PDA

View Full Version : CIA Destroys/Hides Evidence Of Wrongdoing - Harman Warns against - Merged



Pages : [1] 2 3

Psychoblues
12-07-2007, 01:58 AM
How can it be more clear?


WASHINGTON - The CIA videotaped its interrogations of two top terrorism suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners, the director of the agency told employees Thursday.

Officials told NBC News' Robert Windrem that one of the videos included the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the leader in charge of al-Qaida's training camps.

The disclosure that tapes were destroyed brought immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill and from a human rights group, which said the spy agency’s action amounted to criminal destruction of evidence.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22139312


Just how is all this destruction of factual documentation and evidence of practises approved by the United States Of America government in any way in keeping with the values of the general citizenry of the United States Of America?

JohnDoe
12-07-2007, 08:52 AM
How can it be more clear?


WASHINGTON - The CIA videotaped its interrogations of two top terrorism suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners, the director of the agency told employees Thursday.

Officials told NBC News' Robert Windrem that one of the videos included the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the leader in charge of al-Qaida's training camps.

The disclosure that tapes were destroyed brought immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill and from a human rights group, which said the spy agency’s action amounted to criminal destruction of evidence.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22139312


Just how is all this destruction of factual documentation and evidence of practises approved by the United States Of America government in any way in keeping with the values of the general citizenry of the United States Of America?

It isn't, in my opinion, any kind of "a value trait" of the USA citizenry at all, AND should NOT be tollerated.

I am sick and tired of the "lawlessness" of our leaders and agencies and those that we pay with out tax dollars. Being above the Law, is unacceptable and something HAS TO BE DONE to stop this kind of crud.

The repubs and dems don't have the fortitude to do anything about these lawless things and that is wrong imo.

jd

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 09:07 AM
How can it be more clear?


WASHINGTON - The CIA videotaped its interrogations of two top terrorism suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners, the director of the agency told employees Thursday.

Officials told NBC News' Robert Windrem that one of the videos included the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the leader in charge of al-Qaida's training camps.

The disclosure that tapes were destroyed brought immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill and from a human rights group, which said the spy agency’s action amounted to criminal destruction of evidence.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22139312


Just how is all this destruction of factual documentation and evidence of practises approved by the United States Of America government in any way in keeping with the values of the general citizenry of the United States Of America?

{sarcasm on}

I'm sure this was only done for the safety of the interrogators. I am convinced that there was no intention to destory evidence or to hide improprieties.

{Sarcasm off}

Immie

Dilloduck
12-07-2007, 09:25 AM
How can it be more clear?


WASHINGTON - The CIA videotaped its interrogations of two top terrorism suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners, the director of the agency told employees Thursday.

Officials told NBC News' Robert Windrem that one of the videos included the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the leader in charge of al-Qaida's training camps.

The disclosure that tapes were destroyed brought immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill and from a human rights group, which said the spy agency’s action amounted to criminal destruction of evidence.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22139312


Just how is all this destruction of factual documentation and evidence of practises approved by the United States Of America government in any way in keeping with the values of the general citizenry of the United States Of America?

The CIA destroyed tapes----stating that they destoyed "evidence of wrongdoing" is pure conjecture.

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 09:29 AM
The CIA destroyed tapes----stating that they destoyed "evidence of wrongdoing" is pure conjecture.

No doubt, but trusting everything a politician says is foolhardy. Sure, there is no proof that they destroyed evidence of wrongdoing, but to believe they only did this for the safety of the agents is... well... foolhardy.

Immie

Dilloduck
12-07-2007, 09:37 AM
No doubt, but trusting everything a politician says is foolhardy. Sure, there is no proof that they destroyed evidence of wrongdoing, but to believe they only did this for the safety of the agents is... well... foolhardy.

Immie

Foolhardy?--So is trusting PSYCHOs' assessment of what "REALLY" happened and the motives of those who did it. This is another classic way of distorting the truth by using conjecture as a fact.

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 09:46 AM
Foolhardy?--So is trusting Bullys' assessment of what "REALLY" happened and the motives of those who did it. This is another classic way of distorting the truth by using conjecture as a fact.

Bullys assessment? Who is Bully in your statement?

I didn't trust anyone's assessment in this. My first thought when I heard about this last night was that there was something fishy about this. Call me a cynic, but I have completely lost trust in the men and women who "serve" this country as politicians. Maybe someday they can regain my trust, but for now everything they say is highly suspect to me.

I realize the announcement is about the CIA and technically not a political announcement, but this will all eventually point at the political heads of our government.

Immie

Dilloduck
12-07-2007, 09:57 AM
Bullys assessment? Who is Bully in your statement?

I didn't trust anyone's assessment in this. My first thought when I heard about this last night was that there was something fishy about this. Call me a cynic, but I have completely lost trust in the men and women who "serve" this country as politicians. Maybe someday they can regain my trust, but for now everything they say is highly suspect to me.

I realize the announcement is about the CIA and technically not a political announcement, but this will all eventually point at the political heads of our government.

Immie


OOOPS--sorry bully---didn't get enough coffee in me yet to realize that it was PSYCHOS assessment that the CIA covered "wrongdoing". Of course it's fishy HOWEVER intentionally misleading everyone with about what the CIA did or didn't do only serves to further judge people prior to investigation.

I'll edit the names to protect the guilty--ty for the heads up.

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 10:16 AM
OOOPS--sorry bully---didn't get enough coffee in me yet to realize that it was PSYCHOS assessment that the CIA covered "wrongdoing". Of course it's fishy HOWEVER intentionally misleading everyone with about what the CIA did or didn't do only serves to further judge people prior to investigation.

I'll edit the names to protect the guilty--ty for the heads up.

That is kind of what I was going over with TM yesterday regarding the rapist released by Gov. Huckabee. It looks fishy. No doubt about it, but there is no proof. I used the word speculation. You said conjecture. That is all it is speculation and/or conjecture. I think there is a coverup here, but that can't, at this point, be proven.

Immie

JohnDoe
12-07-2007, 10:32 AM
The CIA destroyed tapes----stating that they destoyed "evidence of wrongdoing" is pure conjecture.And what might be your conjecture or speculation on why they destroyed these tapes? (Their office was cold and they needed to burn the tapes to heat it?):slap:

Does one just sit back and not use any reasoning or logical speculation in situations like this and allow it to just "disappear from sight and mind" or "sweep it under the rug" because we don't know for certain or does one TRY to get to the bottom of it through investigations of such?

jd

darin
12-07-2007, 10:32 AM
I think you WANT a coverup. You and others WANT controversy. (shrug).



And what might be your conjecture or speculation on why they destroyed these tapes? (Their office was cold and they needed to burn the tapes to heat it?):slap:

Does one just sit back and not use any reasoning or logical speculation in situations like this and allow it to just "disappear from sight and mind" or "sweep it under the rug" because we don't know for certain or does one TRY to get to the bottom of it through investigations of such?

jd


Wha? Do you HONESTLY THINK you are smarter than, say, the CIA guys who destroyed the tapes? Do you honestly think you know how to best protect our nation? Your arrogance refuses to allow you to give somebody ONE constitutionally-protected advantage...the Benefit of the Doubt.

It's because you HATE this president and everything associated with our government - because of the president. Your hatred and arrogance filters what you read, causing your snap, knee-jerk judgments of what did, or didn't happen. Get over yourself.

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 10:41 AM
And what might be your conjecture or speculation on why they destroyed these tapes? (Their office was cold and they needed to burn the tapes to heat it?)

No, my speculation is that they did this to hide their crimes and the crimes of their superiors. However, I don't have the facts and unlike you and TM, I do not believe that people should be convicted based upon speculation.

Immie

LiberalNation
12-07-2007, 10:51 AM
Of course the CIA destroys stuff to cover their own asses. Normally we get to hear about it on the history channel some 40 years later tho.

JohnDoe
12-07-2007, 11:46 AM
No, my speculation is that they did this to hide their crimes and the crimes of their superiors. However, I don't have the facts and unlike you and TM, I do not believe that people should be convicted based upon speculation.

Immie
strawman....you are losing your mind.... I have never convicted anyone, even the one jury that I served on, I found the young man innocent!!!!

Try again, mr. sarcasm on/off! you need more :dance:'ing lessons!!!

btw, did you read the full article? i presume NOT.

jd

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 12:19 PM
strawman....you are losing your mind.... I have never convicted anyone, even the one jury that I served on, I found the young man innocent!!!!

Try again, mr. sarcasm on/off! you need more :dance:'ing lessons!!!

btw, did you read the full article? i presume NOT.

jd

You don't have to be on a jury to convict someone. You have proven yourself to be biased against conservatives time and time again. In this case, since the individuals who have been accused of wrong doing are part of the Republican Administration you seem to find it "certain" that they are guilty, yet if this had been 10 years ago you would have sluffed it off.

Also, the man you let go, was probably some liberal snob like you that threatened a Republican. You have made it perfectly clear that you believe only Democrats and Liberals are saints. Anytime a Republican is accused, you are ready to send him to the gallows.

So, time for you to put your dancing shoes on.

As I said earlier, I believe this is a coverup, I didin't read the link, I heard the story on the news and I think there is something fishy about this. The difference between you and me is that I only think there is something fishy, you are convinced that you know everything and these guys ought to hang.

Immie

JohnDoe
12-07-2007, 02:17 PM
You don't have to be on a jury to convict someone. You have proven yourself to be biased against conservatives time and time again. In this case, since the individuals who have been accused of wrong doing are part of the Republican Administration you seem to find it "certain" that they are guilty, yet if this had been 10 years ago you would have sluffed it off.

Also, the man you let go, was probably some liberal snob like you that threatened a Republican. You have made it perfectly clear that you believe only Democrats and Liberals are saints. Anytime a Republican is accused, you are ready to send him to the gallows.

So, time for you to put your dancing shoes on.

As I said earlier, I believe this is a coverup, I didin't read the link, I heard the story on the news and I think there is something fishy about this. The difference between you and me is that I only think there is something fishy, you are convinced that you know everything and these guys ought to hang.

Immie

i suppose you think you are being ''cute'' or something in that nature here Immie....? like trying to score some sort of brown nosing points with your new found friends and to cover for your own posts and your own actions which came off much stronger in spreading the guilty conviction than mine ever did?

so, let's review the facts and expose you as the tapdancer at best and born liar at worst, that you are and always have been....

================================================== =

my first post answered psycho's statement/question which was this:


Just how is all this destruction of factual documentation and evidence of practises approved by the United States Of America government in any way in keeping with the values of the general citizenry of the United States Of America?

so, after reading the link he provided, i responded with this:


It isn't, in my opinion, any kind of "a value trait" of the USA citizenry at all, AND should NOT be tollerated.

I am sick and tired of the "lawlessness" of our leaders and agencies and those that we pay with out tax dollars. Being above the Law, is unacceptable and something HAS TO BE DONE to stop this kind of crud.

The repubs and dems don't have the fortitude to do anything about these lawless things and that is wrong imo.


NOTE, right there proves you to be a liar in your two posts above referring to me.



so let's review what you said:


{sarcasm on}

I'm sure this was only done for the safety of the interrogators. I am convinced that there was no intention to destory evidence or to hide improprieties.

{Sarcasm off}

Immie

seems to me that YOU were the one convicting, (your term, not mine) people of hiding improprieties, and destroying the evidence of such, no?

so then, in response to Dillo's comment to psycho, you said this:


No doubt, but trusting everything a politician says is foolhardy. Sure, there is no proof that they destroyed evidence of wrongdoing, but to believe they only did this for the safety of the agents is... well... foolhardy.

Immie

which also sounds pretty condemning of people in the CIA to me, though i am not quite certain why you refer to them as politicians because i thought the CIA was suppose to be made up of nonpartisans?

then in response to dillo again, you stated this:


I didn't trust anyone's assessment in this. My first thought when I heard about this last night was that there was something fishy about this. Call me a cynic, but I have completely lost trust in the men and women who "serve" this country as politicians. Maybe someday they can regain my trust, but for now everything they say is highly suspect to me.

I realize the announcement is about the CIA and technically not a political announcement, but this will all eventually point at the political heads of our government.

Immie

which sort of explained what you meant regarding politicians, vs the CIA because according to you, ''this will all eventually point at the political heads of our government.''

AGAIN, this is YOU saying this crap, NOT ME.

so then i sarcastically asked dillo, not you this:


And what might be your conjecture or speculation on why they destroyed these tapes? (Their office was cold and they needed to burn the tapes to heat it?)

Does one just sit back and not use any reasoning or logical speculation in situations like this and allow it to just "disappear from sight and mind" or "sweep it under the rug" because we don't know for certain or does one TRY to get to the bottom of it through investigations of such?

jd

and you then responded to a portion of this question/statement in bold right above with this response:


No, my speculation is that they did this to hide their crimes and the crimes of their superiors. However, I don't have the facts and unlike you and TM, I do not believe that people should be convicted based upon speculation.

Immie

At this point you decided to LIE and accuse me of things I never said or did, which i just underlined above.... they were things that YOU WERE DOING, but not me, with any of my statements or opinions posted did i convict anyone of destroying the tapes because of ''wrong doing''.


so i responded to you, saying this:


strawman....you are losing your mind.... I have never convicted anyone, even the one jury that I served on, I found the young man innocent!!!!

Try again, mr. sarcasm on/off! you need more tap dancing lessons!!!

btw, did you read the full article? i presume NOT.

jd


so, i suppose you were trying to once again, cover your own tracts and deflect attention from yourself for your own words and lied again, with saying this hateful statement in the quote above that i am responding to now.

It's marvelous, that you can be exposed to your not so tactful lies imo, just by reposting what you have posted thus far!!! You spewed a bunch of garbage!

It's fantastic that it can be shown what a lovely person you are... :poke:

(grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

jd

theHawk
12-07-2007, 02:24 PM
I'm glad they destoryed such tapes. Last thing we need is for them to be leaked. And as far as I am concerned they can use whatever methods they want to for interrogating foreign terrorists.

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 02:53 PM
my first post answered psycho's statement/question which was this:

FIRST OFF YOU HAD BEEN ON MY IGNORE LIST EVER SINCE YOU GOT SO BITCHY WITH ME THREE WEEKS AGO ON INSTANT MESSENGER FOR NOT DEFENDING YOU AGAINST SIR EVIL'S CALLING YOU A LIAR. YOUR WHINING EARNED YOU AN IGNORE. I ONLY READ YOUR POST (WHICH APPEARED TO BE ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR NASTY SLAPS AT ME THAT I HAVE PUT UP WITH WHENEVER YOU GET ON YOUR HIGH HORSE) THROUGH THE QUOTE PROVIDE BY DMP.





NOTE, right there proves you to be a liar in your two posts above referring to me.

No, your previous history proves your hatred of all republicans. Everytime a scandal arises you automatically convict the administration without hearing one bit of evidence.


so let's review what you said:




seems to me that YOU were the one convicting, (your term, not mine) people of hiding improprieties, and destroying the evidence of such, no?

so then, in response to Dillo's comment to psycho, you said this:



which also sounds pretty condemning of people in the CIA to me, though i am not quite certain why you refer to them as politicians because i thought the CIA was suppose to be made up of nonpartisans?

then in response to dillo again, you stated this:



which sort of explained what you meant regarding politicians, vs the CIA because according to you, ''this will all eventually point at the political heads of our government.''

