Breaking news - Obama admin MAY press charges of 'TORTURE' on Bush Admin officials!

POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2009 12:32
VIEWED: 3739
PAGE 1 of 1

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:01 PM

BREAKING NEWS!!

OBAMA MAY PROSECUTE BUSH OFFICIALS OVER TORTURE!!

Looks like Obama might be leaving the door open for prosecutions of Bush Administration officials who ordered the torture of detainees...

Quote:
From the AP:
President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

The Washington Post questioned why Obama had come to the decision to potentially allow prosecution:

There was no immediate explanation of the reversal in Obama's position on the officials who formulated the interrogation policy, but it came amid mounting pressure from congressional Democrats and human rights activists for greater accountability regarding the program.
The AP documented how Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was barraged with questions about the President's latest on the torture issue.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview over the weekend that the administration does not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." Later, White House aides said that he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.

White House press secretary Gibbs was peppered with questions at a Tuesday briefing about whether Obama's latest statements conflicted with signals the administration had sent earlier and Emanuel's statements of Sunday.

"Instead of referring to what anybody might have said ... I think it's important to refer to what the president said," Gibbs replied. He said that Obama has said "he does not believe that people are above the rule of law." And his spokesman reiterated Obama's position that any determination on whether laws were broken "would be rightly determined by the United States Department of Justice."

Read more at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/21/obama-administration-bush_n_1
89521.html

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:04 PM

Obama has held on to my respect with this.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:12 PM

But there was no torture, so I guess this is a moot point.

*yawn*

RUE

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:14 PM

Not trying to pre-judge the outcome of any (as yet non-existant) trials - but - what will you do if Bush officials are found guilty of torture ?

Will you keep repeating there was none ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But there was no torture, so I guess this is a moot point.

So, If I make the rules in my house, and I beat my kid for lookin' at me funny, but I hand him a document I've written saying that his beatings are not abuse, that makes it so?

What am I doing?
Nevermind.

The laughing Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:25 PM

I love it, Barry wants to put Bush officials on trail for hurting poor little TERRORISTS, but he makes nice with Hugo and other S. American dictators. I bet he would have shook hands with Hitler in 1939.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
I love it,

Then why don't ya marry it?

Quote:
Barry wants to put Bush officials on trail

Please, make it more difficult...lol

Quote:
he makes nice with Hugo and other S. American dictators. I bet he would have shook hands with Hitler in 1939.

And here we are again in Straw Man Alley.

The laughing Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
I love it,
Then why don't ya marry it?
Quote:
Barry wants to put Bush officials on trail
Please, make it more difficult...lol
Quote:
he makes nice with Hugo and other S. American dictators. I bet he would have shook hands with Hitler in 1939.
And here we are again in Straw Man Alley.

The laughing Chrisisall

Now I'll pick apart your statement.

And here we are again in Straw Man Alley.

Is that were Barry bought his cocaine?

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Mike

You wanted to see a fight- that's why you posted this...*smirks*

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:

Is that were Barry bought his cocaine?

What is this? Crappy Shakespeare or something?
I can't read this stuff, it hurts my brain.

The laughing Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:

Is that were Barry bought his cocaine?
What is this? Crappy Shakespeare or something?
I can't read this stuff, it hurts my brain.

The laughing Chrisisall

Oh no wait! Straw Man Alley is where Barry meets Perez Hilton on Saturday nights!

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Oh no wait! Straw Man Alley is where Barry meets Perez Hilton on Saturday nights!

*coughtroll*

The laughing Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:

Is that were Barry bought his cocaine?
What is this? Crappy Shakespeare or something?
I can't read this stuff, it hurts my brain.

The laughing Chrisisall
Oh no wait! Straw Man Alley is where Barry meets Perez Hilton on Saturday nights!

They kiss and exchange Gerbles.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
They kiss and exchange Gerbles.

I made a thread for your ilk, W:

http://168.215.229.9/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37913

You're welcome.

The laughing Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
They kiss and exchange Gerbles.

I made a thread for your ilk, W:

http://168.215.229.9/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37913

You're welcome.

The laughing Chrisisall

Thanks, it's pretty

STORYMARK

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:06 PM

I am amazed there is actually someone as stupid as Whozit.

Doubly amazed that he seems to be so willing to flaunt that stupidity on such a regular basis.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not trying to pre-judge the outcome of any (as yet non-existant) trials - but - what will you do if Bush officials are found guilty of torture ?

Will you keep repeating there was none ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

If they cut off any fingers, used any bamboo shoots, electrical shocks...I'd have to agree w/ the findings.

Water boarding isn't torture. Neither is a cold floor in the hot, sweltering Caribbean... that's called HEAVEN!

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Water boarding isn't torture.

