Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, CIA, Tenet, Rice Personally Approved Waterboarding And Other Torture.

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Yay. Moral equivalence.

Do I approve of rape in certain circumstances? Damn skippy I do. When some animal abducts children and rapes them in his basement I hope he gets his in return in PITA prison for the reminader of his days.

It's a very specific circumstance, but the use of waterboarding should be as well.

Well, that is evil. There's really nothing else that needs to be said. Truly we have met the enemy and he is us.

Evil? What's evil? You looking the other way because some guy raped children and you are sure it was Bush's fault?

I'm not even sure what your post means, or where Bush came into it. Had some to drink this afternoon?

If you are asking if allowing someone to be raped is evil, then my answer is yes. It doesn't matter who the person is, it's not justice, it's evil. Similarly, torturing someone is always evil. You can believe that torture's okay sometimes all you want, but I believe that makes you evil as well.

As mentioned before, to fight the terrorists you want to become many of the same things that they are. That's why I said we have met the enemy and he is us. (specifically you)

You mean we can't just cast aspersions in here by yanking any old accusations out of our butts?

Well, damn. You'd never know that by reading the responses to my posts in this place.

You are making even less sense then usual right now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte
wow thanks for the great sig material TLC

"Do I approve of rape in certain circumstances? Damn skippy I do."

Don't forget to include the rest.

Oh, that's right. People like you have no qualms about taking quotes out of context for your own purposes in order to misrepresent what someone actually said. The only way you guys can make a point is through dishonesty.

Oh, but you have the moral high ground.

roll;

How is it being dishonest? How does leaving out the example you follow your statement with change the meaning of it?

Don't play stupid. It doesn't suit you.

You accused him of being dishonest. Show how his selection of your words substantively changed the nature of your argument by omitting your example. You think raping people is occasionally okay.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte
wow thanks for the great sig material TLC

"Do I approve of rape in certain circumstances? Damn skippy I do."

Don't forget to include the rest.

Oh, that's right. People like you have no qualms about taking quotes out of context for your own purposes in order to misrepresent what someone actually said. The only way you guys can make a point is through dishonesty.

Oh, but you have the moral high ground.

roll;

How is it being dishonest? How does leaving out the example you follow your statement with change the meaning of it?

Don't play stupid. It doesn't suit you.

You accused him of being dishonest. Show how his selection of your words substantively changed the nature of your argument by omitting your example. You think raping people is occasionally okay.

So I assume that you completely support pedophile child rapists then?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Do I approve of rape in certain circumstances? Damn skippy I do.

So I assume that you completely support pedophile child rapists then?

Yes, you support rape in some circumstances.
No, you don't necessarily support pedophile rapists.

Don't play stupid. It doesn't suit you.

edit: bolding

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte
wow thanks for the great sig material TLC

"Do I approve of rape in certain circumstances? Damn skippy I do."

Don't forget to include the rest.

Oh, that's right. People like you have no qualms about taking quotes out of context for your own purposes in order to misrepresent what someone actually said. The only way you guys can make a point is through dishonesty.

Oh, but you have the moral high ground.

roll;

your words.

not mine.

Am I misunderstanding your words?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Do I approve of rape in certain circumstances? Damn skippy I do.

So I assume that you completely support pedophile child rapists then?

Yes, you support rape in some circumstances.
No, you don't necessarily support pedophile rapists.

Don't play stupid. It doesn't suit you.

edit: bolding

Don't get bent out of shape when I play the very same game they are playing with me. If you had any integrity and honesty at all, you wouldn't. Instead you'd recognize the bullshit for exactly what it is.

But thanks for the fine demonstration of how ideological one-sided so many in here are and how they are more than happy to employ intellectual dishonesty on their side when it suits them.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte
wow thanks for the great sig material TLC

"Do I approve of rape in certain circumstances? Damn skippy I do."

Don't forget to include the rest.

Oh, that's right. People like you have no qualms about taking quotes out of context for your own purposes in order to misrepresent what someone actually said. The only way you guys can make a point is through dishonesty.

Oh, but you have the moral high ground.

roll;

How is it being dishonest? How does leaving out the example you follow your statement with change the meaning of it?

