Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[Fear No Evil]

Anyone smell that?

Thats the smell of a libbie circle jerk against TLC.. This thread has run its course like 25 times over. Lock it up or something. Its torture having to read it.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte

yes yes this is the argument where you state that all waterboarding is not equal like some waterboarding belongs in a water park attraction. oy vey.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

:roll:

Lets not bring other countries and their laws into the argument...right TLC? otherwise we would also have to include UN treaties that the US is signatory on.... right TLC?

lets just focus on US law. And the fact that US law once defined waterboarding under the definition of torture...and per GWBs executive order back in 2002 that was changed.

all for the war on terror.

US law is the only law that is binding in this case, in this country.

wow you are quick with the deflections!! wtg!!

edit: Id also like to add that legally speaking the arguments have yet to be made before a judge. Morally speaking....waterbaording has never changed since the freaking 1500s....yet you argue that its not torture and its no big deal...thats pretty sad.

Actually, the legal arguments need to be crafted long before this ever gets in front of a judge.

I don't think you can make the case that waterboarding someone till they pass out - and using it judiciously, with very specific restrictions placed upon it along with monitoring to prevent any harm coming to the person being waterboarded - are the identical thing either. However, I know those distinctions are inconvenient to your argument so keep on ignoring them. Everyone else has.

it doesnt matter whatever distinctions YOU choose to create. the bottom line is GWB had to issue an order in order to change the rules regarding torture.

and you divert and go off tangents in order to avoid that fact

if this was a court of law you would get cruciified

US Law defined waterboarding as torture. GWB CHANGED THAT and you are ok with it

congrats

 

[Lemon law]

Constitutional law point, the President of the United States enforces the laws passed by congress, the Judicial branch can rule certain laws passed by congress and signed by the President as unconstitutional, and the only thing the President can do is enforce existing laws.

At no point can the US President make any laws.

But Fear NO Evil may have a point, it must be torture to be on the wrong side of the argument for Fear NO Evil. Fear NO Evil, we invite you to realize you are wrong and leave the dark side losing argument behind where it belongs, in the garbage can dust bin of history.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If GWB and Co are ever dragged into court over this and found guilty then I will gladly admit being in error. If they are not, or are found innocent, will you?

ABSOLUTELY!!! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Anyone smell that?

Thats the smell of a libbie circle jerk against TLC.. This thread has run its course like 25 times over. Lock it up or something. Its torture having to read it.

Son, he deserved what he got, you don't spew bullsheit and think that everyone is going to lick it up.

At least no sane man expects that.

Personally, i think you fucking know better too.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If GWB and Co are ever dragged into court over this and found guilty then I will gladly admit being in error. If they are not, or are found innocent, will you?

ABSOLUTELY!!! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't totally agree with Harvey on this, because its my position that the torture is always wrong period regardless of any possible court finding. Courts do not always get it right, or we could find an odd situations where some courts say guilty and others say innocent based on the same evidence.

But I can agree that the courts should put it to the test. And chances are, anything but a totally biased court will quickly reject any of these phony TLC type arguments and bring a verdict of guilty as charged with the released torture memo's acting as confessions of guilt.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte

yes yes this is the argument where you state that all waterboarding is not equal like some waterboarding belongs in a water park attraction. oy vey.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

:roll:

Lets not bring other countries and their laws into the argument...right TLC? otherwise we would also have to include UN treaties that the US is signatory on.... right TLC?

lets just focus on US law. And the fact that US law once defined waterboarding under the definition of torture...and per GWBs executive order back in 2002 that was changed.

all for the war on terror.

US law is the only law that is binding in this case, in this country.

wow you are quick with the deflections!! wtg!!

edit: Id also like to add that legally speaking the arguments have yet to be made before a judge. Morally speaking....waterbaording has never changed since the freaking 1500s....yet you argue that its not torture and its no big deal...thats pretty sad.

Actually, the legal arguments need to be crafted long before this ever gets in front of a judge.