Your own government seems to disagree with you, 'Rapo.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding1.htm

Quote:
In 1947, a Japanese soldier who used water boarding against a U.S. citizen during World War II was sentenced to 15 years in U.S. prison for committing a war crime.

*waiting to hear the denial this time*

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:50 PM

You know he's just using political doubletalk to stave off the well-deserved ire of the american people, yes ?

He don't plan to do jack shit unless we MAKE him.

So, on a political level, lets us jack his ass up and explain how this works to him, we elected him, he does what WE tell him, and fuck Rahmbo and his foreign handlers.

-F

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:56 PM

*still waiting to hear the 'Rapo denial*

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
*still waiting to hear the 'Rapo denial*

The laughing Chrisisall

What's to deny ? That was a soldier in uniform, and we have civilian terrorist, not covered by Geneva. Why the hell aren't you jumping on about the terrorist in Iraq, who sawed the heads off of civilians, soldiers, and mutilated, them beat them, and did all manner of unspeakable things.

I'll deny waterboarding is torture for the terrorist until the end of time.

WHOZIT

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I am amazed there is actually someone as stupid as Whozit.

Doubly amazed that he seems to be so willing to flaunt that stupidity on such a regular basis.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

I'm amazed how many Gerbles you can fit in your ass.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:05 PM

STEPHANOPOLOUS: The President has ruled out prosecutions of CIA officials who believed they were following the law. Does he believe the officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution?

RAHM: Yeah, what he believes is, look, as you saw in that statement he wrote. And I think, just take a step back. That he came up with this, and he worked on this for four weeks. Wrote that statement Wednesday night, after he made his decision, and dictated what he wanted to see and then Thursday morning I saw him in the office, he was still editing it. He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted. - Rahm Emanuel on THIS WEEK

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/4853

Obama is edging towards treason, imo.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'll deny waterboarding is torture for the terrorist until the end of time.

Knew it.

So, you mean it IS torture, just not for certain people...?

Is blue the colour of the sky only for non-terrorists?

Your lack of logical thought is WHY I very hesitantly ever seriously reply to you, AU.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:10 PM

you hate America and are for the terrorist.

Straight up. There's simply no denying that.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
you hate America and are for the terrorist.

Straight up. There's simply no denying that.

I love America and am for the high road She can take.

Straight up. There's simply no denying that.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:35 PM

Quote:
you hate America and are for the terrorist.

Is THAT the best you can do????? When someone tells you something irrefutable you name-call?????

Where is your self-respect? My god, rappy! You have a brain for a reason BESIDES holding up your hair. USE IT!

BTW- the CIA waterboarded two suspects a total of 266 times. If THAT isn't torture, I dont' know what is!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:37 PM

"I'll deny waterboarding is torture for the terrorist ..."
"... we have civilian terrorist ..."

Which ONE damnit !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I'll deny waterboarding is torture for the terrorist ..."
"... we have civilian terrorist ..."

Which ONE damnit !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I'm pissing you off on purpose, and loving it.

haha.

RUE

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:48 PM

Actually, I'm not pissed off.

I'm just making you post using questions I KNOW you'll reply to ...

Select to view spoiler:

See, now in order to not let me have the last word, you'll have to post again --- OR --- disappear and look like you lost. Either way - I win.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
*still waiting to hear the 'Rapo denial*

The laughing Chrisisall

What's to deny ? That was a soldier in uniform, and we have civilian terrorist, not covered by Geneva. Why the hell aren't you jumping on about the terrorist in Iraq, who sawed the heads off of civilians, soldiers, and mutilated, them beat them, and did all manner of unspeakable things.

I'll deny waterboarding is torture for the terrorist until the end of time.

Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.

Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I'll deny waterboarding is torture for the terrorist ..."
"... we have civilian terrorist ..."

Which ONE damnit !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I'm pissing you off on purpose, and loving it.

haha.

By showing yourself to be a fucking moron?

It's not pissing us off; we're laughing at you because you're too entrenched in your stupidity to move forward, ever.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:14 AM

Well I noticed that rappy has nothing to say about Iran waterboarding a journalist.

Other foot... meet shoe.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:17 AM

I'm watching Cheney now, explaining the very real threat of al Qaeda and their attempting to get and set off a nuclear device in any number of U.S. cities. Very real and legit threats.

You guys are naive beyond all levels of comprehension.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm watching Cheney now, explaining the very real threat of al Qaeda and attempting to get and set off a nuclear device in any number of U.S. cities. Very real and legit threats.

You're buying this AGAIN? LOL.
Where's his PROOF?? Another say-so that can be explained later?
I believe they want to blow us up (your terrorist friends), but the targets are few IMO, and hard to get at just now. They might blow up Albuquerque, but then who would care?