AGAIN, this is YOU saying this crap, NOT ME.

Yes, I believe them to be hiding something as do you, liar, however, you are the one that convicts on speculation, not me.



so then i sarcastically asked dillo, not you this:

Oh, so now your response was sarcastic? Liar!




At this point you decided to LIE and accuse me of things I never said or did, which i just underlined above.... they were things that YOU WERE DOING, but not me, with any of my statements or opinions posted did i convict anyone of destroying the tapes because of ''wrong doing''.

Liar, you have consistantly accused any and every member of the Bush Administration evil, criminals. Note: this is convicting/judging them. In fact, you have called Bush the Anti-chrst hundreds of times.

You have been rude to me before. Everytime I don't kowtow to you, you get bitchy with me. Three weeks ago you got mad at me for not defending poor defenseless Care when Sir Evil called you a liar. Well, I'm not going to defend you against him. You are a big girl. Defend yourself.

Immie

JohnDoe
12-07-2007, 03:05 PM
FIRST OFF YOU HAD BEEN ON MY IGNORE LIST EVER SINCE YOU GOT SO BITCHY WITH ME THREE WEEKS AGO ON INSTANT MESSENGER FOR NOT DEFENDING YOU AGAINST SIR EVIL'S CALLING YOU A LIAR. YOUR WHINING EARNED YOU AN IGNORE. I ONLY READ YOUR POST (WHICH APPEARED TO BE ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR NASTY SLAPS AT ME THAT I HAVE PUT UP WITH WHENEVER YOU GET ON YOUR HIGH HORSE) THROUGH THE QUOTE PROVIDE BY DMP.


really? that's an interesting STORY immie.






No, your previous history proves your hatred of all republicans. Everytime a scandal arises you automatically convict the administration without hearing one bit of evidence.


and this is too, especially since i am married to a republica, which you are well aware of and WAS friends with you for 4 years?

Yes, I believe them to be hiding something as do you, liar, however, you are the one that convicts on speculation, not me.


once again, you are a liar, as usual....and trying to cover for your own, premature conviction for their coverup of wrong doing, according to you.


Oh, so now your response was sarcastic? Liar!


yes, it was clearly sarcastic!!!



Liar, you have consistantly accused any and every member of the Bush Administration evil, criminals. Note: this is convicting/judging them. In fact, you have called Bush the Anti-chrst hundreds of times.


hmmmmm, everyone has read your posts immie, YOU are the one on this site continually Bush bashing, a couple times, today alone....but i suppose you think that is ok in your head?

You have been rude to me before. Everytime I don't kowtow to you, you get bitchy with me. Three weeks ago you go mad at me for not defending poor defenseless Care when Sir Evil called you a liar. Well, I'm not going to defend you against him. You are a big girl. Defend yourself.



I don't NEED you to defend me against anyone, sir evil can easily be handled by putting him on ignore when he starts up with me?

Immie


Sounds to me like you are staying true to what i have said.... you are a liar, and are now trying to weasle out of it....

jd

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 03:11 PM
Sounds to me like you are staying true to what i have said.... you are a liar, and are now trying to weasle out of it....

jd


And where did I lie worm?

I said that I thought these guys were hiding something. I never denied that. However, my believing something is not tantamount to their guilt. You, however, judge without a stick of evidence which is exactly what I said in my first reply to you.

Where did I lie, worm?

You are of course a liar and proved it the minute you said, "accuse me of things I never said or did".

Immie

retiredman
12-07-2007, 03:14 PM
justr another bungling misstep from the corrupt keystone cops running the executive branch.... ho hum.

the supreme court is looking into the Gitmo detainee situation and early questioning from the bench paints a bleak picture for the administration....

videotapes which could have supported detainee's claims that they were tortured are destroyed.

coincidence?

I think not.

darin
12-07-2007, 03:22 PM
what's a bungle? You have no idea what was on those tapes, MFM.

You and others get horny the thought of a mistake by ANYONE in the federal government who doesn't appease terrorists. You get deluded into conspiracy where none exists.

Sir Evil
12-07-2007, 03:27 PM
Sounds to me like you are staying true to what i have said.... you are a liar, and are now trying to weasle out of it....

jd

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Did he leave any optional quotes to backpedal to before you caught him, you know kind of like you do when talking typical BS?

I'll be damned, there is now evidence of just how bad the administration is, they waterboarded some sand niggers, and then destroyed the evidence. The bastards must be brought to justice, dontcha think Dove? I mean the cruelty of such techniques, and then the audacity to try to hide that from the public eye as if some leftists doves may make more of it than need be. What a fucking travesty!

darin
12-07-2007, 03:49 PM
I wonder if "the Left" is upset about not having those vids to show to the world. Perhaps they'd like to put them up on YouTube as rally-cry for MORE Muslims to kill us? The Left LOVES when Soldiers die because the Left thinks the death of US Soldiers will further the Left's political agendas.

Hagbard Celine
12-07-2007, 03:51 PM
I wonder if "the Left" is upset about not having those vids to show to the world. Perhaps they'd like to put them up on YouTube as rally-cry for MORE Muslims to kill us? The Left LOVES when Soldiers die because the Left thinks the death of US Soldiers will further the Left's political agendas.

Bullsh*t.

darin
12-07-2007, 03:54 PM
Look at the Leaders on "the Left." Their words and actions formed my opinion of their motives.

Sir Evil
12-07-2007, 03:57 PM
Bullsh*t.

Wow, that was a very well thought out response, did ya come up that with all by yoursefl?

Hagbard Celine
12-07-2007, 03:59 PM
Look at the Leaders on "the Left." Their words and actions formed my opinion of their motives.

Man, no American enjoys hearing when our soldiers die. Why do you think that "libs" are inhuman baby-eaters with green skin? They're people just like you, they're just not as religious. That's basically the only difference. Yet somehow in your mind that means that they get a thrill everytime a soldier dies. Wtf?

theHawk
12-07-2007, 04:12 PM
Man, no American enjoys hearing when our soldiers die. Why do you think that "libs" are inhuman baby-eaters with green skin? They're people just like you, they're just not as religious. That's basically the only difference. Yet somehow in your mind that means that they get a thrill everytime a soldier dies. Wtf?


Libs aren't inhumane baby-eaters with green skin. They're inhumane baby-abortionists with thick skin.

Hagbard Celine
12-07-2007, 04:18 PM
Libs aren't inhumane baby-eaters with green skin. They're inhumane baby-abortionists with thick skin.

I'm a lib and I've never aborted a baby. So that pretty much squashes that little bit of nonsense. Ya'll are some stereotypin' mo-fos.

darin
12-07-2007, 04:23 PM
Hag - you aren't a liberal. You're just young.

:)

theHawk
12-07-2007, 04:45 PM
I'm a lib and I've never aborted a baby. So that pretty much squashes that little bit of nonsense. Ya'll are some stereotypin' mo-fos.

Oh my badd, you're just a liberal abortion supporter.

retiredman
12-07-2007, 07:24 PM
what's a bungle? You have no idea what was on those tapes, MFM.

You and others get horny the thought of a mistake by ANYONE in the federal government who doesn't appease terrorists. You get deluded into conspiracy where none exists.


Of course I have an IDEA, I just don't have any PROOF. But if my idea is correct, that makes my suggestion that the the supreme court case and the destruction of the tapes are related more plausible.

And PLEASE, lay off the "appease terrorists" bullshit. It is so Limbaugh-esque and really, beneath you. Nobody wants to "appease" any of our enemies. I, for one, want to stomp all over western Afghanistan and find them and QUIT fucking around babysitting a sectarian squabble in Iraq that has an inevitable conclusion.

Yurt
12-07-2007, 07:56 PM
Bullys assessment? Who is Bully in your statement?

I didn't trust anyone's assessment in this. My first thought when I heard about this last night was that there was something fishy about this. Call me a cynic, but I have completely lost trust in the men and women who "serve" this country as politicians. Maybe someday they can regain my trust, but for now everything they say is highly suspect to me.

I realize the announcement is about the CIA and technically not a political announcement, but this will all eventually point at the political heads of our government.

Immie


CIA are not politicians

Yurt
12-07-2007, 07:59 PM
what's a bungle? You have no idea what was on those tapes, MFM.

You and others get horny the thought of a mistake by ANYONE in the federal government who doesn't appease terrorists. You get deluded into conspiracy where none exists.

:laugh: so true

Yurt
12-07-2007, 08:01 PM
Of course I have an IDEA, I just don't have any PROOF. But if my idea is correct, that makes my suggestion that the the supreme court case and the destruction of the tapes are related more plausible.

And PLEASE, lay off the "appease terrorists" bullshit. It is so Limbaugh-esque and really, beneath you. Nobody wants to "appease" any of our enemies. I, for one, want to stomp all over western Afghanistan and find them and QUIT fucking around babysitting a sectarian squabble in Iraq that has an inevitable conclusion.

tell me again which country those terrorists that were interrogated on the video tape are from?

i'll give you a hint, it doesn't rhyme with Iraq...

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 08:49 PM
CIA are not politicians

No, but they cover for them.

Immie

Dilloduck
12-07-2007, 08:52 PM
No, but they cover for them.

Immie

Not nearly often enough.

Yurt
12-07-2007, 08:58 PM
No, but they cover for them.

Immie

and that has what to do with this thread and your comment about CIA being political?

retiredman
12-07-2007, 11:20 PM
tell me again which country those terrorists that were interrogated on the video tape are from?

i'll give you a hint, it doesn't rhyme with Iraq...

and this is a justification for the war in Iraq, how????

Immanuel
12-07-2007, 11:37 PM
and that has what to do with this thread and your comment about CIA being political?


Everything.

The point is that the CIA appears to be covering up some sort of wrong-doing and I highly doubt it is the wrong-doing of a couple of operatives who just so happened got a little carried away with torturing "suspected" terrorists. If it were only a couple of operatives, they would have been thrown under the bus a long time ago. Torture is a hot bed issue right now that may just blow up in the Administration's face. The administration cannot afford too much more bad publicity on the issue.

Who knows what they are covering up? Believe me, I don't have the faintest idea, but I don't buy the, "we did it to protect a couple of operatives" excuse.


tell me again which country those terrorists that were interrogated on the video tape are from?

FYI: they were "suspected" terrorists. That is a big part of the issue here. Calling these people terrorists without proof is like calling me Jewish if I was seen walking down the streets of Jerusalem. I am sure this will get me in trouble with a lot of the right-wingers on this board, but I have a problem with torturing people period. We are supposed to be a civilized nation. At least, I thought we were. We don't know for certain that these guys were terrorists or that they had any information to give and believe it or not, I've got a problem with torturing people that might just be innocent. I can't justify in my mind the torture of any individual let alone one who may be innocent and the fact that George W. Bush tells us that these people are terrorists makes me feel even less confident that they are in fact terrorists.

Immie

Yurt
12-08-2007, 12:08 AM
For context:


and that has what to do with this thread and your comment about CIA being political?



Immanuel;164995]Everything.

A very bold statement. Are you sure?



The point is that the CIA appears to be covering up some sort of wrong-doing and I highly doubt it is the wrong-doing of a couple of operatives who just so happened got a little carried away with torturing "suspected" terrorists. If it were only a couple of operatives, they would have been thrown under the bus a long time ago. Torture is a hot bed issue right now that may just blow up in the Administration's face. The administration cannot afford too much more bad publicity on the issue.

Again, you fail to address your post where you called CIA "politicians"


Appears? Do you want me to start a thread on what appears to be your logic? I don't think so, because, it is only conjecture.

So far, you have added nothing about your CIA = Politician post. Are you ever?



Who knows what they are covering up? Believe me, I don't have the faintest idea, but I don't buy the, "we did it to protect a couple of operatives" excuse.

You actually took time to ask this?



FYI: they were "suspected" terrorists. That is a big part of the issue here. Calling these people terrorists without proof is like calling me Jewish if I was seen walking down the streets of Jerusalem. I am sure this will get me in trouble with a lot of the right-wingers on this board, but I have a problem with torturing people period. We are supposed to be a civilized nation. At least, I thought we were. We don't know for certain that these guys were terrorists or that they had any information to give and believe it or not, I've got a problem with torturing people that might just be innocent. I can't justify in my mind the torture of any individual let alone one who may be innocent and the fact that George W. Bush tells us that these people are terrorists makes me feel even less confident that they are in fact terrorists.


Do you know of anyone who was hung over a bridge in Iraq?

Regardless, what do you seriously propose is the the "bestest" way for YOUR country to defend itself from a group that has declared war on the entire world?

Oh yes, Islam's goal is the entire world. If you don't think so, grow up and google it. go to some islamic site.

Immanuel
12-08-2007, 02:00 AM
For context:






A very bold statement. Are you sure?




Again, you fail to address your post where you called CIA "politicians"


Appears? Do you want me to start a thread on what appears to be your logic? I don't think so, because, it is only conjecture.

So far, you have added nothing about your CIA = Politician post. Are you ever?




You actually took time to ask this?


.


Do you know of anyone who was hung over a bridge in Iraq?

Regardless, what do you seriously propose is the the "bestest" way for YOUR country to defend itself from a group that has declared war on the entire world?

Oh yes, Islam's goal is the entire world. If you don't think so, grow up and google it. go to some islamic site.

Your whole post verges on idiotic and is almost a waste of time to reply to.

I have already addressed your question. It appears that they are covering something up and yes, as I said very early in the thread, IT is only conjecture. Maybe you should go back and start at the beginning of the thread? Here let me point out some of the quotes:

Post #5

No doubt, but trusting everything a politician says is foolhardy. Sure, there is no proof [meaning this is conjecture] that they destroyed evidence of wrongdoing, but to believe they only did this for the safety of the agents is... well... foolhardy.

Post #7

I realize the announcement is about the CIA and technically not a political announcement, but this will all eventually point at the political heads of our government.

and post #9


That is kind of what I was going over with TM yesterday regarding the rapist released by Gov. Huckabee. It looks fishy. No doubt about it, but there is no proof. I used the word speculation. You said conjecture. That is all it is speculation and/or conjecture. I think there is a coverup here, but that can't, at this point, be proven.

I have nothing more than conjecture. Without proof it means nothing except for the fact that I don't trust them anymore.

If you even bothered to read the entire thread, you would see that I never said the CIA were politicians, but rather that they were covering up for politicians which I even clarified to JD because we all know she can't read. You may not believe that the CIA would do such a thing, but then you seem to think that President Bush is your friend and cares about you.

As for defending this country, well, Mr. Bush wants us all to believe that if we don't murder them all first, they will kill us. Then again, he wanted us to believe that Saddam himself plotted the 9/11 attacks, that Saddam had WMD's, that we had to give up our civil liberties or die, that wiretapping our neighbor's (and remember you are someone's neighbor) phone was the best thing for our safety, that his buddies at Halliburton were the only ones that could rebuild Iraq, that the mission was accomplished (hmm, I wonder why our bravest are still dying years later) and that he was our best buddy.