Don't play stupid. It doesn't suit you.

You accused him of being dishonest. Show how his selection of your words substantively changed the nature of your argument by omitting your example. You think raping people is occasionally okay.

So I assume that you completely support pedophile child rapists then?

Yeah, because he doesn't support the raping of pedophiles, he obviously completely supports child-raping pedophiles.

:roll:

I don't support the idea of raping DUI offenders, so I guess I totally support the right to drive drunk.

:roll:

Sometimes, your consistent and concrete support of Bush and Cheney surprise me. Then I remember you're TLC.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre
So I assume that you completely support pedophile child rapists then?

Yeah, because he doesn't support the raping of pedophiles, he obviously completely supports child-raping pedophiles.

:roll:

I don't support the idea of raping DUI offenders, so I guess I totally support the right to drive drunk.

:roll:

Sometimes, your consistent and concrete support of Bush and Cheney surprise me. Then I remember you're TLC.

So now it's clear. You guys fully support the sliming and maligning tactics in here, except when those very same tactics are used against ya'll.

Thought so. That medicine doesn't taste so good when you have to swallow it instead of spoon it out, eh?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre
So I assume that you completely support pedophile child rapists then?

Yeah, because he doesn't support the raping of pedophiles, he obviously completely supports child-raping pedophiles.

:roll:

I don't support the idea of raping DUI offenders, so I guess I totally support the right to drive drunk.

:roll:

Sometimes, your consistent and concrete support of Bush and Cheney surprise me. Then I remember you're TLC.

So now it's clear. You guys fully support the sliming and maligning tactics in here, except when those very same tactics are used against ya'll.

Thought so. That medicine doesn't taste so good when you have to swallow it instead of spoon it out, eh?

I gotta ask. WTF are you talking about?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre
So I assume that you completely support pedophile child rapists then?

Yeah, because he doesn't support the raping of pedophiles, he obviously completely supports child-raping pedophiles.

:roll:

I don't support the idea of raping DUI offenders, so I guess I totally support the right to drive drunk.

:roll:

Sometimes, your consistent and concrete support of Bush and Cheney surprise me. Then I remember you're TLC.

So now it's clear. You guys fully support the sliming and maligning tactics in here, except when those very same tactics are used against ya'll.

Thought so. That medicine doesn't taste so good when you have to swallow it instead of spoon it out, eh?

I gotta ask. WTF are you talking about?

You cannot seriously be THAT oblivious.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't get bent out of shape when I play the very same game they are playing with me. If you had any integrity and honesty at all, you wouldn't. Instead you'd recognize the bullshit for exactly what it is.
But thanks for the fine demonstration of how ideological one-sided so many in here are and how they are more than happy to employ intellectual dishonesty on their side when it suits them.

I see:
"They did it first" is a full and adequate justification for whatever action you wish to rationalize.
Anyone who questions your ethics lacks integrity and honesty.
Anyone who disputes your viewpoint is ideologically one-sided and intellectually dishonest.
Thank you for clarifying.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You cannot seriously be THAT oblivious.

You're right.

But you can, at will.

So, I'm just gonna back on out of this thread.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't get bent out of shape when I play the very same game they are playing with me. If you had any integrity and honesty at all, you wouldn't. Instead you'd recognize the bullshit for exactly what it is.
But thanks for the fine demonstration of how ideological one-sided so many in here are and how they are more than happy to employ intellectual dishonesty on their side when it suits them.

I see:
"They did it first" is a full and adequate justification for whatever action you wish to rationalize.
Anyone who questions your ethics lacks integrity and honesty.
Anyone who disputes your viewpoint is ideologically one-sided and intellectually dishonest.
Thank you for clarifying.

iow, you'll only complain about that game when those of the ideological position you don't agree with uses them.

Thought so. Thanks for further reinforcing my point.

:thumbsup:

 

[JSt0rm]

trying to read back 10 or so posts I have no idea where this thing has gone. lol.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, you'll only complain about that game when those of the ideological position you don't agree with uses them.