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:10 AM

Flippancy aside for a moment, I believe in the next decade we will suffer another terrorist attack, possibly nuclear, but it won't be because of the left, OR the right in this country, but from divisiveness. We'll be distracted, like in a chess game, and peeps like you that put all your faith in one side or the other here will be their facilitators.

I now resume my characteristic flippancy...

You BIPED.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm watching Cheney now, explaining the very real threat of al Qaeda and attempting to get and set off a nuclear device in any number of U.S. cities. Very real and legit threats.

You're buying this AGAIN? LOL.
Where's his PROOF?? Another say-so that can be explained later?
I believe they want to blow us up (your terrorist friends), but the targets are few IMO, and hard to get at just now. They might blow up Albuquerque, but then who would care?

Quote:

Flippancy aside for a moment, I believe in the next decade we will suffer another terrorist attack, possibly nuclear,.....

Then you agree w/ Cheney, in that the THREAT , at the very least, is real.

Thank you.

The only ones being divisive here is YOU, and the current President, who is thinking about going after those who defended this country, successfully.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:59 AM

Quote:
... thinking about going after those who defended this country, successfully.

Well, not so successfully on September 11, 2001.

I know, I know, none of that was on Bush, because he hadn't been in office long enough.

So nothing Obama does before September 12, 2009 counts either, right?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Then you agree w/ Cheney, in that the THREAT , at the very least, is real.

Yes.

Quote:

Thank you.

You're welcome. I knew we had some common ground somewhere.

Quote:

The only ones being divisive here is YOU, and the current President, who is thinking about going after those who defended this country, successfully.

End of common ground, I guess. Obama's a political tool, like all of 'em- I believe a somewhat less destructive political tool, but that's subjective. The Bush/Cheney success you ascribe to is false as well, but you'll no doubt recognize this only in your next lifetime.
Peace, AU.
With your fellow Browncoats at least.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So nothing Obama does before September 12, 2009 counts either, right?

It all counts, Mike. We can see that, where AU can't.
Am I right?
Or am I too addled by lateness?
*yawn*
Excuse me.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:32 AM

"I'll deny waterboarding is torture for the terrorist until the end of time."

Hello Auraptor,

These kinds of qualifiers disturb me.

I'll deny waterboarding is torture 'for the terrorist.'

This implies it might be torture for someone else. Me? You? But not those nasty sand-dune hopping criminals.

Torture is torture no matter who it is performed upon. If it's torture for Him, but not for Her, then there is a gap in your logic.

This is just my opinion, of course. Based on my philosophy and my logic. It's not something I can prove, just something I feel: The rules have to apply to everybody equally. Even people you don't like. Maybe especially people you don't like.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:46 AM

kwickie

You're a dick. First, I'll be clear and up front about that. You , as well as anyone w/ an above room temp IQ should know that " going after the terrorist " clearly means POST 9/11, and that it's evident that we have not had another attack on our own soil ever since then, despite the very real belief by everyone at the time that we were bound to get hit again.

Kudos to Bush for at least that much. Even if he didn't get Osama, and despite our best efforts in Afghanistan.

The PRE 9/11 finger of blame can be pointed at a large number of folks, and while a worthy issue on its own, is NOT the point here.

Chrissy,

How is the Bush / Cheney success a 'false ' one? Are you factoring in the treasonist acts by the NYTimes, and its releasing of information on our program to track down wire transfers ? Or the false/ bogus claims that we tortured the terrorist in Club Gitmo ? I got a bunch of these examples, where the MSM , and not Bush or Cheney made us less safe.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:45 AM

Quote:

You're a dick. First, I'll be clear and up front about that.

Well, thanks for that. I'll take that as your entire response to the scenario and questions I laid out above. Either that, or you totally missed it, yet have managed to find and respond to everything ELSE I've posted. Odd behavior, that. Almost seem like you're avoiding something...

Anyway, I'll post it again so you don't have to go searching:

Quote:

Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.

Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...

Quote:
You , as well as anyone w/ an above room temp IQ should know that " going after the terrorist " clearly means POST 9/11...

Why? Why MUST everyone know what you "clearly" meant, if you didn't clearly state it as such? You didn't say "going after terrorists post-9/11". Is it your sincere belief that on September 10, 2001, Osama bin Laden was NOT a terrorist, or that he was NOT a threat, or that there were NOT dangerous terrorists plotting against us that our President and our government should have been protecting us from?

Saying that Bush did a great job SINCE 9/11 is tantamount to saying that aside from the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history, Bush kept us mostly safe. It seeks to excuse, dismiss, and belittle that catastrophic event as if it never happened. You should be ashamed.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:16 PM

Quote:
Well I noticed that rappy has nothing to say about Iran waterboarding a journalist.-Signy

I'm watching Cheney now, explaining the very real threat of al Qaeda and their attempting to get and set off a nuclear device in any number of U.S. cities. Very real and legit threats. You guys are naive beyond all levels of comprehension. -rapo

Since waterboarding is apparently okay with you against suspected enemies of the USA, I just hope that Obama protects us against bomb-planning right-wing extremists with the same vigor as Cheney pursued al Qaida: recklessly, broadly, and outside of the rule of law.