He also wants us to believe that corralling up our soldiers in the middle of Baghdad, painting targets on their backs and saying "support the troops" will win the war against terrorism when all it is really accomplishing is getting more of America's bravest home in body bags. This is no way to win a war against an enemy that doesn't have the courage to show itself, hides behind woman's skirts and in places of worship. We can't defeat the terrorist by acting like sheep headed for the slaughterhouse. What's the best way? Well, I'm sure there are people more quailfied to answer that question than I, but they will never convince me that this is the best way.

As for Islam's goal, how does this make them any different than you Neocons? Are you holier than they? Does the fact that you have bigger guns and more men make you right? Do you have any more right to conquer the world than they? Defending ourselves does not require entering a sovereign land and occupying it for God knows how many centuries or killing and torturing innocent people simply because they are muslim. Do I want to live under muslim law? Hell no, but I don't want to live under Neocon dictatorships either.

Do I believe there is a cover-up here? Hell yes. Can I prove it? Nope, but that doesn't mean it is not there. Is it conjecture for me to believe there is a cover up? Hell yes, but no more of a conjecture than for you to believe that the men that were tortured in these tapes were actually terrorists or that a single one of the men (and believe it or not they are men) held captive in Guantanamo is a terrorist. There has been no proof given that they were guilty of anything. The article says they were suspected of terrorism. That is a far cry from actually being proven guilty. Unlike most of this country, I still like to live by, "innocent until proven guilty" even though I realize that this is not the way we live.

Immie

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:47 AM
Do I believe there is a cover-up here? Hell yes. Can I prove it? Nope, but that doesn't mean it is not there. Is it conjecture for me to believe there is a cover up? Hell yes, but no more of a conjecture than for you to believe that the men that were tortured in these tapes were actually terrorists or that a single one of the men (and believe it or not they are men) held captive in Guantanamo is a terrorist. There has been no proof given that they were guilty of anything. The article says they were suspected of terrorism. That is a far cry from actually being proven guilty. Unlike most of this country, I still like to live by, "innocent until proven guilty" even though I realize that this is not the way we live.

Immie

Of course there is a cover-up. The CIA openly admits they are covering up. Your mission now is to prove their motivation. It is NOT conjecture that Abu Zabudayah, one of only TWO men in these tapes, is DEFINATELY a terrorist and his interrogation led him to spilling the beans on MORE proven and now captured terrorists.

theHawk
12-08-2007, 11:26 AM
I really don't see what the big deal is. The CIA already admitted that they waterboarded Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and of course 30 seconds into it he spilled the beans which led to the capture of several other to AQ terrorists.

Waterboarding works, and should be 100% legal for the CIA to use on terrorists.

Immanuel
12-08-2007, 12:02 PM
Of course there is a cover-up. The CIA openly admits they are covering up. Your mission now is to prove their motivation. It is NOT conjecture that Abu Zabudayah, one of only TWO men in these tapes, is DEFINATELY a terrorist and his interrogation led him to spilling the beans on MORE proven and now captured terrorists.

It is not my mission. I have no need nor desire to investigate this cover-up. Anyone who does might just be the next Vince Foster!

Personally, I have become a cynic. I dislike the people that run our government or more accurately I dislike what has become of our political system and its leaders. I don't blame the people that are involved as it is really the system that has gone haywire. I think our government is due for an overhaul but I only advocate such a thing in a peaceful manner so I am not so sure anything will ever be accomplished.

Again, it is not my mission to prove it. When I got into this thread it was only to state what I felt about the discussion and definitely not to start an argument. I am not going to try and prove that this was done to protect Dick Cheney or George W. Bush or who have you. If someone wants to do that and has the resources/power to do so then more power to them. In the meantime, I am just going to sit here and bitch like a Liberal Democrat about everything. :laugh2:

Immie

retiredman
12-08-2007, 04:09 PM
I really don't see what the big deal is. The CIA already admitted that they waterboarded Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and of course 30 seconds into it he spilled the beans which led to the capture of several other to AQ terrorists.

Waterboarding works, and should be 100% legal for the CIA to use on terrorists.


do you therefore give the green light to any and all future enemies of the United States to use waterboarding on American combatants captured on the battlefields of those future conflicts?

that is what I call supporting the troops!:laugh2:

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 04:50 PM
do you therefore give the green light to any and all future enemies of the United States to use waterboarding on American combatants captured on the battlefields of those future conflicts?

that is what I call supporting the troops!:laugh2:

Oh heavens no! Waterboarding is just so barbaric, all the death it causes and such. As long as our enemies have the like of your kind on there side they will never feel threatened to divulge any information that can be deemed useful.

Whats next, rubber bullets? :rolleyes:

Abbey
12-08-2007, 04:56 PM
Oh heavens no! Waterboarding is just so barbaric, all the death it causes and such. As long as our enemies have the like of your kind on there side they will never feel threatened to divulge any information that can be deemed useful.

Whats next, rubber bullets? :rolleyes:

We'll put daisies in their gun barrels and ask them to give peace a chance.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 04:57 PM
We'll put daisies in their gun barrels and ask them to give peace a chance.

Of course, then we will win hearts & minds! :laugh2:

Abbey
12-08-2007, 05:06 PM
Of course, then we will win hearts & minds! :laugh2:

Sure! :laugh2:


You know the John Wayne quote:

“If you've got them by the ****s, their hearts and minds will follow.”

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 05:09 PM
Sure! :laugh2:


You know the John Wayne quote:

“If you've got them by the ****s, their hearts and minds will follow.”

:laugh2:

If some of these clowns had their ways we would be had by the balls, I guess thats a good thing for some.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 06:26 PM
Oh heavens no! Waterboarding is just so barbaric, all the death it causes and such. As long as our enemies have the like of your kind on there side they will never feel threatened to divulge any information that can be deemed useful.

Whats next, rubber bullets? :rolleyes:

I notice you avoided the question.

typical.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 06:27 PM
We'll put daisies in their gun barrels and ask them to give peace a chance.


you too????

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 06:45 PM
I notice you avoided the question.

typical.

Not really, I kind of figured the sarcastic reply would be slightly above celler dweller level. Yeah if waterbaording was something the american combatants would face as opposed to being beheaded I would be all for it. Now go cry to your momma about your hangnail, obviously waterbaording is much too much to comprehend for you.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 07:08 PM
do you therefore give the green light to any and all future enemies of the United States to use waterboarding on American combatants captured on the battlefields of those future conflicts?

that is what I call supporting the troops!:laugh2:

If the WORST that a captured American soldier had to face was waterboarding many of them would at least be alive today to talk about it.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:11 PM
If the WORST that a captured American soldier had to face was waterboarding many of them would at least be alive today to talk about it.

Yeah, thats a tough concept to understand....

retiredman
12-08-2007, 07:26 PM
Not really, I kind of figured the sarcastic reply would be slightly above celler dweller level. Yeah if waterbaording was something the american combatants would face as opposed to being beheaded I would be all for it. Now go cry to your momma about your hangnail, obviously waterbaording is much too much to comprehend for you.

no one said anything about "opposed to anything".... I asked you if you are hereby giving carte blanche to every nation on the globe to use waterboarding against our troops if they capture them on the field of battle in any future conflict.

yes or no?

retiredman
12-08-2007, 07:27 PM
If the WORST that a captured American soldier had to face was waterboarding many of them would at least be alive today to talk about it.

so, do I take it that you, too, are giving a green light to any and all future enemies of the united states to waterboard our troops if captured?

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:32 PM
no one said anything about "opposed to anything".... I asked you if you are hereby giving carte blanche to every nation on the globe to use waterboarding against our troops if they capture them on the field of battle in any future conflict.

yes or no?

And obviously comprehension skills are not your strong suit. AGAIN - REALLY SLOW THIS TIME - YESSSSSSS.

Did it sink in? Hopefully it did. Now, wanna explain how you or I hereby give anything means a fucking thing to reality? Yeah that kind of leads down that path to being "opposed to" :rolleyes:

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:34 PM
so, do I take it that you, too, are giving a green light to any and all future enemies of the united states to waterboard our troops if captured?

Yeah what the fuck, it may spring a few daisies out of the foreheads of our troops. Yeah, hearts & minds....

retiredman
12-08-2007, 07:38 PM
And obviously comprehension skills are not your strong suit. AGAIN - REALLY SLOW THIS TIME - YESSSSSSS.

Did it sink in? Hopefully it did. Now, wanna explain how you or I hereby give anything means a fucking thing to reality? Yeah that kind of leads down that path to being "opposed to" :rolleyes:

It is nice to know that your support of our troops is so passionate.

You answered my question. You will have no problem with any enemy in the future using waterboarding - and I assume hypothermia and sleep deprivation as well - on American GI's.

And I bet you have one of those cute -made in China - yellow ribbon bumper magnets, too, don't you?

LiberalNation
12-08-2007, 07:40 PM
Us being better wont stop others from being bad to us. I don't think not-water boarding would really help our troops in any case.

It might make us look like not such big hypocrits when we hype on human rights tho.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 07:43 PM
Us being better wont stop others from being bad to us. I don't think not-water boarding would really help our troops in any case.

It might make us look like not such big hypocrits when we hype on human rights tho.


us being better might not stop anything. but us being worse certainly lowers the bar for everyone.

and you are on the mark vis a vis human rights issues.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 07:45 PM
us being better might not stop anything. but us being worse certainly lowers the bar for everyone.

and you are on the mark vis a vis human rights issues.

now on else gives a shit about raising or lowering any standards. They will act in their own best interests.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 07:47 PM
now on else gives a shit about raising or lowering any standards. They will act in their own best interests.

no one? really? or just the nations that YOU think might be our adversaries in the immediate future?

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:48 PM
It is nice to know that your support of our troops is so passionate.

You answered my question. You will have no problem with any enemy in the future using waterboarding - and I assume hypothermia and sleep deprivation as well - on American GI's.

And I bet you have one of those cute -made in China - yellow ribbon bumper magnets, too, don't you?

Again moron, if these were the tactics used I would be fine with it. Please show some proof of any military of any nation not using some sort of undesired technique to gain an advantage of some sort.

Compassion? well if you were still in the military as you claimed I would probably stick to the whole beheading thing, could'nt happen to a nicer asshole than yourself.

82Marine89
12-08-2007, 07:50 PM
Again moron, if these were the tactics used I would be fine with it. Please show some proof of any military of any nation not using some sort of undesired technique to gain an advantage of some sort.

Compassion? well if you were still in the military as you claimed I would probably stick to the whole beheading thing, could'nt happen to a nicer asshole than yourself.

I would break his teeth with a hammer, pack his mouth full of crushed ice, then melt it with an air hose.

I would then constantly ask him if it was safe yet.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 07:50 PM
no one? really? or just the nations that YOU think might be our adversaries in the immediate future?

Name me a country that has ever fought a war against the US using the same standards as America. Fair wars---:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:54 PM
I would break his teeth with a hammer, pack his mouth full of crushed ice, then melt it with an air hose.

I would then constantly ask him if it was safe yet.

:laugh2::laugh2:

Outstanding sir! Lets than insert glass rods in his penis, and find what it would take to get him erect from there. :D

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 07:55 PM
Name me a country that has ever fought a war against the US using the same standards as America. Fair wars---:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Jeez dillo, we are better than everyone else, we need to be held to a higher standard dontcha know....

retiredman
12-08-2007, 07:56 PM
Name me a country that has ever fought a war against the US using the same standards as America. Fair wars---:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

are you suggesting that no other nation on the face of the earth deals ethically with prisoners of war?

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:01 PM
are you suggesting that no other nation on the face of the earth deals ethically with prisoners of war?

no--I asked you a simple question

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 08:01 PM
are you suggesting that no other nation on the face of the earth deals ethically with prisoners of war?

Thats what he said, still having comprhension problems? So while you are so sure that is not the case lay it out there for all to see, give us the details of those perfect nations, and the documents of the ethical treatment of their prisoners.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:07 PM
no--I asked you a simple question

why not ask me for my gingerbread recipe, it would be equally relevant.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:10 PM
I would suggest that, today, all of the European nations would hold themselves to ethical treatment of prisioners. I would suggest that many nations in Latin America would hold themselves to ethical treatment of prisoners. I would suggest that many nations in Asia today would hold themselves to ethical treatment of prisoners.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:10 PM
why not ask me for my gingerbread recipe, it would be equally relevant.

Actually it's quite relevant since you claim that our behavior influences how our enemies treat American troops.

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 08:11 PM
why not ask me for my gingerbread recipe, it would be equally relevant.

And it would'nt surprise me either if that is something that you have just in reach. Stick to baking, it suits you better.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:15 PM
Actually it's quite relevant since you claim that our behavior influences how our enemies treat American troops.

how our FUTURE enemies might treat american troops. Past enemies are irrelevant.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:16 PM
And it would'nt surprise me either if that is something that you have just in reach. Stick to baking, it suits you better.

if you won't leave the insults behind, I will simply put you back on ignore again. your choice.

trobinett
12-08-2007, 08:18 PM
if you won't leave the insults behind, I will simply put you back on ignore again. your choice.

Ignore this.....................:fu:

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:18 PM
how our FUTURE enemies might treat american troops. Past enemies are irrelevant.

how about our present enemy?

82Marine89
12-08-2007, 08:21 PM
why not ask me for my gingerbread recipe, it would be equally relevant.

One torture thread is enough. :slap:

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:21 PM
how about our present enemy?

our present enemy does not ethically treat anyone.

so what?

are you suggesting that if our enemy today captured our troops, killed them, skinned them, stuck them on a spit, roasted them over an open fire, and then ate them, that we should start doing the same?

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 08:23 PM
if you won't leave the insults behind, I will simply put you back on ignore again. your choice.

You were the one who brought up the gingerbread ya homo bastard, and now you are asking me if I give a hoot if you ignore me? lol, ok baker boy, please, pretty please don't put me on your ignore list, I'll be real upset. :fu:

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 08:25 PM
Ignore this.....................:fu:

What, and not be in the company of such a worthy human? :laugh2:

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:27 PM
our present enemy does not ethically treat anyone.

so what?

are you suggesting that if our enemy today captured our troops, killed them, skinned them, stuck them on a spit, roasted them over an open fire, and then ate them, that we should start doing the same?

no--I'm STATING that the way we treat pows doesn't effect what our present enemy does. They just kill them. Period.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 08:30 PM
no--I'm STATING that the way we treat pows doesn't effect what our present enemy does. They just kill them. Period.

and I have never suggested otherwise. my point - and the point of John McCain, for example - is that how we treat our captured enemies today will be considered by ANY future enemy to be acceptable methods to treat captured americans.

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:34 PM
and I have never suggested otherwise. my point - and the point of John McCain, for example - is that how we treat our captured enemies today will be considered by ANY future enemy to be acceptable methods to treat captured americans.

Ask the relatives of dead American POWS what they would rather have happened to their family member. Water boarding or death via torure. Ask Mc Cain and other surviving POWS to explain their torture in DETAIL to America.

Kathianne
12-08-2007, 08:34 PM
and I have never suggested otherwise. my point - and the point of John McCain, for example - is that how we treat our captured enemies today will be considered by ANY future enemy to be acceptable methods to treat captured americans.