I don't think you can make the case that waterboarding someone till they pass out - and using it judiciously, with very specific restrictions placed upon it along with monitoring to prevent any harm coming to the person being waterboarded - are the identical thing either. However, I know those distinctions are inconvenient to your argument so keep on ignoring them. Everyone else has.

it doesnt matter whatever distinctions YOU choose to create. the bottom line is GWB had to issue an order in order to change the rules regarding torture.

and you divert and go off tangents in order to avoid that fact

if this was a court of law you would get cruciified

US Law defined waterboarding as torture. GWB CHANGED THAT and you are ok with it

congrats

yeah.....that's what I thought.

People out there, we have to cut through the diversions and the tangents and keep these arguments simple.....othwise people like TLC will wear you down with thier bullshit circular arguments and fallacious reasoning. Notice he never ONCE tries to answer my original questions....

wrt waterboarding and torture the arguments are simple and so are the facts. Good day

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If GWB and Co are ever dragged into court over this and found guilty then I will gladly admit being in error. If they are not, or are found innocent, will you?

ABSOLUTELY!!! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't totally agree with Harvey on this, because its my position that the torture is always wrong period regardless of any possible court finding. Courts do not always get it right, or we could find an odd situations where some courts say guilty and others say innocent based on the same evidence.

But I can agree that the courts should put it to the test. And chances are, anything but a totally biased court will quickly reject any of these phony TLC type arguments and bring a verdict of guilty as charged with the released torture memo's acting as confessions of guilt.

personally i would be surprised if this goes to court. Because I THINK that would end up challenging the executive authority that GWB developed and BHO now has. rather, i think you will see additional executive orders piled on top of GWBs order reversing GWB policies....

and thats it.

The AG office would have to have an ironclad case aganist the actions of the previous admin in order for it to pursue a case.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, TLC is now down to claiming that the American legal community thinks his position is crap because of their partisanship. I feel like we should invoke the mercy rule on this thread.

Your responses are really getting more and more pathetic. You are really feeling this completely slip away, aren't you, because the desperation in your replies is readily apparent. Mercy needs to be invoked on you.

Haha, now we've come to 'I know you are but what am I!?'

And you wonder why I make fun of you.

I don't wonder. It's because you're a condescending tool, plain and simple. It's what you always do in here when you're backed up against a wall and have no actual rebuttal that's worth the bandwidth or keystrokes.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If GWB and Co are ever dragged into court over this and found guilty then I will gladly admit being in error. If they are not, or are found innocent, will you?

ABSOLUTELY!!! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Great. You're on. First straight answer I've ever seen you make in here, Harvey.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, TLC is now down to claiming that the American legal community thinks his position is crap because of their partisanship. I feel like we should invoke the mercy rule on this thread.

Your responses are really getting more and more pathetic. You are really feeling this completely slip away, aren't you, because the desperation in your replies is readily apparent. Mercy needs to be invoked on you.

Haha, now we've come to 'I know you are but what am I!?'

And you wonder why I make fun of you.

I don't wonder. It's because you're a condescending tool, plain and simple. It's what you always do in here when you're backed up against a wall and have no actual rebuttal that's worth the bandwidth or keystrokes.

I have to admit TLC, you're a confusing creature. I really don't know how to deal with someone who continually declares victory even in the face of obvious, ignominious defeat. I mean you have all these people piling on you for being an idiot, you've been repeatedly owned in this thread, and you just keep shrilly declaring that you've won.

Not really a play in my playbook for that one. I'm at a bit of a loss.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte

yes yes this is the argument where you state that all waterboarding is not equal like some waterboarding belongs in a water park attraction. oy vey.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

:roll:

Lets not bring other countries and their laws into the argument...right TLC? otherwise we would also have to include UN treaties that the US is signatory on.... right TLC?

lets just focus on US law. And the fact that US law once defined waterboarding under the definition of torture...and per GWBs executive order back in 2002 that was changed.

all for the war on terror.

US law is the only law that is binding in this case, in this country.

wow you are quick with the deflections!! wtg!!

edit: Id also like to add that legally speaking the arguments have yet to be made before a judge. Morally speaking....waterbaording has never changed since the freaking 1500s....yet you argue that its not torture and its no big deal...thats pretty sad.