Don't you?

If not: Why do you hate the USA so?
----------------

Not trying to make light of any threat against the USA, rappy, but I mean ANY threat: Internal as well as external. Sourced in the gummint as well as hatched in disaffected extremist groups. If you think that waterboarding is OK, there is no way to prevent it from being used against YOUR friends. If you give a pass to warrantless wiretapping there is no way to keep YOUR buddies from being "targeted". With peeps like you, it is just as easy... easier, in fact... to destroy the USA from within as well as from the outside. Show some spine. The threat from al Qaida is real. So is the threat from Cheney, because the next admin will take that very same Unitary Executive Power and turn it against you. And it could all have been avoided if you and your buds would have defended the Constitution instead of taking it apart.

--------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:44 PM

"The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said."

So basically I see it as politics. Obama is threatening Bush Administration officials with prosecution - which will ruin them politically and financally, even if they're found innocent - if they don't shut up and toe the line.

Besides, with just the threat of prosecutions he'll be making the Democratic faithful - who want Bush & Co.waterboarded, regardless of "moral bearings" - very happy. Start actual trials and they'll be dancing in the streets with towels and waterbuckets.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:14 PM

Any domestic bomber? Like William Ayers? Doh! My bad, he's a Left wing admitted terrorist.

It's unconscionable that a President would even think of prosecuting officials who sought legal counsel in matters dealing with those who did attack us, killed thousands, and vowed to do it again.

It's nothing but pompous political grandstanding at it's worst.

Q: why is it ok to shoot 3 pirates in the head to save 1person, but wrong to waterboard terrorists to save thousands?

Sig,

As usual, you present a false dichotomy with your question. A ridiculous premise.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Obama is threatening Bush Administration officials with prosecution - which will ruin them politically and financally, even if they're found innocent

WTF are you even talking about, Geezer? RUIN them? Oh please- that's what Swiss banks & the Cayman Islands are for, don't be so naive.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Q: why is it ok to shoot 3 pirates in the head to save 1person, but wrong to waterboard terrorists to save thousands?

I'm gonna hate myself for answering this seriously...

Because the first example plainly saves an innocent person's life, and the second one merely scares a questionable confession out of a dirtbag while de-humanizing those perpetrating the torture in search of intel that could be obtained far more efficiently and conclusively by other means.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:29 PM

Chris,

The evidence does NOT agree with your answer. At the very least, having the option to use harsh interrogation should be available.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Chris,

The evidence does NOT agree with your answer. At the very least, having the option to use harsh interrogation should be available.

Actually, the evidence does NOT agree with YOUR answer. The evidence shows that once we went "hands-on" with these susupects, the information either dried up completely, or turned completely useless and unreliable, whereas when we actually interrogated them by TALKING to them instead of torturing them, the information gleaned from those talks was solid, reliable, and actionable.

You have no case.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
At the very least, having the option to use harsh interrogation should be available.

It's ALWAYS an option, AU, it just shouldn't be an OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED one. It should be like killing someone; you better have a Gorram good reason that will hold up in court for doing it! And be prepared to do serious time if your judgement was bad.

The laughing Chrisisall

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Obama is threatening Bush Administration officials with prosecution - which will ruin them politically and financally, even if they're found innocent
WTF are you even talking about, Geezer? RUIN them? Oh please- that's what Swiss banks & the Cayman Islands are for, don't be so naive.

Certainly ruin them politically. Also, regardless of your conspiracy theory fantasies of secret bank accounts, I'd suspect serious costs for legal representation in a full-blown Justice Department case, with the Obama Administration keeping it going for however long they want to on the taxpayers' dime, could break pretty much anyone. Remember, the Feds don't even have to prevail in court to win, they can just grind folk into the ground with legions of lawyers.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:26 PM

Kwickie,

You're wrong. Sheik kalid Mohammed sang like a bird after water boarding, and we prevented a 9/11 style attack is los angeles. We interrogate to get useful intel. If we can't even do that, then there's no need to capture the terrorists alive. We'll kill them on site, and be justified for it.

Chris,

So make it unofficial? Do it, but don't fess up to it? That's even worse, IMO.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Chris,

So make it unofficial? Do it, but don't fess up to it? That's even worse, IMO.

It's something we should NEVER do. If it gets done at all, it can't be legal, that's all I'm saying.

