. You have no clue what a patriot even is. And now I am attacking “A patriot”. Nice to see your ego is that high. True patriots and true heroes dont see themselves as something extraordinary. They just do the job that needs to be done. They dont go around brandishing their creditials for all to see. Your statement shows you for what you are. A laughable bag of hot air. Ever talk to a Medal of Honor winner? Silver star winner? If you had you would see folks that dont pound their chests and say “Look at me. I am a patriot”. You are a joke. no more no less.
“When gay men are arrested in Texas, and the supreme court rules that is wrong you cry “activist judges!” better the govermnet can decide who screws who”
If the gay men broke the law then they should be arested. Where they breaking the law? Same with illegal immigrants. Oh wait most liberals dont think they should be arrested. Like Janet Napelitano. As for as the govt deciding who to screww. it is the democratic battle cry more govt. “We are from the govt. We are here to help you”
“You are full of shit. I think Rush is allowed to say what he wants and I am allowed to think he is an asshole for it. I just wish an idiot like you was for the first amendment. And yes the new york times is terrifc, which has nothing to with censorship dumbass.”
I said most liberals dont want them on the air. Again you dont look at what is written. As for censorship what do you think liberals yelling down conservative speakers are? What about the fairness doctrine? Most liberals think those 2 things are just dandy and are all for it. Did I say the NY TImes was about censorship ? Nope. I threw it in there because it is admittedly liberal. Just ask the editors. They will tell you. Or lok at the studies done on media bias. DUMBASS.
“How about the Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel? You hate that don’t you Coddling those damn crimnals”
The bill of rights apply to AMerican citizens and others in special circumstances. If you want to argue that the folks at GITMO havent had a fair trial well Obama has been in office almost 4 months and he hasnt given them a trial yet. Are you saying Obama is violating the 6th amendment? Walked right into that one DUMBASS.
“Give me an example where he broke the law, because you are an idiot and I’m not inclined to take your word for it.
“
I never said he BROKE the LAW YET. I stated words to the effect that the bankruptcy deal that is going on with GM or Chrysler (whichever one it is) dealing with the unions goes against accepted bankruptcy law regarding preferred creditors.
I dont give a flying flip at a rolling donut if you believe me or not. I wont lose one wink of sleep no matter what you say to me or about me. The facts remain that you are a dumbass who thinks that because he can say “I read this or that ” that your opinion is of more value than anyone elses. Get off your high horse and take off your rose colored glasses. Your opinion is just like your ass. IT IS YOURS AND IT STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN.
JMC
“Retired millitary is a true sadist. let’s be honest, he was probably the kind of guy who skinned cats alive and did other horrifc things in his life. “
Really. You came to this conclusion how?
As I recall I actually care if unborn children get aborted and you are all for it yet I am a sadist.
I guess you follow the old lawyer rule. If the facts help you argue the facts. If they dont then attack the witness.
“He argues that the fact doctor’s were present is some kind of justifcation for his sick sadisim.”
Hey I, unlike you, can only go by what I read about the incidents at GITMO.
“Medical personnel at the detention facility protested the use of the waterboard in that form, stressing that “there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.'”
“
Hmm did the guys die? Nope. Were they injured? Umm no. Were medical personnel present incase he did drown (something which people are revived from probably over a thousand times a year) with medical equipment on hand. Umm No. Nice strawmen but in the end not a very effective argument.
“also i find it funny that RM is acting so concerned about the children. Let’s be honest if a 14 girl got raped RM would make her have the baby, and if she then asked the govermnet for help, because she was 14 had no diploma, no degree, and no money for college. he’d tell that girl to take her baby and go fuck herself because his tax dollars won’t pay for it.
“
I would want her to have the baby. I would also be in favor of her receiving govt aid especially if she was not a willing particpant in the crime that took place. I would also be in favor of putting the baby up for adoption or having close family members take care of it. Meanwhile liberals, like JMC, are routinely protecting child molesters by not reporting them to law enforcement personnel and saying kill the unborn because it is inconvenient.
JMC it is nice to see you are losing your cool and going so far off the deep end. It is obvious that you have totally lost it and just dont even realize it.
Please continue on so that folks can see just what kind of nitwit dumbass you are.
Were they injured? Umm no. Were medical personnel present incase he did drown (something which people are revived from probably over a thousand times a year) with medical equipment on hand. Umm No
Should read
Were they injured? Umm no. Were medical personnel present incase he did drown (something which people are revived from probably over a thousand times a year) with medical equipment on hand. Umm YES, so even fi they did die from drowning their chances of recovering were excedingly high. Something folks on a beach dont have all the time.