I'm confused. You agree our troops are not being treated well when captured, just like they weren't in Vietnam, WWII in Japan. Yet, even today, when troops go too far, even in true combat situations, they are disciplined, often with charges. So, what caused the bad behavior of the 'enemies' towards captives?

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 08:37 PM
So, what caused the bad behavior of the 'enemies' towards captives?

Umm, GWB of course! :D

Kathianne
12-08-2007, 08:41 PM
Umm, GWB of course! :D

That's within the realm of possibilities. :coffee:

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 08:46 PM
and I have never suggested otherwise. my point - and the point of John McCain, for example - is that how we treat our captured enemies today will be considered by ANY future enemy to be acceptable methods to treat captured americans.

And naturally they won't do anything other than or worse than waterboarding. They will all be fed well, given proper medical treatment, a copy of whatever reading material they prefer and etc etc.

Best part is that we can then yell---"hey !!!!!!--no fair" if they don't live up to the standards we have set for the treatment of POWs. :laugh2:

retiredman
12-08-2007, 09:25 PM
And naturally they won't do anything other than or worse than waterboarding. They will all be fed well, given proper medical treatment, a copy of whatever reading material they prefer and etc etc.

Best part is that we can then yell---"hey !!!!!!--no fair" if they don't live up to the standards we have set for the treatment of POWs. :laugh2:

so why should we even make any pretense of abiding by the Geneva conventions? Why don't we just go in and kill any Iraqi who looks at us funny and beat the populace into submission?

Dilloduck
12-08-2007, 09:29 PM
so why should we even make any pretense of abiding by the Geneva conventions? Why don't we just go in and kill any Iraqi who looks at us funny and beat the populace into submission?

Because the world already knows that we are way above that.

retiredman
12-08-2007, 09:56 PM
Because the world already knows that we are way above that.

so we are so "above that" that we can afford to electrify a few raghead testicles and we'll stll be seen as choirboys, relative to every one else?

Sir Evil
12-08-2007, 10:03 PM
so we are so "above that" that we can afford to electrify a few raghead testicles and we'll stll be seen as choirboys, relative to every one else?

Now theres a real surprise, another reference to the male anatomy. :rolleyes:

Shut up with the whole geneva convention argument, you morons only use that to further your arguments but never say a fucking word about the enemy following any rules of engagement. Again, the liberal half wits use whatever possible whenever possible to make it out like it's some sort of fault of the administration. Gauranteed the argument would never come up had a dem been in office, but oh thats right, they are of course perfect, and above the rest.

Psychoblues
12-08-2007, 11:38 PM
Great thread 'till it got hijacked by the pro torture nuts that have no understanding or experience with Geneva Convention agreements, United States military practises and regulations, genuine American ideals and propensities or what Senator John McCain had to say about the inclination of present day American forces to torture.

For the time being I'll go with the sentiments of the future President of the United States of America, Senator John McCain.

Otherwise, I will be glad to admister a little water boarding for any of you willing to volunteer and sign a release statement?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Any takers?

BTW? Why were the tapes destroyed? Follow the link I provided in the original post.

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 12:11 AM
Great thread 'till it got hijacked by the pro torture nuts that have no understanding or experience with Geneva Convention agreements, United States military practises and regulations, genuine American ideals and propensities or what Senator John McCain had to say about the inclination of present day American forces to torture.

For the time being I'll go with the sentiments of the future President of the United States of America, Senator John McCain.

Otherwise, I will be glad to admister a little water boarding for any of you willing to volunteer and sign a release statement?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Any takers?

BTW? Why were the tapes destroyed? Follow the link I provided in the original post.

the link said nothing about "wrongdoing" like you claimed.

JohnDoe
12-09-2007, 12:18 AM
the link said nothing about "wrongdoing" like you claimed.Well, it did say something about wrong doing, but not necessarily the wrong doing of torture, but the wrong doing of not turning over the tapes when asked to by the court and by lying to the 911 investigative committee about the tapes and by not listening to the Congressmen that asked them NOT to destroy them....I believe that the law was broken in those circumstances, but we will see....

Which is wrong doing if they broke the law to coverup something or even if it wasn't to coverup something...it put themselves above the law or in a state of lawlessness by not turning over the tapes when legally asked to do such imo.

jd

Psychoblues
12-09-2007, 12:47 AM
Yes it did.


the link said nothing about "wrongdoing" like you claimed.

And thank you JD for pointing some of it out. It would literally take books and volumes of books to point out the disasterous actions by the present administration.

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 12:48 AM
Well, it did say something about wrong doing, but not necessarily the wrong doing of torture, but the wrong doing of not turning over the tapes when asked to by the court and by lying to the 911 investigative committee about the tapes and by not listening to the Congressmen that asked them NOT to destroy them....I believe that the law was broken in those circumstances, but we will see....

Which is wrong doing if they broke the law to coverup something or even if it wasn't to coverup something...it put themselves above the law or in a state of lawlessness by not turning over the tapes when legally asked to do such imo.

jd

Lots of "ifs" in there, JD. How IF about we wait til it's over before make conclusions ?

JohnDoe
12-09-2007, 12:56 AM
Lots of "ifs" in there, JD. How IF about we wait til it's over before make conclusions ?I wish i had a photographic memory and could shoot off the statute number that was called off last night on one of the news channels that i was watching which pertained to not turning over to an official investigation what was asked.... it is breaking the law if you do not do such...so i guess i can remove some IFS and say with certainty that they DID break the law by not doing such....when the 911 investigating commission requested them. :)

jd

Psychoblues
12-09-2007, 12:57 AM
I read the post of JD carefully.



Lots of "ifs" in there, JD. How IF about we wait til it's over before make conclusions ?

Not a single "if" is in there, dd. Really, what is your objection or motive?

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 01:03 AM
I read the post of JD carefully.




Not a single "if" is in there, dd. Really, what is your objection or motive?


Which is wrong doing if they broke the law to coverup something or even if it wasn't to coverup something...

try again psycho-----my motive ? To point out your biased view of everything.

JohnDoe
12-09-2007, 01:04 AM
This might be it?


§ 37.09. TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing that an
investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:
(1) alters, destroys, or conceals any record,
document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or
availability as evidence in the investigation or official
proceeding; or

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 01:09 AM
This might be it?

hopefully the trial will get underway soon so we can find out if they did something wrong or not.

Psychoblues
12-09-2007, 01:10 AM
I have an opinion on everything, dd. And I earned it rather than claim as my birthright to it.



try again psycho-----my motive ? To point out your biased view of everything.

You accused JD of including a lot of "ifs" in the post and I simply informed both you and the reading population here there were no "ifs" in the post at all.

You gotta do better than that if you want to do anything other than spew shit and spit piss.

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 01:22 AM
I have an opinion on everything, dd. And I earned it rather than claim as my birthright to it.




You accused JD of including a lot of "ifs" in the post and I simply informed both you and the reading population here there were no "ifs" in the post at all.

You gotta do better than that if you want to do anything other than spew shit and spit piss.

I was talking about JDs' post dumb ass. If your oninion is already formed before you have even heard the other side of the story then so be it---what else is new?

Psychoblues
12-09-2007, 01:29 AM
I was as well. I wanted to post all those "ifs" that you were talking about that JD had posted but I couldn't find a single one.



I was talking about JDs' post dumb ass. If your oninion is already formed before you have even heard the other side of the story then so be it---what else is new?

Just for clarification purposes, I'll repeat the posts in question.

1. John Doe: Well, it did say something about wrong doing, but not necessarily the wrong doing of torture, but the wrong doing of not turning over the tapes when asked to by the court and by lying to the 911 investigative committee about the tapes and by not listening to the Congressmen that asked them NOT to destroy them....I believe that the law was broken in those circumstances, but we will see....

Which is wrong doing if they broke the law to coverup something or even if it wasn't to coverup something...it put themselves above the law or in a state of lawlessness by not turning over the tapes when legally asked to do such imo.

2. dd: Lots of "ifs" in there, JD. How IF about we wait til it's over before make conclusions ?

See what I mean, dd? Where are the "ifs"?

Actually, there was one "if" and I highlighted it for you. Do you still want to satand by your statement about all those "ifs"?

The only "if" was in JD's opinion and not in the article itself. You gotta be kidding?!?!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 01:32 AM
I was as well. I wanted to post all those "ifs" that you were talking about that JD had posted but I couldn't find a single one.




Just for clarification purposes, I'll repeat the posts in question.

1. John Doe: Well, it did say something about wrong doing, but not necessarily the wrong doing of torture, but the wrong doing of not turning over the tapes when asked to by the court and by lying to the 911 investigative committee about the tapes and by not listening to the Congressmen that asked them NOT to destroy them....I believe that the law was broken in those circumstances, but we will see....

Which is wrong doing if they broke the law to coverup something or even if it wasn't to coverup something...it put themselves above the law or in a state of lawlessness by not turning over the tapes when legally asked to do such imo.

2. dd: Lots of "ifs" in there, JD. How IF about we wait til it's over before make conclusions ?

See what I mean, dd? Where are the "ifs"?


I already highlighted them for you in post # 105----get those glasses on dude

Psychoblues
12-09-2007, 01:45 AM
I have my glasses on, dude, and I still can't see any justification for you to claim the entire post was covered up with the "ifs" as you imply.


I already highlighted them for you in post # 105----get those glasses on dude

I believe the United States Justice Department will sort all this out. IF they don't, I will lose even more confidence in their ability to be fair and just.

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 01:51 AM
I have my glasses on, dude, and I still can't see any justification for you to claim the entire post was covered up with the "ifs" as you imply.



I believe the United States Justice Department will sort all this out. IF they don't, I will lose even more confidence in their ability to be fair and just.

I hope they sort it all out too, psycho. The CIA is bound to get a fairer trial there than you have given them here.

Psychoblues
12-09-2007, 02:05 AM
I am not their judge and I have offered no trial, ddumbass.



I hope they sort it all out too, psycho. The CIA is bound to get a fairer trial there than you have given them here.

I posted an article with which you take exception and you suddenly became the judge.

Like I said in an earlier post, typical.

Psychoblues
12-09-2007, 04:13 AM
Rep. Jane Harman said Friday that she warned the CIA not to destroy videotapes of its interrogations of terror suspects, and defended herself from critics who said she should have done more prevent their destruction.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden disclosed Thursday night that congressional leaders, including Harman, had been informed of the agency’s plan to destroy those tapes several years ago.


Hayden was defending his agency from a New York Times report that the tapes had been destroyed in 2005.

In an interview Friday, Harman said that after the briefing in 2003, she sent a letter to the CIA warning the agency not to destroy the tapes.

“I told the CIA that destroying any tapes of interrogations was a bad idea,” Harman said. “I gave the best advice I could, and obviously my advice was not heeded.”



Read more: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/12262496.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what the hell else did she warn them about?

Here's some more that you might be interested in.

"The news that the tapes were destroyed was extremely disturbing to me and the CIA's description of notifying Congress is inconsistent with our records. As we learn more, it is only raising new questions and concerns," Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Friday.

"We do not know if there was intent to obstruct justice, an attempt to prevent congressional scrutiny, or whether they were simply destroyed out of concern they could be leaked — whatever the intent, we must get to the bottom of it. This is a very serious matter with very serious consequences," he added.

Rockefeller said the committee hasn't found records showing they were told about the existence of the tapes, or their plans to destroy them. He said he knew about about the tapes himself, but doesn't remember being told about plans to destroy them either.

more:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315965,00.html

PostmodernProphet
12-09-2007, 07:06 AM
Rockefeller said the committee hasn't found records showing they were told about the existence of the tapes

well of course not.....those records were destroyed.....and the orders to destroy the records were destroyed.....and the minutes of the committee that ordered the records destroyed were destroyed......:),,,,

....this thread will self destruct before you read it......

PostmodernProphet
12-09-2007, 07:08 AM
oops....it malfunctioned.....you read it.....now we have to eliminate you......

retiredman
12-09-2007, 07:48 AM
Ask the relatives of dead American POWS what they would rather have happened to their family member. Water boarding or death via torure. Ask Mc Cain and other surviving POWS to explain their torture in DETAIL to America.

I have, actually. Have you?

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 12:17 PM
I have, actually. Have you?

Well fill us in----how many of them were waterboarded ? Did their family prefer that they were dead ? What are the details of the type of torture that Amarican POWs suffered while being interrogated.

Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 12:33 PM
How can it be more clear?


WASHINGTON - The CIA videotaped its interrogations of two top terrorism suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners, the director of the agency told employees Thursday.

Officials told NBC News' Robert Windrem that one of the videos included the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the leader in charge of al-Qaida's training camps.

The disclosure that tapes were destroyed brought immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill and from a human rights group, which said the spy agency’s action amounted to criminal destruction of evidence.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22139312


Just how is all this destruction of factual documentation and evidence of practises approved by the United States Of America government in any way in keeping with the values of the general citizenry of the United States Of America?

I could accept a header that said "CIA destroys interrogation tapes and may be guilty of wrongdoing" because it is the truth.


"I think that Hayden is not to be the judge of whether or not his ordering or his condoning the destroying of the tapes was lawful," Biden said. "It appears as though there may be an obstruction of justice charge here, tampering with evidence, and destroying evidence. And this is — I think this is one case where it really does call for a special counsel. I think this leads right into the White House. There may be a legal and rational explanation, but I don't see any on the face of it."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyL3au-RZxEcch2P9ymXaJ9mroogD8TE0R0G0
Again your eagerness to convict before all the facts are in are quite obvious.

Sir Evil
12-09-2007, 12:43 PM
it is breaking the law if you do not do such...so i guess i can remove some IFS and say with certainty that they DID break the law by not doing such....when the 911 investigating commission requested them. :)

jd

Geez, if only everyone was a dove such as you. :rolleyes:

red states rule
12-11-2007, 06:05 AM
What is all the fuss about? Dems were told about what was going on in 2002

This is another manufactured scandal by the Dems since they still want to surrender to terrorists, and not talk about the good news coming from Iraq


Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

red states rule
12-11-2007, 06:27 AM
and how does the liberal media react when it turns out San Fran Nan knew about the tapes in 2002?


Time's Joe Klein: So Nancy Pelosi Knew About Waterboarding, So What?
By Ken Shepherd | December 10, 2007 - 11:14 ET

Quickly reacting to the December 9 Washington Post's front page revelation yesterday that some Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about waterboarding interrogation techniques YEARS ago, Time's Joe Klein sought to silence criticism of Democratic hypocrisy.

Klein's excuse? Democrats were swept up by post-9/11 fear and paranoia:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Now, there is going to be a lot of shouting and breast-beating over this. Republicans will say, "See! See! The Democrats knew all along!" Some of the more extreme elements on the left-wing of the Democratic Party will lapse into their traditional wailing about the Bush-appeasing weakness of their party leaders. But the Washington Post reporters and their sources make clear that these briefings took place in the months after the September 11 attacks. There was fear that we would be attacked again by terrorists, and on a regular basis. Few were thinking clearly about the nature of the threat and how to deal with it. (By the time Harman was briefed, in 2003, people were thinking more clearly--hence her letter of protest.)


So does Klein think that the risk of America being attacked is now extremely remote? If so, what share of credit would he give to President Bush for that fact? Oh wait, that would cut against his persistently negative drumbeat about the Bush presidency and how it has supposedly harmed American security and foreign policy interests in the long-term, particularly in the Middle East.