The laughing Chrisisall

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Besides, with just the threat of prosecutions he'll be making the Democratic faithful - who want Bush & Co.waterboarded, regardless of "moral bearings" - very happy. Start actual trials and they'll be dancing in the streets with towels and waterbuckets.

I think this may be the ugliest thing you've ever said on this board, Geezer. You seem to think waterboarding is a joke, that calling waterboarding torture is a joke.

Do you?

For over a century the U.S. has upheld the Geneva Conventions which explicitly state that waterboarding is torture. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, the International Red Cross has determined that we tortured people in Iraq. The International Red Cross is specifically authorized in the Geneva Conventions to make such a determination.

I'm curious, do you believe the Geneva Conventions should be abolished? Do you believe the International Red Cross to be a partisan organization? And if so, do you believe that it has been so for it's entire hundred year history, or that it has at some point been corrupted? And if corrupted, when, and do you have any sources to back that up?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:44 PM

Quote:
Any domestic bomber? Like William Ayers?

First of all, there's a reason why Ayers was never jailed on bombing charges: he never bombed anything! So DOH to you! Convicting people on bad intel!

I was thinking along the lines of Timothy McVeigh? DOUBLE DOH! Your bad! He's a right-wing extremist!

Quote:
It's unconscionable that a President would even think of prosecuting officials who sought legal counsel in matters dealing with those who did attack us, killed thousands, and vowed to do it again.

The problems are twofold... ones that you can't seem to wrap your brain around... (1) WHO determines that these are indeed terrorists? Let's say that YOU get picked up. YOU'RE innocent, you KNOW you are! But... you're detained without benefit of a lawyer. No charges are ever filed. And someone is convinced that YOU, of all people, are part of a plot to blow up the University of Auburn. It's bad intel... but hell... BAD INTEL has happened before, right? We've invaded on bad intel in the past! So, what's one person's rights... YOURS, specifically... compared to the goal of saving thousands? (2) And then you're waterboarded to gain the information that you don't have. Not once or twice but DOZENS of times. Or you're sent to Poland or Egypt, where even worse occurs.

What then?

Quote:
Q: why is it ok to shoot 3 pirates in the head to save 1person, but wrong to waterboard terrorists to save thousands?

Because it's VERY CLEAR that these people are in the middle of an act of piracy! It's a little like shooting someone who's invading your home. But you don't go shooting your neighbor, or the bum down the street because you THINK he MIGHT invade your home. You need EVIDENCE.

And that's what the COURTS are for: to determine if there is enough EVIDENCE to warrant an abrgation or YOUR rights.

Quote:
Sig, As usual, you present a false dichotomy with your question. A ridiculous premise.

No rappy, it's you with the false dichotomy. You keep thinking it's safety OR civil rights. In reality, you DON'T have to give up one for the other.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:03 PM

Ayers is a bomber. He confessed to exactly that . Because he was never covicted does't change the facts. Timmothy was delusional. No one supported what he did. No one anywhere on the right approved that hideous act, while Ayers is a close, personal friend to Obama, no one of any worth sided with McVeigh.

You have less than no case.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:14 PM

What does Ayers have to do with allowing the government to abrogate civil rights?

I noticed that you failed to address the substance of my post, you insubstantial thinker you! But just in case you missed it:

Quote:
The problems are twofold... ones that you can't seem to wrap your brain around... (1) WHO determines that these are indeed terrorists? Let's say that YOU get picked up. YOU'RE innocent, you KNOW you are! But... you're detained without benefit of a lawyer. No charges are ever filed. And someone is convinced that YOU, of all people, are part of a plot to blow up the University of Auburn. It's bad intel... but hell... BAD INTEL has happened before, right? We've invaded on bad intel in the past! So, what's one person's rights... YOURS, specifically... compared to the goal of saving thousands? (2) And then you're waterboarded to gain the information that you don't have. Not once or twice but DOZENS of times. Or you're sent to Poland or Egypt, where even worse occurs. What then? - Signy

Q: why is it ok to shoot 3 pirates in the head to save 1person, but wrong to waterboard terrorists to save thousands?- rappy

Because it's VERY CLEAR that these people are in the middle of an act of piracy! It's a little like shooting someone who's invading your home. But you don't go shooting your neighbor, or the bum down the street because you THINK he MIGHT invade your home. You need EVIDENCE. And that's what the COURTS are for: to determine if there is enough EVIDENCE to warrant an abrgation or YOUR rights. -Signy

Sig, As usual, you present a false dichotomy with your question. A ridiculous premise.-rappy

No rappy, it's you with the false dichotomy. You keep thinking it's safety OR civil rights. In reality, you DON'T have to give up one for the other. -Signy

As usual, you have no case.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:23 PM

Declassified Report: Bush Admin Solicited Torture 'Wish List,' Ordered 'Communist' Tactics"

Quote:
"In SERE training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions," the report reads. "The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:40 PM

Quote:

Chris,

So make it unofficial? Do it, but don't fess up to it? That's even worse, IMO.