BTW JMC
I googled “”on a footnote on Page 41 of the Bradbury memo”‘
4 hits.
To try to look at the source document and not the Huffington post. Unsurprsing there is not source document to find. Only things referencing a Huffington post article.
Nice to quote things where you cant see the source document for context. Did the interogators stop after the medical personnel protested? Would be nice to know as it could totaly destroy your argument but it umm doesnt seem to be mentioned as to actions taken after the protests. Not that it would matter to me as no permanent physical harm or death occurred.
BTW JMC
If you are going to copy and post something it is called plaguerism if the reference is not cited.
@914 Great, you watched it on TV. I was in New York on 911. I had friends die. I had friends deal with things that you can only imagine. I returned to the city a week later (I left a few days later to move to Connecticut for a previously planned relocation) and came back every two weeks for two years. Two days before the towers crumbled, I had lunch across the street from tower 2 before heading back to the apartment to pack our belongings. I spent hours getting out of Brooklyn a few days later trying to find which streets were actually opened. I watched smoke cover the sky above us, knowing from emails from friends that that smoke I was breathing included all kinds of things, including human flesh and bone. My office mates watched the second plane fly overhead. I was on the phone to my office screaming to my boss to get people out of the building. This building, by the way was covered in pictures of missing family members. I stayed in a hotel on these trips back that housed soot covered firefighters that I tried to give support with a smile or a drink or a conversation that didn’t include finding body parts in the rubble.
Don’t even BEGIN to tell me that I want a repeat of that day when you were at home, likely not a home anywhere close to New York. Don’t presume to tell me what or how I feel about having a repeat of things that you watched from the sidelines.
@Heralder – absolutely right that intent is part of the conversation. No question about it.
I was with you right up until this:
“If you’ve handcuffed and detained them, you may already be guilty of torture by the left’s standards.”
Dude, seriously? We need to devolve a brainy discussion into “The Left sucks!” ?
JMC
Speaking of rule of law
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html
The rule of law, not of men — an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers — is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.
Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?
Until Chrysler.
The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact “uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies.”
The Obama administration’s behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors — entitled to first priority payment under the “absolute priority rule” — have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.
The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.
Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.
The U.S. government also wants to rush through what amounts to a sham sale of all of Chrysler’s assets to Fiat. While speedy bankruptcy sales are not unheard of, they are usually reserved for situations involving a wasting or perishable asset (think of a truck of oranges) where delay might be fatal to the asset’s, or in this case the company’s, value. That’s hardly the case with Chrysler. But in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan. The Obama administration’s asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.
By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?
The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government’s threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.
Chrysler — or more accurately, its unionized workers — may be helped in the short run. But we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government’s Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks’ troubled assets.
And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business — such as a pharmaceutical company — that’s on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House’s agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?
Mr. Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University and the author of a book on consumer bankruptcy and consumer lending, forthcoming from Yale University Press.
——
But hey Obama wants judges with empathy. That rule of law stuff is for suckers who didnt support him.
@retired said:
“Do you think mock executions are torture? “
“No I dont. A mock execution is just making someone think they will die. You can pick a dozen amusement park rides and find people every day that at the time they are riding them think at least for a second or two that they are going to die”
That’s your argument? People like to do things that push their personal limits, so torture is acceptable? Torture and amusement park rides are somehow comparable?
That’s messed up, man.
That would be masochism you idiot.
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: “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.
Once again you made no sense.
they said nothing of the kind. Are we to the part where you just make shit up?
You are a nationallist. a scumbag who does not get offended by anything his country does ever. A patriot loves his country for what it does. A nationalist loves it no matter what it does. if you had been in Germany in 1939 you would have been goose stepping right along and calling everyone who didn’t join in a traitor.
Exactly you hate freedom you think the goverment has the right to tell people who they can and can’t marry who they can or can’t have sex with. You don’t beleive there is a right to privacy in the constituion because you hate rights in genreal and want to limit them every chance you get.
Good lord, you hypocrites spend days and days bitching about the media. About how mean ole Keith Olbermann is picking on poor you. I think Rush is a moron and moron’s like you listen to him. I don’t think he should be censored. He has a right be a moron just as you do. I don’t want to censor your right. So quit lying and saying I do.
And I never said Rush should be censored did I moron?
God you are dumb. The founders believed every man on the planet has those rights you idiot. They didn’t say just American citizens. That is why they wrote we all have inalianvle rights and all men are created equal. If you weren’t so uneducated you would know this. And Obama should close Gitmo immediately,
So basically you have nothing. Figures.