I tend to complain about such tactics when used by those of any ideology. I admit I found your pro-torture stand especially distasteful, and judged your use of fallacious argument more blatant than most others in this thread; however, unless you have some argument supporting "harsh interrogation techniques" beyond what you have posted so far, I need not apologize for singling out your posts for comment.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
trying to read back 10 or so posts I have no idea where this thing has gone. lol.

So TLC's job is done here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, you'll only complain about that game when those of the ideological position you don't agree with uses them.

I tend to complain about such tactics when used by those of any ideology. I admit I found your pro-torture stand especially distasteful, and judged your use of fallacious argument more blatant than most others in this thread; however, unless you have some argument supporting "harsh interrogation techniques" beyond what you have posted so far, I need not apologize for singling out your posts for comment.

I'm not pro-torture. I'm for waterboarding under very specific circumstances. Saying I'm pro-torture is like claiming I'm pro-rape because I support rape under very specific circumstances (without actually mentioning what those circumstances are).

Maybe the difference between me and others in here is that I have no empathy whatsoever for complete scumbags and my ideological opposition does? Sorry. I'm not going to apologize for not having a soft-spot for scumbags.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The problem with the Ticking Time Bomb fantasy is that somebody being tortured could simply lie, blurt out whatever came to mind, and the torturers would be checkmated, because they'd have to send people to thoroughly check out the location the prisoner mentioned, wasting valuable time looking into the information the prisoner gave (and also forced to keep the prisoner alive, just in case they need to torture him some more), and also unsure if future torture sessions would produce any more reliable information, by which time, the "ticking time bomb" would surely have gone off. The best thing a torture victim could do would be to lie about where the "ticking time bomb" is, because it buys him time, and puts the torturers in a bind about the reliability of the prisoner's information. Or maybe ask them "Wait, which bomb?" just to mess with them. Seems like informants would be a better way to go than torturing prisoners.

The fantasy itself, while great at a pointlessly melodramatic evocative image, reveals the actual limitations of torture as a means of extracting information. It's pretty gross to think that this is even part of American political discourse. What next? A discussion of whether it's better to break fingers or pull teeth?

The real ticking time bomb is allowing torture into everyday American political practice. What next, an Office of Coercive Interrogations? Or do you go Orwellian on it, like the Ministry of Information? Or get Gilliamesque with it, like Information Retrieval, with the receptionist taking torture dictation? Torture denigrates both the perpetrator of it and the victim of it, and has no place in civilized society.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, you'll only complain about that game when those of the ideological position you don't agree with uses them.

I tend to complain about such tactics when used by those of any ideology. I admit I found your pro-torture stand especially distasteful, and judged your use of fallacious argument more blatant than most others in this thread; however, unless you have some argument supporting "harsh interrogation techniques" beyond what you have posted so far, I need not apologize for singling out your posts for comment.

I'm not pro-torture. I'm for waterboarding under very specific circumstances. Saying I'm pro-torture is like claiming I'm pro-rape because I support rape under very specific circumstances (without actually mentioning what those circumstances are).

Maybe the difference between me and others in here is that I have no empathy whatsoever for complete scumbags and my ideological opposition does? Sorry. I'm not going to apologize for not having a soft-spot for scumbags.

What makes you think opposition to torture has anything to do with empathy for a specific scumbag or set of scumbags? There are far reaching negative consequences to torturing prisoners that aren't reversed by pointing out that the guy you were torturing was a bad guy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The problem with the Ticking Time Bomb fantasy is that somebody being tortured could simply lie, blurt out whatever came to mind, and the torturers would be checkmated, because they'd have to send people to thoroughly check out the location the prisoner mentioned, wasting valuable time looking into the information the prisoner gave (and also forced to keep the prisoner alive, just in case they need to torture him some more), and also unsure if future torture sessions would produce any more reliable information, by which time, the "ticking time bomb" would surely have gone off. The best thing a torture victim could do would be to lie about where the "ticking time bomb" is, because it buys him time, and puts the torturers in a bind about the reliability of the prisoner's information. Or maybe ask them "Wait, which bomb?" just to mess with them. Seems like informants would be a better way to go than torturing prisoners.

The fantasy itself, while great at a pointlessly melodramatic evocative image, reveals the actual limitations of torture as a means of extracting information. It's pretty gross to think that this is even part of American political discourse. What next? A discussion of whether it's better to break fingers or pull teeth?