Okay, real quick-like, because I'm on my way to a meeting...

You're saying we should make policies of torture and abuse OFFICIAL?

Look, I realize that abuses happen. My Lai happened. There were certainly periods in WWII where an American soldier could have taken Germans or Japanese prisoners, but didn't, and killed them instead. Are you saying that, rather than treat such incidents as "a few bad apples" as you claim they were at Abu Ghraib, we should codify, sanctify, and make official these bad actions? That's certainly what it sounds like.

You might make a case that shit happens in the heat of battle, or that lines might be crossed now and then, but to say that you condone it and want it to be policy sounds like madness. How is this morally any better or intrinsically different than trying to codify and implement a "Final Solution" to "the Jewish problem"?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:46 PM

Quote:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Geezer:
Besides, with just the threat of prosecutions he'll be making the Democratic faithful - who want Bush & Co.waterboarded, regardless of "moral bearings" - very happy. Start actual trials and they'll be dancing in the streets with towels and waterbuckets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this may be the ugliest thing you've ever said on this board, Geezer. You seem to think waterboarding is a joke, that calling waterboarding torture is a joke.

He also seems to think that those of us who have spoken out consistently AGAINST torture and waterboarding now are in favor of it as long as its used against those we disagree with politically.

I find that abhorrent. If you'll recall - or go back and read my previous posts if you can't remember - I have been against torture FOR ANYONE, simply on the basis that what you do to my enemy for convenience's sake today, you'll do to ME tomorrow for the same reason.

I have no double standards when it comes to torture. It's wrong no matter who you do it to, and it's equally wrong no matter who's doing it.

Now, you MAY find that I've cracked wise about Rappy and his friends being waterboarded, but you won't find that I've condoned this idea, only that I find it rather ironic that NOW he's against it, but only if it applies to people he agrees with politically.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

RUE

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:51 PM

I have to leave but

It wasn't just a few bad apples, it was policy from the highest levels.

And, as SignyM pointed out quite a while ago, people don't want to make torture do-able (it's always do-able ), they want to make it LEGAL. So that those who do torture suffer no consequences. As she said earlier - it should remain illegal - and consequential - for those who chose it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:53 PM

What did you call him? Occasional patriot?

Indeed!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Declassified Report: Bush Admin Solicited Torture 'Wish List,' Ordered 'Communist' Tactics"
Quote:
"In SERE training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions," the report reads. "The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

I have heard some on the right try to use the military's SERE training as an example of why doing this to terror suspects can't be considered torture. It's a bullshit proposition from the outset, and here's why:

You're taking the actions of someone who volunteered for SERE training and applying the same rationale to someone who is being subjected to this treatment BY FORCE. For one thing, the guy who volunteered knows, with a very high degree of certainty, that he is not going to be killed or allowed to die by his compatriots who are training him. He has trust in them and their abilities and motivations. The prisoner has no such trust or expectation, especially when his captors keep yelling at him that they are going to kill him, he is going to die. He has every reason to believe that this is true, and that he is indeed about to be killed in some horrific way.

Secondly, the argument seems to set up the premise that because it happened, no long-term psychological or physical damage can be inflicted. After all, the people who underwent this abuse voluntarily didn't report many instances of PTSD, right? So how could it harm someone who had no idea what was being done to him, or why?

That argument falls apart with a very simple comparison. There is consensual sex, and there is rape. According to the logic of the SERE proponents, rape wouldn't cause any long-term psychological damage to a woman if she had ever had consensual sex, because the physicalities involved are remarkably similar. Therefore, rape shouldn't even be considered a crime, since sex is something that others have volunteered for, and they've come out of it unscathed.

If that analogy offends you, it should. Just as torture offends me, and for the same reasons.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What did you call him? Occasional patriot?

Indeed!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

I was going to borrow Sarah Vowell's "partly-cloudy patriot" label, but I was afraid it would go over the heads of too many of those it was aimed at... so "occasional patriot" it is!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I think this may be the ugliest thing you've ever said on this board, Geezer. You seem to think waterboarding is a joke, that calling waterboarding torture is a joke.

Do you?

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/8608/0/Oh_Snap.ashx

I have seen several online disucssions, and participated in several face-to-face discussions, where folk of a Liberal bent have called for waterboarding Bush, Cheney, et.al., to "...let them see what it's like", or "Since they're terrorists too, it should be okay."

I realize these folk were mostly engaging in hyperbole, but the wish was still there. I'm sure they'd be happy to see the Bushites harried through the Federal courts for years.