Actually, the legal arguments need to be crafted long before this ever gets in front of a judge.

I don't think you can make the case that waterboarding someone till they pass out - and using it judiciously, with very specific restrictions placed upon it along with monitoring to prevent any harm coming to the person being waterboarded - are the identical thing either. However, I know those distinctions are inconvenient to your argument so keep on ignoring them. Everyone else has.

it doesnt matter whatever distinctions YOU choose to create. the bottom line is GWB had to issue an order in order to change the rules regarding torture.

and you divert and go off tangents in order to avoid that fact

if this was a court of law you would get cruciified

US Law defined waterboarding as torture. GWB CHANGED THAT and you are ok with it

congrats

yeah.....that's what I thought.

People out there, we have to cut through the diversions and the tangents and keep these arguments simple.....othwise people like TLC will wear you down with thier bullshit circular arguments and fallacious reasoning. Notice he never ONCE tries to answer my original questions....

wrt waterboarding and torture the arguments are simple and so are the facts. Good day

erm, are you talking to yourself?

Where did US law define waterboarding as torture before GWB became president?

I'll be waiting for an answer to this one for a long time, because you're wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

erm, are you talking to yourself?

Where did US law define waterboarding as torture before GWB became president?

I'll be waiting for an answer to this one for a long time, because you're wrong.

Guys, don't wind up TLC-bot again unless you want another 5 pages of fagdance. Just pat him on the head and move on.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, TLC is now down to claiming that the American legal community thinks his position is crap because of their partisanship. I feel like we should invoke the mercy rule on this thread.

Your responses are really getting more and more pathetic. You are really feeling this completely slip away, aren't you, because the desperation in your replies is readily apparent. Mercy needs to be invoked on you.

Haha, now we've come to 'I know you are but what am I!?'

And you wonder why I make fun of you.

I don't wonder. It's because you're a condescending tool, plain and simple. It's what you always do in here when you're backed up against a wall and have no actual rebuttal that's worth the bandwidth or keystrokes.

I have to admit TLC, you're a confusing creature. I really don't know how to deal with someone who continually declares victory even in the face of obvious, ignominious defeat. I mean you have all these people piling on you for being an idiot, you've been repeatedly owned in this thread, and you just keep shrilly declaring that you've won.

Not really a play in my playbook for that one. I'm at a bit of a loss.

These people are piling on me because they can't stand any opinion that doesn't toe their talking points line. Nothing new in here. The fist-pounding lefties, along with a few neo-con hating conservatives, have little tolerance for anyone that doesn't see things their way. That's not to mention the fact that the only reponse I've gotten in regard to how the interrogation techniques we used were illegal under US law is, 'Well, because this guy and that guy says so.' Talk about an argument not holding up in court. A judge would rake you over the coals if you tried to present that lameass argument and I have no doubt you know that already. But you try to play the game anyway because you can't seem to bring yourself to make the simple, honest admission of - "TLC, I can't provide any legitimate legal basis to show that the interrogation methods we used broke US laws."

Nor am I declaring any victory. It's you who are stuck on winning, losing, and ownage in P&N. A review of your post history will bear that out. It's a common theme of yours. So don't try to transpose your adolescent faults on me, kiddo.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

erm, are you talking to yourself?

Where did US law define waterboarding as torture before GWB became president?

I'll be waiting for an answer to this one for a long time, because you're wrong.

Guys, don't wind up TLC-bot again unless you want another 5 pages of fagdance. Just pat him on the head and move on.

translation: eskimospy knows OrByte's claim is untrue and is trying to do pre-emptive damage control.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, TLC is now down to claiming that the American legal community thinks his position is crap because of their partisanship. I feel like we should invoke the mercy rule on this thread.

Your responses are really getting more and more pathetic. You are really feeling this completely slip away, aren't you, because the desperation in your replies is readily apparent. Mercy needs to be invoked on you.

Haha, now we've come to 'I know you are but what am I!?'

And you wonder why I make fun of you.