As much as Klein wishes to dismiss Democratic knowledge of waterboarding as an interrogation technique, hypocrisy and political opportunism IS a huge issue here, particularly given one crucial tid bit the WaPo article disclosed to readers. Politicians briefed about the interrogation techniques wondered if the CIA was being too, how shall we say, polite to detainees (emphasis mine):

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.


While Klein excuses Pelosi's silence in the aftermath of 9/11, doesn't that suggest that the liberal San Francisco Democrat didn't have the courage of her convictions to "stand up" to President Bush when liberals would argue such leadership was most needed: the aftermath of 9/11? And doesn't that suggest that liberal Democratic haranguing on the issue now is nothing more than a cynical sop to the party's left-wing anti-war base, and a concerted effort to undermine the Bush administration specifically and the war on terror generally?

Apparently not to Joe Klein, who can't be bothered with such questions mucking up his preferred storyline.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2007/12/10/times-joe-klein-so-nancy-pelosi-knew-about-waterboarding-so-what

red states rule
12-11-2007, 06:39 AM
so why should we even make any pretense of abiding by the Geneva conventions? Why don't we just go in and kill any Iraqi who looks at us funny and beat the populace into submission?

Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva convention

I understand libs like you enjoy smearing the troops, and portraying them as thugs and killers (like your elected leaders in DC)

glockmail
12-11-2007, 06:44 AM
Well fill us in----how many of them were waterboarded ? Did their family prefer that they were dead ? What are the details of the type of torture that Amarican POWs suffered while being interrogated.:popcorn:

red states rule
12-11-2007, 07:02 AM
I want to know what Dems knew and when did they know it?

December 7, 2007, 9:39 am
What the Democrats Knew and When They Knew It
By Chris Suellentrop

Tags: C.I.A., torture

Writing at Balkinization, the group legal blog, Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman criticizes two Democrats in Congress who knew about the C.I.A.’s destruction of interrogation videotapes. “Jay Rockefeller claims that the Intel Committees were not ‘consulted’ on the use of the tapes ‘nor the decision to destroy the tapes.’ But he does not deny that he was informed of the agency’s intent to dispose of the tapes, and he acknowledges that he learned of the destruction one year ago, in November 2006,” Lederman writes. He continues:
And this is the first time he has said anything about it. Jay Rockefeller is constantly learning of legally dubious (at best) C.I.A. intelligence activities, and then saying nothing about them publicly until they are leaked to the press, at which point he expresses outrage and incredulity — but reveals nothing. Really, isn’t it about time the Democrats select an effective Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, one who will treat this scandal with the seriousness it deserves, and who will shed much-needed light on the C.I.A. program of torture, cruel treatment and obstruction of evidence?
Lederman also writes that “Jane Harman also knew of the intention to destroy the tapes, and she at least ‘urged’ the C.I.A. in writing not to do it.” But he notes, “But when she found out the C.I.A. had destroyed the tapes, where was Harman’s press conference? Where were the congressional hearings?”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/what-the-democrats-knew-and-when-they-knew-it/?ref=opinion

retiredman
12-11-2007, 08:08 AM
Well fill us in----how many of them were waterboarded ? Did their family prefer that they were dead ? What are the details of the type of torture that Amarican POWs suffered while being interrogated.


the North Vietnamese were much more physical than we are....broken limbs and routine beatings.... the Koreans were more into deprivation of necessities, according to the POW's from those wars that I know.

Again. It is clear to me that you do not care to view this argument with any level of intellectual honesty, so we should just agree to disagree.

It is my belief that however we treat our detainees in THIS war will be the absolute BEST we can expect any enemy in the future to treat our captured troops.

red states rule
12-11-2007, 08:11 AM
the North Vietnamese were much more physical than we are....broken limbs and routine beatings.... the Koreans were more into deprivation of necessities, according to the POW's from those wars that I know.

Again. It is clear to me that you do not care to view this argument with any level of intellectual honesty, so we should just agree to disagree.

It is my belief that however we treat our detainees in THIS war will be the absolute BEST we can expect any enemy in the future to treat our captured troops.

Of course MM - let the liberal media and Dems smear the troops while you guys push for surrender and appeasement

retiredman
12-11-2007, 08:19 AM
Of course MM - let the liberal media and Dems smear the troops while you guys push for surrender and appeasement

do you have a macro that you hit that just enters that sentence so that you don't have to even retype it?

You go away for nearly a month...I was kind of hoping that Rush would have fed you some NEW lines during your hiatus!

We are having a discussion about torture. No one wants to surrender and no one wants to appease. I merely want to protect our troops of tomorrow from being tortured. simple as that. Do you have a macro that will enter one of your trite shopworn little insults that is a bit more on topic?

red states rule
12-11-2007, 08:21 AM
do you have a macro that you hit that just enters that sentence so that you don't have to even retype it?

You go away for nearly a month...I was kind of hoping that Rush would have fed you some NEW lines during your hiatus!

We are having a discussion about torture. No one wants to surrender and no one wants to appease. I merely want to protect our troops of tomorrow from being tortured. simple as that. Do you have a macro that will enter one of your trite shopworn little insults that is a bit more on topic?

Since the Dems can't bellow about the troops losing in Iraq - they ahve to make up an issue over "torture"

The Dems knew about these tapes in 2002 - now they act like they just found out

Dems are desperate to change the subject from their defeatest actions by wanting to protect the "rights" of terrorists and painting the US as the bad guy in this war

retiredman
12-11-2007, 08:29 AM
Since the Dems can't bellow about the troops losing in Iraq - they ahve to make up an issue over "torture"

The Dems knew about these tapes in 2002 - now they act like they just found out

Dems are desperate to change the subject from their defeatest actions by wanting to protect the "rights" of terrorists and painting the US as the bad guy in this war

I think everyone just found out that they had been destroyed... right as the USSC starting taking up the Gitmo detainee issue. coincidence? maybe...maybe not.:laugh2:

red states rule
12-11-2007, 08:30 AM
I think everyone just found out that they had been destroyed... right as the USSC starting taking up the Gitmo detainee issue. coincidence? maybe...maybe not.:laugh2:

Not according to the facts

The Washington Post is not a right wing leaning paper - and facts always bite Dems on the ass :lol:

glockmail
12-11-2007, 08:30 AM
the North Vietnamese were much more physical than we are....broken limbs and routine beatings.... the Koreans were more into deprivation of necessities, according to the POW's from those wars that I know.

Again. It is clear to me that you do not care to view this argument with any level of intellectual honesty, so we should just agree to disagree.

It is my belief that however we treat our detainees in THIS war will be the absolute BEST we can expect any enemy in the future to treat our captured troops.
Waterboarding for the sole purpose of gathering information would be fine with me.

retiredman
12-11-2007, 08:34 AM
Waterboarding for the sole purpose of gathering information would be fine with me.

so....just to verify....you are saying that if our enemies wanted to gather information from OUR troops captured on any future battlefield, you would not be concerned in the least if they used waterboarding as a means of extracting that information?

red states rule
12-11-2007, 08:35 AM
Waterboarding for the sole purpose of gathering information would be fine with me.

Not according to the left.

They ignore the fact waterboarding is not a common practice. They have to paint the US as the bad guy in this war

retiredman
12-11-2007, 08:35 AM
Not according to the facts

The Washington Post is not a right wing leaning paper - and facts always bite Dems on the ass :lol:


are you suggesting that the tapes were destroyed in 2002? :link:

red states rule
12-11-2007, 08:38 AM
are you suggesting that the tapes were destroyed in 2002? :link:

post 119

Dems knew what was going on and they did not object

glockmail
12-11-2007, 08:41 AM
so....just to verify....you are saying that if our enemies wanted to gather information from OUR troops captured on any future battlefield, you would not be concerned in the least if they used waterboarding as a means of extracting that information?
I would be concerned only mildly. Many of our troops go through this procedure in their training. It is harmless, and can't be equated with the examples of turture that you gave. And again, it should be used to extract information only; it should not be used as a punishment.

red states rule
12-11-2007, 08:42 AM
I would be concerned only mildly. Many of our troops go through this procedure in their training. It is harmless, and can't be equated with the examples of turture that you gave. And again, it should be used to extract information only; it should not be used as a punishment.

If Dems can't find a REAL scandal to bitch about - they create one

Like they are doing with this one

retiredman
12-11-2007, 08:51 AM
I would be concerned only mildly. Many of our troops go through this procedure in their training. It is harmless, and can't be equated with the examples of turture that you gave. And again, it should be used to extract information only; it should not be used as a punishment.

hypothermia and sleep deprivation are OK too, I take it?

red states rule
12-11-2007, 08:52 AM
hypothermia and sleep deprivation are OK too, I take it?

Yes it is

The bastards are still breathing - unlike their victims

glockmail
12-11-2007, 08:55 AM
hypothermia and sleep deprivation are OK too, I take it?
Where did I say that? Stick to the issue at hand- just like YOU suggested.:coffee:

red states rule
12-11-2007, 08:56 AM
Where did I say that? Stick to the issue at hand- just like YOU suggested.:coffee:

He is getting his ass kicked - he has to change the subject

glockmail
12-11-2007, 09:02 AM
He is getting his ass kicked - he has to change the subject
That's obvious. However I INSIST on seeing the bruises.

retiredman
12-11-2007, 09:13 AM
Where did I say that? Stick to the issue at hand- just like YOU suggested.:coffee:


the issue at hand is my assertion that the treatment of our detainees today will set the bar for the best possible treatment our troops can ever possibly get from any future enemy. We have used waterboarding, sleep deprivation and hypothermia on detainees in this war. I am just trying to get an understanding from you that those techniques are perfectly acceptable for use on our troops in any war in the future.

and you and RSR should probably go get a private chat room for some hot cyber.... your overly affectionate continual affirmation of one another is kind of creepy.

retiredman
12-11-2007, 09:15 AM
He is getting his ass kicked - he has to change the subject

you crack me up.

you always claim that you are kicking every one's ass.

but shouldn't you be attributing your fictitious success to newsbusters? You never write anything that kicks anybody anywhere!

glockmail
12-11-2007, 09:35 AM
the issue at hand is my assertion that the treatment of our detainees today will set the bar for the best possible treatment our troops can ever possibly get from any future enemy. We have used waterboarding, sleep deprivation and hypothermia on detainees in this war. I am just trying to get an understanding from you that those techniques are perfectly acceptable for use on our troops in any war in the future.

and you and RSR should probably go get a private chat room for some hot cyber.... your overly affectionate continual affirmation of one another is kind of creepy.Sure why not. Let's include panties on the head, domineering soldier gals, and toss in some barking dogs for good measure. These are all harmless, and can't be equated with the examples of turture that you gave. And again, these should be used to extract information only; it should not be used as a punishment.

retiredman
12-11-2007, 09:45 AM
Sure why not. Let's include panties on the head, domineering soldier gals, and toss in some barking dogs for good measure. These are all harmless, and can't be equated with the examples of turture that you gave. And again, these should be used to extract information only; it should not be used as a punishment.

if that is your position...fine. I think it is important for you to be on record as not opposing in any way the use of treatments - that the world has condemned and that the United States itself, under President Reagan, has outlawed - on our troops. That's not exactly how I show my support for the troops, but different stokes for different folks.

theHawk
12-11-2007, 02:20 PM
the issue at hand is my assertion that the treatment of our detainees today will set the bar for the best possible treatment our troops can ever possibly get from any future enemy. We have used waterboarding, sleep deprivation and hypothermia on detainees in this war. I am just trying to get an understanding from you that those techniques are perfectly acceptable for use on our troops in any war in the future.

and you and RSR should probably go get a private chat room for some hot cyber.... your overly affectionate continual affirmation of one another is kind of creepy.

Why do you keep saying that if we use them on terrorists it would give the green light for them to do it on our soldiers. First of all, our troops are uniformed soldiers in a chain of command making them lawful combatants, unlike these terrorists who are unlawful combatants, so they actually fall under the Geneva Convention rules. Not that it has stopped terrorists in the past from torturing our troops and other captured citizens. Do you honestly believe that if we were to ban waterboarding that terrorists would never again torture our soldiers? How stupid can you be?


And to prove my point that waterboarding works --


The former agent, who said he participated in the Abu Zubayda interrogation but not his waterboarding, said the CIA decided to waterboard the al Qaeda operative only after he was "wholly uncooperative" for weeks and refused to answer questions.

All that changed -- and Zubayda reportedly had a divine revelation -- after 30 to 35 seconds of waterboarding, Kiriakou said he learned from the CIA agents who performed the technique.

The terror suspect, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly gave up information that indirectly led to the the 2003 raid in Pakistan yielding the arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an alleged planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Kiriakou said.

The CIA was unaware of Mohammed's stature before the Abu Zubayda interrogation, the former agent said.

"Abu Zubayda's the one who told us that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was so important in the al Qaeda structure, and we didn't realize at the time how important he was," Kiriakou said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/index.html

retiredman
12-11-2007, 03:09 PM
you obviously have sever reading comprehension issues, Hawk.

I NEVER said anything about terrorists. I said our future enemies. Do you presume to know the future and can see that the only enemies America will ever face on the field of battle ever again will be terrorists?

And if not, and if one of those future enemies might very well be an islamic nation state that currently is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, that they would abide by those conventions given the fact that we have not treated our detainees in ways that uphold the spirit of those conventions?

And have you ever read the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? The US is a signatory of that treaty. THAT makes that violating that treaty a violation of the Constitution.

theHawk
12-11-2007, 03:30 PM
you obviously have sever reading comprehension issues, Hawk.

I NEVER said anything about terrorists. I said our future enemies. Do you presume to know the future and can see that the only enemies America will ever face on the field of battle ever again will be terrorists?

And if not, and if one of those future enemies might very well be an islamic nation state that currently is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, that they would abide by those conventions given the fact that we have not treated our detainees in ways that uphold the spirit of those conventions?

And have you ever read the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? The US is a signatory of that treaty. THAT makes that violating that treaty a violation of the Constitution.

Sounds to me like you are talking about terrorists


the fact that we have not treated our detainees in ways that uphold the spirit of those conventions?
You call them detainees, I call them captured terrorists.

If you're talking about future states, why would they not follow Geneva Conventions with our soldiers? We do follow Geneva Conventions to those whom it applies through. You simply don't want to accept that.

And like I said before, although it can be argued that waterboarding is torture and technically illegal, I am saying it should be made legal. We don't need to be jailing CIA operatives that saved many lives and captured top terrorists because they used waterboarding. We should revoke that UN treaty as all it does is tie our hands while we are at war.

glockmail
12-11-2007, 03:34 PM
if that is your position...fine. I think it is important for you to be on record as not opposing in any way the use of treatments - that the world has condemned and that the United States itself, under President Reagan, has outlawed - on our troops. That's not exactly how I show my support for the troops, but different stokes for different folks.
The thing that your ignoring, of course, is that our troops are protected from this sort of treatment by Geneva rules since they themselves abide by them. Terrorists, however, go out of their way to break Geneva rules so should be treated accordingly. Remember when dealing with liars, lie? Same is true of terrorism.

retiredman
12-11-2007, 04:19 PM
The thing that your ignoring, of course, is that our troops are protected from this sort of treatment by Geneva rules since they themselves abide by them. Terrorists, however, go out of their way to break Geneva rules so should be treated accordingly. Remember when dealing with liars, lie? Same is true of terrorism.