And no, I don't think waterboarding is a joke. I don't think car-bombing markets in Baghdad, or destroying girls' schools in Afghanistan are jokes either, and those things happen much more frequently, and have much direr consequences, than whatever waterboarding the U.S. has done.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:26 PM

Quote:
I realize these folk were mostly engaging in hyperbole, but the wish was still there

That's a contradiction.

hyperbole: A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I realize these folk were mostly engaging in hyperbole, but the wish was still there
That's a contradiction.

hyperbole: A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

Not really. They wanted Bush & Co. to suffer, so they exaggerated the punishment to make a point and to reference it to the waterboarding controversy. That's called hyperbole.

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

Google 'waterboard Bush' (text or image) and see how many hits you get. Either those folk were engaged in hyperbole - wanting some punishment, but exaggerating to waterboarding for effect - or they're just liars.

BTW are you denying that folks stated they wanted to "waterboard Bush", or just saying that they were exaggerating?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:52 PM

The way you phrased it sounded like... I know they were engaging in hyperbole but they STILL wanted to waterboard Bush.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:55 PM

Mikey, what's even stupider about SERE is that it doesn't work.

There's a certain method and manner to effectively resisting a forcible interrogation - hell, given all the other beans imma spillin, I might even post it.

You might find it... informative.

-F

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Mikey, what's even stupider about SERE is that it doesn't work.

There's a certain method and manner to effectively resisting a forcible interrogation - hell, given all the other beans imma spillin, I might even post it.

You might find it... informative.

-F

Shit, Frem, at the rate things are going, and given my political leanings, I might find it NECESSARY.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You have less than no case.

YOU have less than no brains.

So where does that leave you?

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I have to leave but

It wasn't just a few bad apples, it was policy from the highest levels.

Well you know that and I know that, but I was trying to give Rappy the benefit of the doubt. He's been insisting that this was only a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib, but now he seems to want to enact and enshrine a POLICY of abuse and torture. Seems it was wrong when a few did it, but if we can get EVERYONE behind it, it will just be awesome.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You have less than no case.

YOU have less than no brains.

So where does that leave you?

Still twice as smart as the average Democrat and a veritable Stephen Hawking compared to you.

RUE

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:18 PM

So, Rap
I don't remember - did you ever answer my question ? What if officials are found guilty of war crimes after a duly consituted trial ? Will you still be claiming there was no torture ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, Rap
I don't remember - did you ever answer my question ? What if officials are found guilty of war crimes after a duly consituted trial ? Will you still be claiming there was no torture ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

It'll be a kangaroo court, plain and simple. There won't BE any " duly constituted " trial. Obama seems to be reacting to his kook, fringe base. The economy is still tanking, there's corruption in the TARP $$ being found, ( dead Freddie Mac CFO , folks )

There needs to be a diversion!

*edit* Just look at the time line. Obama said back before he was in office, that we needed to 'move on'. He said as recent as last week, there's no need to prosecute those who were acting in good faith. Even on Sunday, the same thing, then just 2 days later....what changed ?

RUE

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:27 PM

"There needs to be a diversion!"

And if that diversion come 18 months from now ? Or two or more years ? What will you say then, when it is obviously not a diversion of the moment ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"There needs to be a diversion!"

And if that diversion come 18 months from now ? Or two or more years ? What will you say then, when it is obviously not a diversion of the moment ?

*

A held card is still just that. A card. Doesn't matter if Obama holds on to it or plays it at a later date.

RUE

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:34 PM

And what if there is nothing going on then ? What if it all happens under the authority of the DoJ and Obama has nothing to do with it ?

What will you say then ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:51 PM

There's never 'nothing' going on. If it's a slow news day, they'll invent something.

Look at how well Global Warming has caught on. That's totally bogus, and now everyone has bought into it.

Well, almost everyone.

RUE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:00 AM

So, you've got an all-purpose explanation - they'll use it if there's nothing to report ! they'll use it if there's something to distract from !

Which means, of course, it explains nothing, b/c it's just based on random chance.

But let's say it's not particularly highlighted by the news media. It goes along like the original trial of the original WTC bombing suspects (now inmates).

What will you say then ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:24 AM

You never explained how or why the sudden reversal of position from EVERYthing Obama's said , apparently for no damn reason.

Maybe he read Hugo's book, and felt especially moved to stick it to the United States, just a bit more.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You never explained how or why the sudden reversal of position from EVERYthing Obama's said , apparently for no damn reason.

That's not really even the case.
It's no ruttin' use discussing ANYTHING political with you. The "Leftiest" person here still has three times the objectivity needed to see their own possible bias of opinion that you do.

You, my friend, have ZERO level reliable self-diagnostic installed.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:43 AM

You didn't answer the question.

Hell, you didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE it!

There are FOUR lights!!!!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

There are FOUR lights!!!!