Great a moron doesn’t like my opinion. Oh well.
I googled “”on a footnote on Page 41 of the Bradbury memo”‘
4 hits.
That is because you are a moron. Follow this link over 900 hits.
http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=active&client=psp-toshiba&cof=FORID%3A1%3BGL%3A1%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.toshibadirect.com%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fbase.googlehosted.com%2Fbase_image%3Fq%3Dpsp-image-u0nmbb%26size%3D1%3BLH%3A19%3BLW%3A100%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BLP%3A1%3BLC%3A%230000ff%3BVLC%3A%23663399%3BGFNT%3A%230000ff%3BGIMP%3A%230000ff%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3B&ad=w4&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Bradbury+memo%22
Jake
“That’s your argument? People like to do things that push their personal limits, so torture is acceptable? Torture and amusement park rides are somehow comparable?
That’s messed up, man.”
I was addressing the statement made by JMC about mock execution meaning peoiple thinking that they were going to die in the next few seconds. I guess that logic kinda went over your head. Not that that suprises me really.
——————————
JMC
“That is because you are a moron. Follow this link over 900 hits”
Well I admit that trying to follow up an actual quote that YOU post probably isnt the smartest thing I have ever done.
“Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, blah blah blah is: “any act by which severe pain or .”
This is the same UN that has Libya and Syria on its Human rights commission correct? The on same that gives Iran a podium to say that Israel should be destroyed and yet they are going to say what is and isnt torture. Funny. Okay so my defintion of torture doesnt agree with the UN’s SUE ME. Ohhhh. I am so scared. The UN is nothing but a corrupt joke.
“You are a nationallist. a scumbag who does not get offended by anything his country does ever. A patriot loves his country for what it does. A nationalist loves it no matter what it does. if you had been in Germany in 1939 you would have been goose stepping right along and calling everyone who didn’t join in a traitor”
You are an idiot. I have plenty of bones to pick with things the country has done. Slavery is a good example. Abortion is another. As for Germany where as I am of German heritage I despise Hitler and everything he stands for. You on the other hand stirke me as more Mussolini. I love this country even thought it has a few moles. Unline most on the left who despise it simply because of its few moles. Funny thing is people are flocking to try to get in this country. People who have had to grow up and live in coutnries who oppose liberty and justice and freedom.
“Exactly you hate freedom you think the goverment has the right to tell people who they can and can’t marry who they can or can’t have sex with. “
That isnt freedom that is scoiety imposing a set of rules to live by. Should men abe allowed to marry girls age 10 if the girl says yes? I could care less who consenting adults do as long as they are consenting adults. No I dont want gays to marry as the vast majority of the country dont want gays to marry. I feel it is immoral. I am sure the founding fathers would agree with ime on this one but I dont see you touting them in this case.
“Good lord, you hypocrites spend days and days bitching about the media. About how mean ole Keith Olbermann is picking on poor you. I think Rush is a moron and moron’s like you listen to him. I don’t think he should be censored. He has a right be a moron just as you do. I don’t want to censor your right. So quit lying and saying I do. “
Actually I dont listen to Rush or Hannidy. Nor do I pay attention to Olberman. I didnt say you wanted him to be censored I said most liberals. So I didnt lie but you have done so twice. In addition, you are dodging the point about freedom of speech which the fairness doctrine most certainly abridges. Not suprising since it doesnt fit your tired screed.
“And I never said Rush should be censored did I moron?:
And I never said you did. DUMBASS MORON. That is like 4 times I have said it shall I repeated it some more you illiterate (I would say deaf but hey you are reading this) DUMBASS MORON.
“God you are dumb. The founders believed every man on the planet has those rights you idiot. They didn’t say just American citizens. That is why they wrote we all have inalianvle rights and all men are created equal. If you weren’t so uneducated you would know this. And Obama should close Gitmo immediately,'”
Here we go with the founders again. WHere were they on gay marriage again?
Let me reiterate (that means say again or repeat) my point. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence only apply to American citizens. The founders could not say they apply to other countries as they have no legal standing in those countries. I understand that they felt all men were entitled to those freedoms ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR (oops there goes religion .. another liberal no no). However, the actual law established by those documents apply only to US CITIZENS and certain others as directed by law. Try reading what I wrote. If I have to spell out everything in first grade language I will.
” And Obama should close Gitmo immediately,
“
So you are saying that Obama is violating the 6th Amendment and therefore is guilty of high crimes and misdemonors and should should be impeached? Is that your contention? If not why should GITMO be closed. Are the people there being imprisoned in violation of the 6th amendment with Obama being President for almost 4 months?