I think that if you believe an Islamic nation state who happens to be our enemy in the future will abide by the Geneva Conventions when we did not even abide by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment when handling Islamic detainees, you are mistaken....but, hey...you are willing to break our own laws in the treatment of detainees, so I guess you really don't care to much if other nations do so as well, eh?

glockmail
12-11-2007, 04:30 PM
I think that if you believe an Islamic nation state who happens to be our enemy in the future will abide by the Geneva Conventions when we did not even abide by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment when handling Islamic detainees, you are mistaken....but, hey...you are willing to break our own laws in the treatment of detainees, so I guess you really don't care to much if other nations do so as well, eh?

Again (and again and again) you are ignoring the fact that Geneva and US rules apply to soldiers. Once you cross the line, as I demonstrated with you last week, all bets are off.

And the fall-back for this is that the type of treatment that I advocate is relatively harmless- not much more than fraternity pranks.

retiredman
12-11-2007, 05:52 PM
Again (and again and again) you are ignoring the fact that Geneva and US rules apply to soldiers. Once you cross the line, as I demonstrated with you last week, all bets are off.

And the fall-back for this is that the type of treatment that I advocate is relatively harmless- not much more than fraternity pranks.

and those interrogators in that possible Islamic nation-state enemy of the future will undoubtedly know and adhere to the distinction that the detainees in Gitmo weren't wearing uniforms, and the GI on the table does.

right.

and you are ignoring that waterboarding, hypothermia and sleep deprivation are illegal regardless of the military status of the victim. A UN convention ratified by the United States IS the law of the land, whether you like it or not.

manu1959
12-11-2007, 05:59 PM
rules in a knife fight are stupid......just ask butch and sundance....

retiredman
12-11-2007, 06:01 PM
rules in a knife fight are stupid......just ask butch and sundance....

how civilized.

hey...did you ever figure out who sent american troops into somalia? :laugh2:

manu1959
12-11-2007, 06:02 PM
how civilized.

hey...did you ever figure out who sent american troops into somalia? :laugh2:

if you fight a civilized war plan on surrendering....

yes .... did you ever figure out who forgot to arm them and who occupied haiti for 4 1/2 years?

retiredman
12-11-2007, 06:13 PM
if you fight a civilized war plan on surrendering....

yes .... did you ever figure out who forgot to arm them and who occupied haiti for 4 1/2 years?

so why even HAVE the Geneva Conventions?

and nobody forgot to arm anybody. and are you suggesting that unrest a hundred miles away from our southern borders is not a national interest?

and I notice you never DID admit that you fucked up and said that Clinton had gone into Somalia. weak.

manu1959
12-11-2007, 06:27 PM
so why even HAVE the Geneva Conventions?

and nobody forgot to arm anybody. and are you suggesting that unrest a hundred miles away from our southern borders is not a national interest?

and I notice you never DID admit that you fucked up and said that Clinton had gone into Somalia. weak.

well tell me .... did the VC adhear to the GC .... sadam either time .... somalia ....bosnia.....rawanda.....terrorist now?....how about hamas....

what were you worried we were going to be invaded by voodoo witch doctors from haiti.....

you are right ... clinton didn't go in .... bush complied with A UN request.... clinton just decided to use them to kidnapp warlords ..... he just forgot to send tanks with his troops .... then he surrendered ....

Kathianne
12-11-2007, 08:13 PM
how civilized.

hey...did you ever figure out who sent american troops into somalia? :laugh2:

Somalia problem started under GHW Bush. The 'Blackhawk Down' scenario was at the very beginning of Clinton administration.

Now who to hold accountable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29


Battle of Mogadishu (1993)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Battle of Mogadishu (also referred to as the "Battle of the Black Sea") or for Somalis Ma-alinti Rangers (“The Day of the Rangers”) was a battle that was part of Operation Gothic Serpent that was fought on October 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, by forces of the United States supported by UNOSOM II against Somali militia fighters loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The battle is also referred to as the First Battle of Mogadishu to distinguish it from the later Second Battle of Mogadishu.

Task Force Ranger, which consisted of an assault force made up of Army Delta Force, Ranger teams, an air element provided by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, and members of the Air Force Pararescue/Air Force Combat Controllers, executed an operation which involved traveling from their compound on the outskirts of the city to capture tier one personalities of the Habr Gidr clan, headed by Aidid. The assault force was composed of nineteen aircraft, twelve vehicles and 160 men. During the operation, two U.S. MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by rocket-propelled grenades, and three others were damaged. Some of the soldiers were able to evacuate wounded back to the compound, but others were trapped at the crash sites and cut off. An urban battle ensued throughout the night. Early the next morning, a combined task force was sent to rescue the trapped soldiers. It contained soldiers from Pakistan, Malaysia, and U.S. soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division. They assembled some 100 vehicles, including Pakistani tanks (American-made M48s) and Malaysian Condor armored personnel carriers, and were supported by U.S. A/MH-6 Little Bird, and MH-60 helicopters. This task force reached the first crash site and led the trapped soldiers out. The second crash site was overrun and pilot Mike Durant, the lone surviving American, was taken prisoner but later released...

This reminds me of something. Son of one and the inheritor of another...

retiredman
12-11-2007, 08:20 PM
well tell me .... did the VC adhear to the GC .... sadam either time .... somalia ....bosnia.....rawanda.....terrorist now?....how about hamas....

what were you worried we were going to be invaded by voodoo witch doctors from haiti.....

you are right ... clinton didn't go in .... bush complied with A UN request.... clinton just decided to use them to kidnapp warlords ..... he just forgot to send tanks with his troops .... then he surrendered ....

I have never argued that there are people who are not civilized. Are you suggesting that no country on the earth is? Are you suggesting that we not be?

And you did not answer my question about Haiti, but, once again reverted to your rather stock method of evasion: asking a question instead of answering one.

The troops were already there when Clinton took office...and their support systems were also in place.

And you need to quit listening to Rush &Co. so much. Nobody "surrendered" to anyone. God, that gets old after a while.

Kathianne
12-11-2007, 08:22 PM
I have never argued that there are people who are not civilized. Are you suggesting that no country on the earth is? Are you suggesting that we not be?

And you did not answer my question about Haiti, but, once again reverted to your rather stock method of evasion: asking a question instead of answering one.

The troops were already there when Clinton took office...and their support systems were also in place.

And you need to quit listening to Rush &Co. so much. Nobody "surrendered" to anyone. God, that gets old after a while.

I'm confused, didn't you see what I posted regarding the problems in Somalia? Was something wrong in my post?

retiredman
12-11-2007, 08:24 PM
I'm confused, didn't you see what I posted regarding the problems in Somalia? Was something wrong in my post?

I was replying to manu1959, not you. Your post was an objective recounting of the situation. Which is par for the course for you! ;)

manu's was shopworn conservative talking points.

big difference.

Sir Evil
12-11-2007, 08:25 PM
Somalia problem started under GHW Bush. The 'Blackhawk Down' scenario was at the very beginning of Clinton administration.

Now who to hold accountable?


More importantly is who really gives a shit? I dunno about others but what Billy did with his time in the oval office good or bad I can hardly find worth carrying on about for maybe more than a moment or so. I mean if we were like so many of the dems we would be spending our days digging up the dirt just to throw it out there.

For gods sake, this whole stupid thing over two terrorist and what the moronic dems are making over it just to do their best to make it look bad on the adminitration again. As if there may be another world conspiracy in the making...:rolleyes:

Kathianne
12-11-2007, 08:50 PM
I was replying to manu1959, not you. Your post was an objective recounting of the situation. Which is par for the course for you! ;)

manu's was shopworn conservative talking points.

big difference.

Thanks. While that may or may not be the case, you were implying that the problem in Somalia was GHWB problem. I can agree with that in a broader picture, but it leaves out the common issue which was the troops, torture, and corpses. That was Clinton. That we were there, Bush.

In reality, this is a better illustration of not blaming the office holder of the repercussions of policies of those before-to a degree. I've said over and over again, Bush went into 2001 determined to be domestic president with a very 'Americas' agenda, right up to 9/11. Then everything changed.

glockmail
12-11-2007, 08:54 PM
and those interrogators in that possible Islamic nation-state enemy of the future will undoubtedly know and adhere to the distinction that the detainees in Gitmo weren't wearing uniforms, and the GI on the table does.

right.

and you are ignoring that waterboarding, hypothermia and sleep deprivation are illegal regardless of the military status of the victim. A UN convention ratified by the United States IS the law of the land, whether you like it or not.
That's the only differnce that you see between terrorists in Afganistan and Iraq and the US military? That they weren't wearing uniforms? Is your hate for our troops that deep? You really are a leftie nut-bag!

Laws are open to interpretation. Just ask any good lawyer.

manu1959
12-11-2007, 09:15 PM
I have never argued that there are people who are not civilized. Are you suggesting that no country on the earth is? Are you suggesting that we not be?

And you did not answer my question about Haiti, but, once again reverted to your rather stock method of evasion: asking a question instead of answering one.

The troops were already there when Clinton took office...and their support systems were also in place.

And you need to quit listening to Rush &Co. so much. Nobody "surrendered" to anyone. God, that gets old after a while.

look at you answering questions with questions then getting made at me ......

clinton ordered the strike and also denied bradleys ....

never listen to rush .....

spin it however you like....the US and UN lost in somalia....the war lords are still in power.....

retiredman
12-11-2007, 10:03 PM
That's the only differnce that you see between terrorists in Afganistan and Iraq and the US military? That they weren't wearing uniforms? Is your hate for our troops that deep? You really are a leftie nut-bag!

Laws are open to interpretation. Just ask any good lawyer.

why do you fly off into derogatory, accusatory rhetoric ALL the fucking time? Where did I EVER say that the ONLY difference that I say was the uniform? Where have I EVER said I hated our troops? I served a long fucking time, asshole...and I really really really don't like it when people suggest that I am anything BUT supportive of our troops. My whole argument about waterboarding and the other illegal interrogation methods is that using them puts OUR future troops in danger...a group of guys you have stated that YOU could give a fuck about.....

and the constitution is pretty clear about treaties. You should read it sometime.

manu1959
12-11-2007, 10:08 PM
why do you fly off into derogatory, accusatory rhetoric ALL the fucking time? Where did I EVER say that the ONLY difference that I say was the uniform? Where have I EVER said I hated our troops? I served a long fucking time, asshole...and I really really really don't like it when people suggest that I am anything BUT supportive of our troops. My whole argument about waterboarding and the other illegal interrogation methods is that using them puts OUR future troops in danger...a group of guys you have stated that YOU could give a fuck about.....

and the constitution is pretty clear about treaties. You should read it sometime.

not if the treaty makes the US secondary to the terms of the treaty.....at least in this guys opinion.....which i happen to agree with....

http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/hacienda/article4.html

Kathianne
12-11-2007, 10:09 PM
why do you fly off into derogatory, accusatory rhetoric ALL the fucking time? Where did I EVER say that the ONLY difference that I say was the uniform? Where have I EVER said I hated our troops? I served a long fucking time, asshole...and I really really really don't like it when people suggest that I am anything BUT supportive of our troops. My whole argument about waterboarding and the other illegal interrogation methods is that using them puts OUR future troops in danger...a group of guys you have stated that YOU could give a fuck about.....

and the constitution is pretty clear about treaties. You should read it sometime.

Seriously, it's become clear that waterboarding was used about 4 times. In each case before it commenced, permission was requested and granted. 4 freaking times. In one case it resulted in tens of interuptions of planned attacks. You wish they'd happened? No, I didn't think so. On the other hand, if it couldn't be proven, which of course is par for the course in prevention, should the perps be prosecuted?

manu1959
12-11-2007, 10:12 PM
Seriously, it's become clear that waterboarding was used about 4 times. In each case before it commenced, permission was requested and granted. 4 freaking times. In one case it resulted in tens of interuptions of planned attacks. You wish they'd happened? No, I didn't think so. On the other hand, if it couldn't be proven, which of course is par for the course in prevention, should the perps be prosecuted?

i have no problem with letting our military and intelligence community doing their job....it is how we won three very important wars and since then we have lost every war or skirmish since WWII

retiredman
12-11-2007, 10:20 PM
look at you answering questions with questions then getting made at me ......

clinton ordered the strike and also denied bradleys ....

never listen to rush .....

spin it however you like....the US and UN lost in somalia....the war lords are still in power.....

I answered your questions..and then posed my own. you just seem to always leave out that first part.:laugh2:

regarding the attempt to capture Aidid, we were THERE to support UN operations. UNSCR 837 specifically called on the UN forces there to arrest Aidid for his role in the ambush/massacre of Pakistani troops. Saying that Clinton "ordered the strike" is a tad disingenous, I would think....but par for the course.

and I am not "spinning" anything. the word "surrender" has a very specific meaning when used in a military context...either use it correctly, or switch to another language that you know better.

manu1959
12-11-2007, 10:28 PM
I answered your questions..and then posed my own. you just seem to always leave out that first part.:laugh2:

regarding the attempt to capture Aidid, we were THERE to support UN operations. UNSCR 837 specifically called on the UN forces there to arrest Aidid for his role in the ambush/massacre of Pakistani troops. Saying that Clinton "ordered the strike" is a tad disingenous, I would think....but par for the course.

and I am not "spinning" anything. the word "surrender" has a very specific meaning when used in a military context...either use it correctly, or switch to another language that you know better.

i was taught to only answer what i feel like there is no rule that i am required to respond to all your inane rehtorical questions....

approval of the stirke had to go through clinton as did requests for tanks etc....the strike was approved the tanks were not.....

yes as a man from main and a teddy and jfk II supporter i could imagine how words mean things to you ..... semantics arguments are important when defending the indefensible....

retiredman
12-11-2007, 10:31 PM
i was taught to only answer what i feel like there is no rule that i am required to respond to all your inane rehtorical questions....

approval of the stirke had to go through clinton as did requests for tanks etc....the strike was approved the tanks were not.....

yes as a man from main and a teddy and jfk II supporter i could imagine how words mean things to you ..... semantics arguments are important when defending the indefensible....

using the language with clarity and accuracy is hardly "semantics".

And here's the fucking deal between you and me.... if you don't have the fucking balls to answer MY questions, don't bother asking me any. OK?

red states rule
12-11-2007, 10:32 PM
I am still waiting to know what Pelosi and the rest of the Dems knew and when diod they know it. They knew about waterboardsing and the videos were going to be destroyed in 2002 and never said a word

Why are their shorts in a knot now?

retiredman
12-11-2007, 10:37 PM
I am still waiting to know what Pelosi and the rest of the Dems knew and when diod they know it. They knew about waterboardsing and the videos were going to be destroyed in 2002 and never said a word

Why are their shorts in a knot now?

:link:???

red states rule
12-11-2007, 10:41 PM
:link:???

I have posted it twice for you. maybe your fear of facts prevents you from reading it

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

retiredman
12-11-2007, 10:44 PM
I have posted it twice for you. maybe your fear of facts prevents you from reading it



your link doesn't cover the part of your previous post that I bolded, does it?

red states rule
12-11-2007, 10:48 PM
your link doesn't cover the part of your previous post that I bolded, does it?