Yes, and they stop swirling 'round your head when you cease drinking the NeoCool-Ade.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:53 AM

C'mon Clair, answer the question! It's just a simple question, why won't you answer ?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There's never 'nothing' going on. If it's a slow news day, they'll invent something.

Look at how well Global Warming has caught on. That's totally bogus, and now everyone has bought into it.

Well, almost everyone.

Yes, and look at Iraq and the WMD, and how quickly that caught on, and how everyone bought into it.

Well, *almost* everyone

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
C'mon Clair, answer the question! It's just a simple question, why won't you answer ?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Why? You won't. I'll post this for the third time, since you couldn't be bothered to respond to it the first two times:

Quote:

Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.

Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...

Why won't you answer the question, Claire?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Yes, and look at Iraq and the WMD, and how quickly that caught on, and how everyone bought into it.

Well, *almost* everyone

Mike

From Clinton to Bush. Yeah, fooled a lot of folks.

RUE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:01 AM

"You never explained how or why the sudden reversal of position ..."

I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you ask me a question ?

Or were you misunderstanding Obama ? When he said no prosecution for CIA AGENTS b/c they were acting in good faith on the advice given them, I thought it was pretty distinct from whether or not the AUTHORS OF THE POLICIES - ie those in charge - would be prosecuted.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You never explained how or why the sudden reversal of position ..."

I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you ask me a question ?

Or were you misunderstanding Obama ? When he said no prosecution for CIA AGENTS b/c they were acting in good faith on the advice given them, I thought it was pretty distinct from whether or not the AUTHORS OF THE POLICIES - ie those in charge - would be prosecuted.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Yeah, Rue, he "misunderestimated" Obama's statements, and thought that when Obama said he wasn't going after the interrogators, he meant he wasn't going to even address the issue at all anymore.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:41 AM

Kwickie, I'll continue to ignore your silly question because it's completely irrelevant.

I was asking Chrissy to answer the question on why Obama changed his position on going after those who authored, gave their official, legal opinion.

There's no way to spin this either. Obama flip flopped worse than Kerry ever did, and that's saying a great deal.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kwickie, I'll continue to ignore your silly question because it's completely irrelevant.

Which means you have no answer, so you'll slink away like the gutless coward that you truly are.

I win!

Quote:

I was asking Chrissy to answer the question on why Obama changed his position on going after those who authored, gave their official, legal opinion.

Except that isn't what Obama said at all. Man, you really ARE dense, aren't you?

Quote:

There's no way to spin this either. Obama flip flopped worse than Kerry ever did, and that's saying a great deal.

No, a TRUE flip-flop would be if he said something asinine like "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" - and then spent another 5+ years there, and increased troop numbers and length and number of deployments. Now THAT would be a classic flip-flop. Gotta hand it to your boy Dubya on really showing the rest of the world how to pull of a truly world-class fuck-up of a statement.

As usual, you have no case AND you have no answers.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:23 AM

And since you keep ducking and dodging, I'll keep bringing it up:

Quote:

Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.

Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...

C'mon, ANSWER THE QUESTION! Hell, you're all about playing your little hypothetical "what if" games when you're cheerleading torture as the answer to all your problems. Why won't you address the idea of someone else doing it to one of our citizens?

Is it because you're "yella"?

Yeah, I figured as much.

Run away, little boy, and hide under your mommy's skirt.

Mike

Edited to fix typo.

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

GEEZER

Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:02 PM

After a bit more consideration, I'm kinda doubting that there'll be any serious investigations at all. Such reviews have a tendency to spread from the original charges to find other possible offenses. Suppose an investigation of the Bush Administration spreads from interrogation techniques to, say, attacking people in countries allied to us with armed drones and killing civilians. Oops.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:34 PM

Major combat operations WERE over. There was no army to engage any longer.

I love how the Left lies and distorts the facts so they can continue to bitch an moan. It's all you know how to do. And it shows.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Major combat operations WERE over. There was no army to engage any longer.

I love how the Left lies and distorts the facts so they can continue to bitch an moan. It's all you know how to do. And it shows.

How many U.S. soldiers have died since major combat operations ended? How many of Iraq's "non-army" have we had to fight, and how many of our guys have they killed?

Guess it's a good thing they don't have an army, huh?

And by the way, while I've got your attention...

Quote:

Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.

Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...

Guess you still can't come up with an answer, huh? Rush hasn't told you what to think about this scenario, has he?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:32 PM

Lots have died since then, but they didn't die in major combat operations. Your point ?

If they were to view the reporter as a spy, ( not a terrorist ) , then she'd either be shot or sentenced to life in prison. They have no evidence , this is just a game the tyrants are playing to make the U.S. look less powerful. The fact the reporter is a woman is of significant meaning to the Iranians and the muslim world. She's an example of what they DON'T want.