“So basically you have nothing. Figures. “
I quoted an article above this. So I have more than nothing. But hey you can argue with the law professor who wrote the article. I am sure that he will be impressed with your book learnin’ and your credentials of patriotism.
“Great a moron doesn’t like my opinion. Oh well.”
Oooh oohh I must have bruised his fragile ego there.
BTW Jake
“so torture is acceptable”
I never said that torture is acceptable. You are applying your definition of torture to my words. READ MY LIPS. I DO NOT CONSIDER THE WATERBOARDING AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT GITMO AS TORTURE.
I consider listening to people like you torture but I am sure you would disagree with me now wouldnt you.
So Jake
Since you decided to open your mouth.
If someone was forced on a rollercoaster and they were afriad of it would you consider it torture?
What about the pranks played by school kids against other kids doing things that scare them. Is that torture?
If someone was deathly afraid of being snuck up on and you did so would you be guilty of torture?
How about pushing someone down in knee deep water who is death afraid of water?> Is that torture?
In each of these instances these people could be afriad of dying or having grave physical harm done to them. DO you consider that torture?
@retired – you’re an angry fellow, aren’t you? If you’re so “tortured” by listening to “people like me”, why are you spending time on a blog debating such things?
Insults aside, I’d honestly be interested in knowing if you’re talking about ALL the activities that went on at Gitmo or if it’s just waterboarding. What about CIA black sites? Abu Ghraib?
Let’s set aside controlled drowning/waterboarding for a second.
What about:
* chaining people to the floor for 18+ hours?
* beatings?
* ramming people into walls?
* 10 days without any (real) sleep?
* mock executions?
* hanging people from their arms for hours on end?
* death?
All these things happened to prisoners under US custody. But do you believe they’re not defined as “torture”?
Oh well, you’re right. I don’t believe that “torture” is only activities that result in the loss of limbs, so clearly I’m an idiot.
Jake
Not angry. Just having fun with folks who dont look at reall life.
Now to your questions.
* chaining people to the floor for 18+ hours?
Not torture.
* beatings?
Depends. How severe. A punch in the mouth or pummeling someone to bones breaking. There is a difference in my book.
* ramming people into walls?
Nope. If that were the case then half the kids in high school would be guilty of torture.
* 10 days without any (real) sleep?
Nope. This really just causes the mind to get foggy. As long as it is supervised by a doctor so death does not occur then no. I have been out in the field for over a week with no more than 2 hours sleep a night.
* mock executions?
Again nope.
* hanging people from their arms for hours on end?
This is one of those depends. If it causes long term damange than I may say yes. Will I lose sleep over it? Not really.
* death?
Intentional yes. Unintentional depends on circumstances. Some people can be treated a specific way and due to a preexisting condition this can cause death.
Most of these things are really based on intent. Is the intent to get information without causing disability or extreme harm then I dont have much of aproblem with it. Someone intentionally causing harm especially just to get their jolies I have a lot of problem with. Punching someone in the mouth just for kicks isnt torture . Prisoner abuse yes.
As for what takes place overseas, say we turn over prisoners to the Russians. I dont have a problem with it. The left loves to say we arent the world’s policemen. Yet wants to cry if we turn prisoners over to another country.
I answered your questions. Your turn.
You want so badly to be right by your cut and dry “logic” that you can’t see between the lines or the forest for the trees, jmc. It’s amusing that a simple crack in your reasoning is so threatened by the possibility that Bush and Clinton had the same idea with a different strategy. During the Clinton admin, between 1999 and 2001, we dropped over 1 million lbs of bombs, but it still not war!
“Go invest in the amero”. That’s all you’ve got? And a war is not a strike? Ha! How does that work for you in the real world, where Americans have been duped into believing that they’re goal is the American dream only to be robbed through illegal taxes and fake charities? Don’t blow a gasket, now.
And I already told you I corrected myself about the two years, but scraping the barrel as you usually do, you went back to my original comment to argue. Pathetic.
typo city! *their goal
That was interesting, it reminds me of a tv show. I’ll group my response to the question in a moment.
Fair enough. The reason for bringing it up simply is rules. Who plays by them and who doesn’t. By default a uniformed soldier has started by defining himself as a legal combatant. He is protected under the Geneva Convention thusly.
An Islamic extremist, lets say a suicide bomber, is pretty much the opposite in those terms and is not protected under the Geneva Convention.