The real ticking time bomb is allowing torture into everyday American political practice. What next, an Office of Coercive Interrogations? Or do you go Orwellian on it, like the Ministry of Information? Or get Gilliamesque with it, like Information Retrieval, with the receptionist taking torture dictation? Torture denigrates both the perpetrator of it and the victim of it, and has no place in civilized society.

Humans have been capturing war prisoners and interrogating them for millenia. I imagine the potential that someone might lie under torture has been considered in our past.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The problem with the Ticking Time Bomb fantasy is that somebody being tortured could simply lie, blurt out whatever came to mind, and the torturers would be checkmated, because they'd have to send people to thoroughly check out the location the prisoner mentioned, wasting valuable time looking into the information the prisoner gave (and also forced to keep the prisoner alive, just in case they need to torture him some more), and also unsure if future torture sessions would produce any more reliable information, by which time, the "ticking time bomb" would surely have gone off. The best thing a torture victim could do would be to lie about where the "ticking time bomb" is, because it buys him time, and puts the torturers in a bind about the reliability of the prisoner's information. Or maybe ask them "Wait, which bomb?" just to mess with them. Seems like informants would be a better way to go than torturing prisoners.

The fantasy itself, while great at a pointlessly melodramatic evocative image, reveals the actual limitations of torture as a means of extracting information. It's pretty gross to think that this is even part of American political discourse. What next? A discussion of whether it's better to break fingers or pull teeth?

The real ticking time bomb is allowing torture into everyday American political practice. What next, an Office of Coercive Interrogations? Or do you go Orwellian on it, like the Ministry of Information? Or get Gilliamesque with it, like Information Retrieval, with the receptionist taking torture dictation? Torture denigrates both the perpetrator of it and the victim of it, and has no place in civilized society.

Humans have been capturing war prisoners and interrogating them for millenia. I imagine the potential that someone might lie under torture has been considered in our past.

The methods of detention and interrogation, including those of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold cells, stress positions, and the like, adopted by the Bush Administrationm, were pioneered by Jacob Yeshov [Stalin's secret police chief] in order to elicit confessions devised as a part of the "scripting" of Stalin's purge trials. Those methods were not, and are not, useful for the purpose of eliciting "facts", only "confessions". Their credibility and use relied on the skill of the script writers, the perfidy of the prosecutors, and the complicity of the courts.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, you'll only complain about that game when those of the ideological position you don't agree with uses them.

I tend to complain about such tactics when used by those of any ideology. I admit I found your pro-torture stand especially distasteful, and judged your use of fallacious argument more blatant than most others in this thread; however, unless you have some argument supporting "harsh interrogation techniques" beyond what you have posted so far, I need not apologize for singling out your posts for comment.

I'm not pro-torture. I'm for waterboarding under very specific circumstances. Saying I'm pro-torture is like claiming I'm pro-rape because I support rape under very specific circumstances (without actually mentioning what those circumstances are).

Maybe the difference between me and others in here is that I have no empathy whatsoever for complete scumbags and my ideological opposition does? Sorry. I'm not going to apologize for not having a soft-spot for scumbags.

What makes you think opposition to torture has anything to do with empathy for a specific scumbag or set of scumbags? There are far reaching negative consequences to torturing prisoners that aren't reversed by pointing out that the guy you were torturing was a bad guy.

What consequences are those?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The problem with the Ticking Time Bomb fantasy is that somebody being tortured could simply lie, blurt out whatever came to mind, and the torturers would be checkmated, because they'd have to send people to thoroughly check out the location the prisoner mentioned, wasting valuable time looking into the information the prisoner gave (and also forced to keep the prisoner alive, just in case they need to torture him some more), and also unsure if future torture sessions would produce any more reliable information, by which time, the "ticking time bomb" would surely have gone off. The best thing a torture victim could do would be to lie about where the "ticking time bomb" is, because it buys him time, and puts the torturers in a bind about the reliability of the prisoner's information. Or maybe ask them "Wait, which bomb?" just to mess with them. Seems like informants would be a better way to go than torturing prisoners.