Try again

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.



So the Dems had no objections in 2002 - but in 2007 they are shiotting their pants. Perhaps they have to fimnd something to bitch about since the troops are winning in Iarq and they ahve to take the publics attention off the calls for surrender?

retiredman
12-11-2007, 11:02 PM
you said that the democrats knew that the videos were going to be destroyed in 2002. that is incorrect.
your words:

"They knew about waterboardsing and the videos were going to be destroyed in 2002 and never said a word."

red states rule
12-11-2007, 11:06 PM
you said that the democrats knew that the videos were going to be destroyed in 2002. that is incorrect.
your words:

"They knew about waterboardsing and the videos were going to be destroyed in 2002 and never said a word."

The Dems were told at the briefing the tapes would be destroyed - they were destroyed in 2005 (my error)

Waterboarding is a harsh interrogation technique that involves strapping down a prisoner, covering his mouth with plastic or cloth and pouring water over his face. The prisoner quickly begins to inhale water, causing the sensation of drowning.

The CIA is known to have waterboarded three prisoners — Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, whom the U.S. government says coordinated the 2002 attack on the USS Cole. The CIA has not used the technique since 2003, according to a government official familiar with the program. Hayden prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The U.S. military outlawed it the same year.

Hayden told CIA employees last week that the CIA taped the interrogations of two alleged terrorists in 2002. He said the harsh questioning was carried out only after being "reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice and by other elements of the Executive Branch." Hayden said Congress was notified in 2003 both of the tapes' existence and the agency's intent to destroy them.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November of 2005. Exactly when Congress was notified of that and in what detail is in dispute.

The Justice Department and CIA's independent internal watchdog have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes. The review will determine whether a full investigation is warranted, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316407,00.html


So why are the Dems whining about it now?

Psychoblues
12-12-2007, 02:08 AM
It did not malfuction, PmP.




oops....it malfunctioned.....you read it.....now we have to eliminate you......

Did you ever get the feeling that many here don't want truth and are satisfied in their own ignorance?

Psychoblues
12-12-2007, 02:44 AM
ALL of our troops and ALL of our percieved enemies are covered by the Geneva Conventions, rsr.



Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva convention

I understand libs like you enjoy smearing the troops, and portraying them as thugs and killers (like your elected leaders in DC)

While our perceived enemies sometimes don't abide gives us no excuse whatsoever to turn our backs on the agreements and values that we represent in that Convention.

Americans are not the animals that the Geneva Convention sought to eliminate from warfare in general. As we become those animals we lose both our values as United States citizens and as believable negotiators in the international trade that we so desparately need and seek.

Seriously, rsr, you can't be serious.

red states rule
12-12-2007, 05:41 AM
ALL of our troops and ALL of our percieved enemies are covered by the Geneva Conventions, rsr.




While our perceived enemies sometimes don't abide gives us no excuse whatsoever to turn our backs on the agreements and values that we represent in that Convention.

Americans are not the animals that the Geneva Convention sought to eliminate from warfare in general. As we become those animals we lose both our values as United States citizens and as believable negotiators in the international trade that we so desparately need and seek.

Seriously, rsr, you can't be serious.



as usual you are full of it

from the GC


4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention


I understand the left was spent 4 years smearing the US military and painting our troops as cold blooded killers (John Murtha) and the terrorists are "freedom fighters" - it all they have left since their quest for defeat in Iraq has crashed and burned

bullypulpit
12-12-2007, 05:55 AM
as usual you are full of it

from the GC


4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention


I understand the left was spent 4 years smearing the US military and painting our troops as cold blooded killers (John Murtha) and the terrorists are "freedom fighters" - it all they have left since their quest for defeat in Iraq has crashed and burned

Guess again. The SCOTUS ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions apply to the GITMO detainees in <a href=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/hamdan-v-rumsfeld-supreme-court.php>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</a>.

The whole issue of water-boarding as being torture is settled law. Japanese and German military personnel who use water-boarding on Allied POW's were convicted of war crimes. US personnel who engaged in the practice in Viet Nam were court martialed.

Water-boarding IS torture as defined in <a href=http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/h2catoc.htm>Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment</a>, Part 1, Article 1, Para. 1, defines torture as:

<blockquote>"...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."</blockquote>

While you're at it, pay particular attention to

<blockquote> * Article 2 - No Exceptional Circumstances Warranting Torture

* Article 3 - No State Party shall expel, return (”refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

* Article 4 - Acts of Torture Are Criminal Offenses

* Article 10 - Education & Information Regarding Prohibition on Torture Provided in Training</blockquote>

Given that the United States IS a signatory to the Conventions, neither President Bush nor anyone in his cabinet or administration can make the determination that water-boarding is an acceptable practice.

* Article 16 - Each State to Prevent Acts of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

red states rule
12-12-2007, 05:59 AM
Guess again. The SCOTUS ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions apply to the GITMO detainees in <a href=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/hamdan-v-rumsfeld-supreme-court.php>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</a>.

The whole issue of water-boarding as being torture is settled law. Japanese and German military personnel who use water-boarding on Allied POW's were convicted of war crimes. US personnel who engaged in the practice in Viet Nam were court martialed.

Water-boarding IS torture as defined in <a href=http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/h2catoc.htm>Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment</a>, Part 1, Article 1, Para. 1, defines torture as:

<blockquote>"...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."</blockquote>

While you're at it, pay particular attention to

<blockquote> * Article 2 - No Exceptional Circumstances Warranting Torture

* Article 3 - No State Party shall expel, return (”refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

* Article 4 - Acts of Torture Are Criminal Offenses

* Article 10 - Education & Information Regarding Prohibition on Torture Provided in Training</blockquote>

Given that the United States IS a signatory to the Conventions, neither President Bush nor anyone in his cabinet or administration can make the determination that water-boarding is an acceptable practice.

* Article 16 - Each State to Prevent Acts of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment



Bottom line is waterboarding has been used THREE TIMES and it SAVED LIVES and PREVENTED ATTACKS

If you Dems want to continue defending the rights of terrorists - go ahead. You are proving why you nuts can't be trusted with natioanl defense

retiredman
12-12-2007, 07:38 AM
Bottom line is waterboarding has been used THREE TIMES and it SAVED LIVES and PREVENTED ATTACKS

If you Dems want to continue defending the rights of terrorists - go ahead. You are proving why you nuts can't be trusted with natioanl defense

bottom line: each time it was used it was illegal and unconstitutional

PostmodernProphet
12-12-2007, 07:40 AM
Did you ever get the feeling that many here don't want truth and are satisfied in their own ignorance?

oh yes.....from some of the conservatives....and ALL of the liberals......

red states rule
12-12-2007, 07:44 AM
bottom line: each time it was used it was illegal and unconstitutional

Did you miss or ignore this part of the article?

Waterboarding is a harsh interrogation technique that involves strapping down a prisoner, covering his mouth with plastic or cloth and pouring water over his face. The prisoner quickly begins to inhale water, causing the sensation of drowning.

The CIA is known to have waterboarded three prisoners — Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, whom the U.S. government says coordinated the 2002 attack on the USS Cole. The CIA has not used the technique since 2003, according to a government official familiar with the program. Hayden prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The U.S. military outlawed it the same year.


In those instances, information was obtained that stopped attacks and saved lives

So Dems continue to whine about the "rights" of terrorists - and something that has not been used in 4 years

retiredman
12-12-2007, 07:46 AM
Did you miss or ignore this part of the article?

Waterboarding is a harsh interrogation technique that involves strapping down a prisoner, covering his mouth with plastic or cloth and pouring water over his face. The prisoner quickly begins to inhale water, causing the sensation of drowning.

The CIA is known to have waterboarded three prisoners — Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, whom the U.S. government says coordinated the 2002 attack on the USS Cole. The CIA has not used the technique since 2003, according to a government official familiar with the program. Hayden prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The U.S. military outlawed it the same year.


In those instances, information was obtained that stopped attacks and saved lives

So Dems continue to whine about the "rights" of terrorists - and something that has not been used in 4 years

so you are perfectly OK with breaking the law and ignoring the constitution whenever you feel the situation warrants such?

red states rule
12-12-2007, 07:48 AM
so you are perfectly OK with breaking the law and ignoring the constitution whenever you feel the situation warrants such?

Would you rather have succesful terrorists attacks and dead US troops?

Of course you would - it plays better on TV and at press confrences

retiredman
12-12-2007, 07:56 AM
Would you rather have succesful terrorists attacks and dead US troops?

Of course you would - it plays better on TV and at press confrences

I would rather have most anything before I would rather have a trampled and ignored constitution of the united states. troops that take the field of battle swear first and foremost to uphold and defend the constitution. If we disregard it back home, then their sacrifice really IS for naught.

red states rule
12-12-2007, 07:57 AM
I would rather have most anything before I would rather have a trampled and ignored constitution of the united states. troops that take the field of battle swear first and foremost to uphold and defend the constitution. If we disregard it back home, then their sacrifice really IS for naught.

So you would rather have successful attacks - and then blame Bush for it

retiredman
12-12-2007, 08:04 AM
So you would rather have successful attacks - and then blame Bush for it


Let me get this straight:

you advocate pissing on the constitution of the united states? yes or no?

red states rule
12-12-2007, 08:06 AM
Let me get this straight:

you advocate pissing on the constitution of the united states? yes or no?

Terrorists do NOT have US Constitutional rights

You would stand over the dead bodies after a terrorist attacks and demand why Pres Bush and the government did not prevent the attack - while attacking them for the methods they use to prevent the attacks

retiredman
12-12-2007, 08:11 AM
Terrorists do NOT have US Constitutional rights

You would stand over the dead bodies after a terrorist attacks and demand why Pres Bush and the government did not prevent the attack - while attacking them for the methods they use to prevent the attacks

I never said that terrorists had constitutional rights. I said that any torture was unconstitutional.

red states rule
12-12-2007, 08:18 AM
I never said that terrorists had constitutional rights. I said that any torture was unconstitutional.

If it saves lives and stops attacks, I do not care what we do to terrorists

You on the other hand, would rather protect the terrorits and let their attacks succeed

Then you can blame Bush for letting the attack succeed

retiredman
12-12-2007, 08:22 AM
If it saves lives and stops attacks, I do not care what we do to terrorists

You on the other hand, would rather protect the terrorits and let their attacks succeed

Then you can blame Bush for letting the attack succeed

so.... just to be clear here: you do support trampling on the constitution of the united states? yes or no?

red states rule
12-12-2007, 08:25 AM
so.... just to be clear here: you do support trampling on the constitution of the united states? yes or no?

Terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights

You may want to grant them - but I do not

Keep pushing for the Dems "Terrorist Bill of Rights" MM

retiredman
12-12-2007, 08:27 AM
Terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights

You may want to grant them - but I do not

Keep pushing for the Dems "Terrorist Bill of Rights" MM
I am not talking about terrorists having constitutional rights.

you don't even understand the basis of my argument.... so rather than try, just answer my question: do you or do you not support trampling on the constitution?

red states rule
12-12-2007, 08:29 AM
I am not talking about terrorists having constitutional rights.

you don't even understand the basis of my argument.... so rather than try, just answer my question: do you or do you not support trampling on the constitution?

Since when do terrorists in Iraq, or other countries, have US Constitutional rights?

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 09:10 AM
so.... just to be clear here: you do support trampling on the constitution of the united states? yes or no?

Can I answer?

When it comes to terrorists, I say trample all over them and the constitution. They don't deserve any of the inherited rights that come with what our constitution stands for. Sticking to the principles of our constitution in these instances might make us more "correct" in others eyes, but can and likely will lead to deaths of more soldiers.

red states rule
12-12-2007, 09:11 AM
Can I answer?

When it comes to terrorists, I say trample all over them and the constitution. They don't deserve any of the inherited rights that come with what our constitution stands for. Sticking to the principles of our constitution in these instances might make us more "correct" in others eyes, but can and likely will lead to deaths of more soldiers.

The US is not breaking the law - we are breaking the terrorists

red states rule
12-12-2007, 09:17 AM
Rep. Jane Harman said Friday that she warned the CIA not to destroy videotapes of its interrogations of terror suspects, and defended herself from critics who said she should have done more prevent their destruction.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden disclosed Thursday night that congressional leaders, including Harman, had been informed of the agency’s plan to destroy those tapes several years ago.


Hayden was defending his agency from a New York Times report that the tapes had been destroyed in 2005.

In an interview Friday, Harman said that after the briefing in 2003, she sent a letter to the CIA warning the agency not to destroy the tapes.

“I told the CIA that destroying any tapes of interrogations was a bad idea,” Harman said. “I gave the best advice I could, and obviously my advice was not heeded.”



Read more: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/12262496.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what the hell else did she warn them about?

Here's some more that you might be interested in.

"The news that the tapes were destroyed was extremely disturbing to me and the CIA's description of notifying Congress is inconsistent with our records. As we learn more, it is only raising new questions and concerns," Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Friday.

"We do not know if there was intent to obstruct justice, an attempt to prevent congressional scrutiny, or whether they were simply destroyed out of concern they could be leaked — whatever the intent, we must get to the bottom of it. This is a very serious matter with very serious consequences," he added.

Rockefeller said the committee hasn't found records showing they were told about the existence of the tapes, or their plans to destroy them. He said he knew about about the tapes himself, but doesn't remember being told about plans to destroy them either.

more:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315965,00.html



What did Dems know - and when did they know it?

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html


Waterboarding is a harsh interrogation technique that involves strapping down a prisoner, covering his mouth with plastic or cloth and pouring water over his face. The prisoner quickly begins to inhale water, causing the sensation of drowning.

The CIA is known to have waterboarded three prisoners — Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, whom the U.S. government says coordinated the 2002 attack on the USS Cole. The CIA has not used the technique since 2003, according to a government official familiar with the program. Hayden prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The U.S. military outlawed it the same year.

Hayden told CIA employees last week that the CIA taped the interrogations of two alleged terrorists in 2002. He said the harsh questioning was carried out only after being "reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice and by other elements of the Executive Branch." Hayden said Congress was notified in 2003 both of the tapes' existence and the agency's intent to destroy them.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November of 2005. Exactly when Congress was notified of that and in what detail is in dispute.

The Justice Department and CIA's independent internal watchdog have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes. The review will determine whether a full investigation is warranted, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316407,00.html

Immanuel
12-12-2007, 09:28 AM
harsh interrogation technique

Funny how they won't identify torture as torture. It is just another way that the media spins its materials for its own agenda by attempting to soften up the message with words that mean one thing but don't sound so harsh.

Note: it is not just Fox that does this either.

Immie

glockmail
12-12-2007, 09:37 AM
why do you fly off into derogatory, accusatory rhetoric ALL the fucking time? Where did I EVER say that the ONLY difference that I say was the uniform? Where have I EVER said I hated our troops? I served a long fucking time, asshole...and I really really really don't like it when people suggest that I am anything BUT supportive of our troops. My whole argument about waterboarding and the other illegal interrogation methods is that using them puts OUR future troops in danger...a group of guys you have stated that YOU could give a fuck about.....

and the constitution is pretty clear about treaties. You should read it sometime.
That's great, but why not address the issue that you've been skipping around for about 2 days now?

retiredman
12-12-2007, 10:02 AM
Can I answer?