The above is background for the question. We’re going under the assumption that any human being, young kid drafted into the army or a brainwashed religious zealot are broken by the same questioning techniques?
You’ll have to pardon me for asking, once again for backup, but where exactly do you get the idea it was destroyed?
And why would Cheney call on documents that were destroyed knowing the White House could just say it was the case and make him look bad? That hasn’t occured, they’ve been ‘reviewing’ them. All indications are that they are there.
Naturally, I agree. Theoretically it’s perfectly sensible. In this case we have one guy saying it works, and another saying it doesn’t. This still is a debate, rather than settled fact.
Let me highlight the interesting bits, since you generalized and said it was the same as waterboarding:
“The KUBARK manual was the product of more than a decade of research and testing, refining lessons learned from the Korean War, where U.S. airmen were subjected to a new type of “touchless torture” until they confessed to a bogus plan to use biological weapons against the North Koreans.”
In other words, they refined and tested it until it could produce results. Do you really think the CIA is so stupid that they would just torture people for fun not caring if they got bogus information?
If the whole point is information, how would it serve anyone’s intrest to extract information that is coerced and completely useless? It doesn’t and the idea is ridiculous that the CIA is just completely clueless to this fact.
Several points in this linked article bring up points contrary to the one you’re trying to use it for. And an “Unnamed former Intelligence Official” is being cited as a resource.
One tidbit:
“After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the interrogation world changed. Low-level Taliban and Arab fighters captured in Afghanistan provided little information,((something backed up by my previous post about the difference between an Islamic extremist and a uniformed soldier)) the former intelligence official said. When higher-level al-Qaeda operatives were captured, CIA interrogators sought authority to use more coercive methods.”
As for your second link, sorry, the New York Times is a sorry excuse for a nespaper, I stopped reading when these two phrases were used:
“officially embraced the brutal methods”
“investigated the gruesome origins”
The New York Times has a glorious history of skewing facts and trying to turn unabashed opinion into some sort of technical manual.
I’m really tired, so if some if this post was disjointed, my apologies.
Jake,
Don’t presume you have the right to use
arrogance towards someone because you happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Someone who had just finished a double shift
and had turned on a television to see 9/11
happening.
Neither of you had any control over the timing
of the situation or the acts of it.
I watched it on television, not experiencing
the smell or the taste, I did experience the
horror, the anger, and the frustration of not
being able to do a thing to help those who were
brutally murdered, for being in the wrong
place at the wrong time too.
@maggie – my comment was out of *frustration* not arrogance. I was told by @914 that I wanted a repeat of that day. He was saying this from a vantage point that was vastly different than my own. I had tangible experience of that day that @914 didn’t, yet didn’t hesitate to assume that I was interested in a repeat performance. I don’t deny that we all had powerful reactions and I don’t and didn’t attempt to belittle his concern. But for he (not being anywhere close) to tell me (who was) that he somehow understood things better and that I somehow so clearly didn’t understand it I encouraged a repeat is the very height of arrogance.
And to further clarify, I had it relatively easy compared to many on the planes or in the buildings. I wouldn’t begin to assume that I can understand their pain or tell them how they do or should feel either. Heck, I don’t think I’d assume *anyone* wants a repeat of that day and it’s flat out insulting for anyone to make such clueless claims.
@maggie – you know, the more I think about your comment, the more infuriating it becomes.
Maybe I’m reading your comment incorrectly (which is likely considering my post stirred a lot of pushed down emotion), but it seems as though you’re saying that we all lived an equal experience on/about 9/11.
I’m not making any claim at being special because I had more proximity than you or @914 had. But you can’t serious believe that your experience from the relatively safety of your own home equates to people who were running from collapsing buildings? (which wasn’t me, FYI)
Please tell me you understand that there are varying levels of intensity to this event?
Jake,
You’re free to interpret how ever you will.
My premise to not use 9.11 as leverage in
an argument.
There is no comparison of some one who survived
the attack personally, to someone who watched
it from a distance.
BTW Jake,
Getting infuriated over one of my posts
wont’ do you much good or harm.
I have to say, having been present physically in Manhattan for it, it does make a difference if you saw it with your own eyes, and for months after smelled the rotting corpses still unrecovered in the rubble.
This doesn’t give me or Jake special moral authority to argue anything, or to use having been there as argument fodder, but I am saying only that it makes a difference in experience.
That’s all I have to say on the issue.
You don’t follow a quote I post you read that. You follow the links I post. simple really.
Yip, the U.S. led the effort btw. Slamming America again.
Marriage is a private institution it is none of societies business. A 10 year old is not a consenting adult.