The fantasy itself, while great at a pointlessly melodramatic evocative image, reveals the actual limitations of torture as a means of extracting information. It's pretty gross to think that this is even part of American political discourse. What next? A discussion of whether it's better to break fingers or pull teeth?

The real ticking time bomb is allowing torture into everyday American political practice. What next, an Office of Coercive Interrogations? Or do you go Orwellian on it, like the Ministry of Information? Or get Gilliamesque with it, like Information Retrieval, with the receptionist taking torture dictation? Torture denigrates both the perpetrator of it and the victim of it, and has no place in civilized society.

Humans have been capturing war prisoners and interrogating them for millenia. I imagine the potential that someone might lie under torture has been considered in our past.

The methods of detention and interrogation, including those of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold cells, stress positions, and the like, adopted by the Bush Administrationm, were pioneered by Jacob Yeshov [Stalin's secret police chief] in order to elicit confessions devised as a part of the "scripting" of Stalin's purge trials. Those methods were not, and are not, useful for the purpose of eliciting "facts", only "confessions". Their credibility and use relied on the skill of the script writers, the perfidy of the prosecutors, and the complicity of the courts.

I confess that, as a kid, I used to love to launch rockets. So did the Nazis.

Damn! Guilty as charged.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The problem with the Ticking Time Bomb fantasy is that somebody being tortured could simply lie, blurt out whatever came to mind, and the torturers would be checkmated, because they'd have to send people to thoroughly check out the location the prisoner mentioned, wasting valuable time looking into the information the prisoner gave (and also forced to keep the prisoner alive, just in case they need to torture him some more), and also unsure if future torture sessions would produce any more reliable information, by which time, the "ticking time bomb" would surely have gone off. The best thing a torture victim could do would be to lie about where the "ticking time bomb" is, because it buys him time, and puts the torturers in a bind about the reliability of the prisoner's information. Or maybe ask them "Wait, which bomb?" just to mess with them. Seems like informants would be a better way to go than torturing prisoners.

The fantasy itself, while great at a pointlessly melodramatic evocative image, reveals the actual limitations of torture as a means of extracting information. It's pretty gross to think that this is even part of American political discourse. What next? A discussion of whether it's better to break fingers or pull teeth?

The real ticking time bomb is allowing torture into everyday American political practice. What next, an Office of Coercive Interrogations? Or do you go Orwellian on it, like the Ministry of Information? Or get Gilliamesque with it, like Information Retrieval, with the receptionist taking torture dictation? Torture denigrates both the perpetrator of it and the victim of it, and has no place in civilized society.

Humans have been capturing war prisoners and interrogating them for millenia. I imagine the potential that someone might lie under torture has been considered in our past.

The methods of detention and interrogation, including those of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold cells, stress positions, and the like, adopted by the Bush Administrationm, were pioneered by Jacob Yeshov [Stalin's secret police chief] in order to elicit confessions devised as a part of the "scripting" of Stalin's purge trials. Those methods were not, and are not, useful for the purpose of eliciting "facts", only "confessions". Their credibility and use relied on the skill of the script writers, the perfidy of the prosecutors, and the complicity of the courts.

I confess that, as a kid, I used to love to launch rockets. So did the Nazis.

Damn! Guilty as charged.

And as an adult you support a president who has done much damage to our country and has given the green light to methods of interrogation that totally go against our moral values.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, you'll only complain about that game when those of the ideological position you don't agree with uses them.

I tend to complain about such tactics when used by those of any ideology. I admit I found your pro-torture stand especially distasteful, and judged your use of fallacious argument more blatant than most others in this thread; however, unless you have some argument supporting "harsh interrogation techniques" beyond what you have posted so far, I need not apologize for singling out your posts for comment.

I'm not pro-torture. I'm for waterboarding under very specific circumstances. Saying I'm pro-torture is like claiming I'm pro-rape because I support rape under very specific circumstances (without actually mentioning what those circumstances are).

Maybe the difference between me and others in here is that I have no empathy whatsoever for complete scumbags and my ideological opposition does? Sorry. I'm not going to apologize for not having a soft-spot for scumbags.

Do you have empathy for innocent people who are tortured, and now suing us for violating their human rights?