When it comes to terrorists, I say trample all over them and the constitution. They don't deserve any of the inherited rights that come with what our constitution stands for. Sticking to the principles of our constitution in these instances might make us more "correct" in others eyes, but can and likely will lead to deaths of more soldiers.

it has nothing to do with their inherited rights. It has everything to do with the United States Constitution REQUIRING that ratified treaties be considered the law of the land. If you are willing to trample the constitution, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter one whit what your motivations were. The constitution is still sullied. And after you trample it once, it is SOOO much easier the next time, isn't it?

and how ironic that you would ask soldiers to go fight and die to "support and defend the constitution of the united states" and then piss on the very document that they are defending purportedly to "save" them.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 10:03 AM
That's great, but why not address the issue that you've been skipping around for about 2 days now?


I don't skip around anything. what is your question?

retiredman
12-12-2007, 10:04 AM
Since when do terrorists in Iraq, or other countries, have US Constitutional rights?

they don't.

since when have I ever said they had?

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 10:13 AM
it has nothing to do with their inherited rights. It has everything to do with the United States Constitution REQUIRING that ratified treaties be considered the law of the land. If you are willing to trample the constitution, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter one whit what your motivations were. The constitution is still sullied. And after you trample it once, it is SOOO much easier the next time, isn't it?

I don't see how allowing our soldiers to have latitude when fighting terrorists in battle is going to start a trend of "sullying" our constitution. I'm simply saying that LIVES of our soldiers are more important than adhering to the constitution when it comes to fighting those that will kill their own family to kill us.


and how ironic that you would ask soldiers to go fight and die to "support and defend the constitution of the united states" and then piss on the very document that they are defending purportedly to "save" them.

Yeah, it would be ironic, IF I ever said that, which I didn't. I'm asking the soldiers to kill as many as these cockroaches as they can, and I don't give a shit how they do it, so long as they are dead. The constitution of the UNITED STATES doesn't carry much weight to terrorists a few thousand miles away, and I'll be damned if I think we should tie the hands of our men and women that must battle against these scumbags.

Stick to the constitution in certain respects against these filth and soldiers will die. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep tonight if I knew they slowly sawed off a terrorists head until he spoke up and saved a few of our soldiers lives.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 10:20 AM
Article VI, para 2. U.S. Constitution reads: "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
We are a party to this treaty: UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
If we didn't want it to be the supreme Law of the Land, we ought not to have ratified it, should we???

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 10:34 AM
MFM - what if you were still on active duty. You're in Iraq and you have 2 terrorists captured. You know there is going to be an attack that day for sure, and it's going to be on a barracks somewhere in Iraq. Potentially hundreds of your soldiers lives are at risk. You also know these guys are privy to the information, and getting it from them will likely save US soldiers lives.

Do you do everything possible to save the lives of your fellow soldiers, or do you stop where the constitution doesn't allow, and allow fellow soldiers to die?

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 10:36 AM
Article VI, para 2. U.S. Constitution reads: "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
We are a party to this treaty: UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
If we didn't want it to be the supreme Law of the Land, we ought not to have ratified it, should we???

IMO, this should only apply when battling those also party to the treaty. The terrorists are doing no more than taking advantage of this.

Let me ask you, besides the US and those "duped" into backing up GW - where is the international community in trying to bring those to justice that committed horrific acts to our soldiers? Why aren't they backing up this law when it goes against us?

retiredman
12-12-2007, 11:03 AM
IMO, this should only apply when battling those also party to the treaty. The terrorists are doing no more than taking advantage of this.

Let me ask you, besides the US and those "duped" into backing up GW - where is the international community in trying to bring those to justice that committed horrific acts to our soldiers? Why aren't they backing up this law when it goes against us?


read the treaty. It says nothing about applying only to other signatories.

the treaty, as written, is the supreme law of the land. follow it. our soldiers are fighting to defend that document.... don't piss on it, for any reason.

I would suggest that nobody wants to stir up the hornet's nest... Bush has done a great job of doing just that. I would suggest that the other nations of the world are thinking that he wouldn't be having a problem with battlefield atrocities if he had been smart enough to not invade Iraq in the first place. But that is just my opinion.

p.s. and I would further suggest that the nations of the world are doing us a favor by NOT making a big deal out of our violations of that treaty. The arab thugs on the battlefield represent NO nation-state, signatory or otherwise. The CIA agents who DID use torture were agents of a signatory state. WE are on the hook.... AQ certainly isn't.

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 11:19 AM
read the treaty. It says nothing about applying only to other signatories.

I opened my post by writing "IMO" - which means "In my opinion"


the treaty, as written, is the supreme law of the land. follow it. our soldiers are fighting to defend that document.... don't piss on it, for any reason.

I don't think messing with the heads of a few terrorists in order to save American lives is "pissing" on the constitution.


I would suggest that nobody wants to stir up the hornet's nest... Bush has done a great job of doing just that. I would suggest that the other nations of the world are thinking that he wouldn't be having a problem with battlefield atrocities if he had been smart enough to not invade Iraq in the first place. But that is just my opinion.

p.s. and I would further suggest that the nations of the world are doing us a favor by NOT making a big deal out of our violations of that treaty. The arab thugs on the battlefield represent NO nation-state, signatory or otherwise. The CIA agents who DID use torture were agents of a signatory state. WE are on the hook.... AQ certainly isn't.

Exactly, Al Qaeda isn't, and they're using it to their advantage. We need not be restrained when saving American lives from scum like them.

And please answer my prior post about what would you do...

Sir Evil
12-12-2007, 11:22 AM
And please answer my prior post about what would you do...

he would dessert, and move to Canada....:rolleyes:

retiredman
12-12-2007, 11:33 AM
I don't think messing with the heads of a few terrorists in order to save American lives is "pissing" on the constitution.

in for an inch, in for a mile. ignoring the constitution, even for little things, is still ignoring the constitution. and once we do it, it only gets easier.

and your hypothetical is not realistic...

but I would certainly obey the oath that I took.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 11:36 AM
he would dessert, and move to Canada....:rolleyes:

"dessert", huh? Ice cream or cake?

illiterate moron!:laugh2:

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 11:38 AM
and your hypothetical is not realistic.

How is it not realistic, or are you just afraid of answering the question? Are you stating that captured terrorists don't or wouldn't have knowledge of impending attacks? How about just answering the question.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 11:48 AM
How is it not realistic, or are you just afraid of answering the question? Are you stating that captured terrorists don't or wouldn't have knowledge of impending attacks? How about just answering the question.

I am saying that your hypothetical had WAY too many certainties to be realistic. I KNOW there is going to be an attack...I KNOW it's going to be on a barracks....I KNOW it's going to be today...I KNOW these two guys know all the details..... nobody ever KNOWS that much.

How about making a realistic question and I might answer it...although, as I said, I would never do anything that would, in any way, betray the oath I took when I was commissioned.

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 11:50 AM
Ok, simple and to the point - would you use torture to get information from a terrorist knowing that if you do you save American lives. And if you don't, American soldiers will likely die.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 11:56 AM
Ok, simple and to the point - would you use torture to get information from a terrorist knowing that if you do you save American lives. And if you don't, American soldiers will likely die.

no

by doing so, I am violating my oath. soldiers die in war. that is a fact. Becoming an animal to save some today makes no sense.

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 12:00 PM
no

by doing so, I am violating my oath. soldiers die in war. that is a fact. Becoming an animal to save some today makes no sense.

Well, myself and I'm sure many families of US soldiers are likely grateful that you aren't in command. We need someone in there with the intestinal fortitude to make tough decisions, and decisions that save American lives and give our troops what they need to save lives and win the war. I'll take 100 commanders doing whatever is necessary to save our boys and girls lives, and toss aside the guy who thinks ANYTHING trumps the lives of our soldiers.

Soldiers die in war, that's correct, but they should NEVER die when there is a means to prevent it.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 01:30 PM
Well, myself and I'm sure many families of US soldiers are likely grateful that you aren't in command. We need someone in there with the intestinal fortitude to make tough decisions, and decisions that save American lives and give our troops what they need to save lives and win the war. I'll take 100 commanders doing whatever is necessary to save our boys and girls lives, and toss aside the guy who thinks ANYTHING trumps the lives of our soldiers.

Soldiers die in war, that's correct, but they should NEVER die when there is a means to prevent it.

Jim.... you should probably leave the military ethics questions for people who have been in the military....and for people who have ethics. I think that I would want to send my son to war under the command of someone who was an ethical warrior. I would want a leader who, when he took a sacred oath, would die before breaking it. A man who breaks an oath will just as easily break another. A man who makes ethical decisions, will, over the long haul, make the best decisions. Seriously...what does the phrase "solemnly swear" MEAN to you????

And please realize that the very best way to prevent soldiers from dying is to NEVER send them into battle unless it is absolutely necessary. Going to war because you WANT to is the MOST unethical, MOST inhumane decision ANY leader could EVER make.

glockmail
12-12-2007, 01:55 PM
I don't skip around anything. what is your question?

Post 167. And don't say that you answered already, because all you did was fly off the handle like you've been doing so well the last day or two.

glockmail
12-12-2007, 01:56 PM
... you should probably leave the military ethics questions for people who have been in the military........ Who's ignoring The Constitution now?

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 01:57 PM
Jim.... you should probably leave the military ethics questions for people who have been in the military....and for people who have ethics.

And you should probably kiss my ass. Like I said, we need men with the intestinal fortitude that it takes to save our soldiers lives and do anything possible to ensure victory. Ethical pussies to the left...

Sir Evil
12-12-2007, 02:00 PM
And you should probably kiss my ass. Like I said, we need men with the intestinal fortitude that it takes to save our soldiers lives and do anything possible to ensure victory. Ethical pussies to the left...

Why even bring up fortitude at all when speaking to such a spineless cream puff?

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:02 PM
And you should probably kiss my ass. Like I said, we need men with the intestinal fortitude that it takes to save our soldiers lives and do anything possible to ensure victory. Ethical pussies to the left...


so...what does the phrase "solemnly swear" mean to you?

For you to suggest that ethics and guts are mutually exclusive, just shows what an immature inexperienced guy you really are.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:03 PM
Why even bring up fortitude at all when speaking to such a spineless cream puff?

standing behind your smarter brother does not make you appear any smarter....:laugh2:

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:05 PM
Who's ignoring The Constitution now?


explain how suggesting that people who don't know anything about military ethics should probably avoid arguments about military ethics is "ignoring the constitution" mr. yappy dog?

jimnyc
12-12-2007, 02:05 PM
so...what does the phrase "solemnly swear" mean to you?

For you to suggest that ethics and guts are mutually exclusive, just shows what an immature inexperienced guy you really are.

Show me where these soldiers "solemnly swear not to use torture as a means to save their brothers lives" and you'll have an argument.

What does the phrase "I was a pussy and let me fellow soldiers die" mean to you?

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:08 PM
That's the only differnce that you see between terrorists in Afganistan and Iraq and the US military? That they weren't wearing uniforms? Is your hate for our troops that deep? You really are a leftie nut-bag!

Laws are open to interpretation. Just ask any good lawyer.


Where did I EVER say that the ONLY difference that I say was the uniform? Where have I EVER said I hated our troops? My whole argument about waterboarding and the other illegal interrogation methods is that using them puts OUR future troops in danger...a group of guys you have stated that you could care less if they are tortured.

and the constitution is pretty clear about treaties. You should read it sometime.

asked and answered.

next

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:10 PM
Show me where these soldiers "solemnly swear not to use torture as a means to save their brothers lives" and you'll have an argument.

What does the phrase "I was a pussy and let me fellow soldiers die" mean to you?


I solemnly swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic.

glockmail
12-12-2007, 02:10 PM
explain how suggesting that people who don't know anything about military ethics should probably avoid arguments about military ethics is "ignoring the constitution" mr. yappy dog?

Nice deflection/ insult, but your earlier statement was "... you should probably leave the military ethics questions for people who have been in the military........" http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=167666&postcount=227

glockmail
12-12-2007, 02:11 PM
I solemnly swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Any one with two balls knows that the Constitution is not a death sentence, and during times of war good men must do what needs to be done regardless.

Sir Evil
12-12-2007, 02:15 PM
standing behind your smarter brother does not make you appear any smarter....:laugh2:

:laugh2:

Yeah ok, never heard me offer to by you lunch dough boy. I would need to hide behind anyone when it comes to you for what reason? Oh thats right, because you are so much smarter....:rolleyes:

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:17 PM
Nice deflection/ insult, but your earlier statement was "... you should probably leave the military ethics questions for people who have been in the military........" http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=167666&postcount=227


and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL how, exactly??????

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:19 PM
Any one with two balls knows that the Constitution is not a death sentence, and during times of war good men must do what needs to be done regardless.


I'll bet Lt Calley had the same sort of ethical compass as you do. peas in a pod.

glockmail
12-12-2007, 02:20 PM
and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL how, exactly??????
1. POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the military.
2. Freedom of Speech.

glockmail
12-12-2007, 02:21 PM
I'll bet Lt Calley had the same sort of ethical compass as you do. peas in a pod. So did Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. I'm in good company.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:27 PM
So did Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. I'm in good company.

what an egotistical twit you are!:lol:

glockmail
12-12-2007, 02:43 PM
what an egotistical twit you are!:lol: Again deflection/ insult. I see a pattern here, well practiced. Perhaps if you spent the same effort into logical thinking you may find yourself more respected around here.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:46 PM
Again deflection/ insult. I see a pattern here, well practiced. Perhaps if you spent the same effort into logical thinking you may find yourself more respected around here.

I am sorry. for you to claim that the ethics of Lt Calley are the same as those of Lincoln, FDR and Reagan, and then to put yourself in that group is really not very logical thinking.... should we be naming airports after Calley? building monuments to him? how about to you?

retiredman
12-12-2007, 02:50 PM
1. POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the military.
2. Freedom of Speech.

I made a suggestion. I did not restrict his speech...and my thoughts about military ethics were my opinion... much like saying...I think it is wise to leave the decisions as to what treatment I should have for my coronary artery disease to my cardiologist.

so again..where was I UNCONSTITUTIONAL?:laugh2:

glockmail
12-12-2007, 03:10 PM
I am sorry. for you to claim that the ethics of Lt Calley are the same as those of Lincoln, FDR and Reagan, and then to put yourself in that group is really not very logical thinking.... should we be naming airports after Calley? building monuments to him? how about to you? Continuation of deflection...

glockmail
12-12-2007, 03:13 PM
asked and answered.

next
Deflection.

glockmail
12-12-2007, 03:14 PM
I made a suggestion. I did not restrict his speech...and my thoughts about military ethics were my opinion... much like saying...I think it is wise to leave the decisions as to what treatment I should have for my coronary artery disease to my cardiologist.

so again..where was I UNCONSTITUTIONAL?:laugh2:
Deflection.

retiredman
12-12-2007, 03:18 PM
Deflection.


I am not deflecting at all. You made a stupid statement and cannot back it up. not at all surprising.