I don't wonder. It's because you're a condescending tool, plain and simple. It's what you always do in here when you're backed up against a wall and have no actual rebuttal that's worth the bandwidth or keystrokes.

I have to admit TLC, you're a confusing creature. I really don't know how to deal with someone who continually declares victory even in the face of obvious, ignominious defeat. I mean you have all these people piling on you for being an idiot, you've been repeatedly owned in this thread, and you just keep shrilly declaring that you've won.

Not really a play in my playbook for that one. I'm at a bit of a loss.

Text :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

These people are piling on me because they can't stand any opinion that doesn't toe their talking points line. Nothing new in here. The fist-pounding lefties, along with a few neo-con hating conservatives, have little tolerance for anyone that doesn't see things their way. That's not to mention the fact that the only reponse I've gotten in regard to how the interrogation techniques we used were illegal under US law is, 'Well, because this guy and that guy says so.' Talk about an argument not holding up in court. A judge would rake you over the coals if you tried to present that lameass argument and I have no doubt you know that already. But you try to play the game anyway because you can't seem to bring yourself to make the simple, honest admission of - "TLC, I can't provide any legitimate legal basis to show that the interrogation methods we used broke US laws."

Nor am I declaring any victory. It's you who are stuck on winning, losing, and ownage in P&N. A review of your post history will bear that out. It's a common theme of yours. So don't try to transpose your adolescent faults on me, kiddo.

Wrong, I've already shown you evidence that under the US legal system what is described would likely constitute torture. You're just an expert at ignoring inconvenient facts.

You don't have the first clue how the legal system works, if you did you wouldn't have made the basic mistakes you've already made in this thread.

Bad TLC! *whack*

 

[cwjerome]

TLC is basically correct and things will not play out like many here think. There will not be some massive closure with people being hauled off to jail or anything close to that for two reasons: 1) the legality is totally gray, and 2) the important context in which this situation played out.

TLC has mentioned point number one and I don't expect many here to acknowledge it. Point number two is a practical matter and many partisan ideologues will reject it as well... but their "wishes" don't mean much of anything. Things were dire after 9/11 and a lot of people just don't remember it how shocked, scared, and angry we all were. There was incredible pressure on government to do anything possible to prevent another attack. If you had asked the average person if torture was OK to get info that could prevent another attack the overwhelming answer would have been hell yes. Put into context we can see the rationale after 9/11 and our desperation to deal with a problem in the fog of war.

There will be a general sense of reflection as we chalk up another episode to add to the growing list of lessons learned, similar to rounding up Japanese during WWII (for lack of a better example). We can acknowledge wrongdoing in hindsight, tell ourselves it was a bad idea and move forward. There will sure be some political theatrics, lectures, even reprimands, and condemnations, but that's where it will end. Obama will give some serious speeches about how the US has learned from our mistake, and it will become a mere footnote for the Left to periodically trumpet. There will be no witch-hunts or prison sentences... history will record it as an error in judgment during a tough time because of the gray legal aspect and the post-9/11 context.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
TLC is basically correct and things will not play out like many here think. There will not be some massive closure with people being hauled off to jail or anything close to that for two reasons: 1) the legality is totally gray, and 2) the important context in which this situation played out.

TLC has mentioned point number one and I don't expect many here to acknowledge it. Point number two is a practical matter and many partisan ideologues will reject it as well... but their "wishes" don't mean much of anything. Things were dire after 9/11 and a lot of people just don't remember it how shocked, scared, and angry we all were. There was incredible pressure on government to do anything possible to prevent another attack. If you had asked the average person if torture was OK to get info that could prevent another attack the overwhelming answer would have been hell yes. Put into context we can see the rationale after 9/11 and our desperation to deal with a problem in the fog of war.

There will be a general sense of reflection as we chalk up another episode to add to the growing list of lessons learned, similar to rounding up Japanese during WWII (for lack of a better example). We can acknowledge wrongdoing in hindsight, tell ourselves it was a bad idea and move forward. There will sure be some political theatrics, lectures, even reprimands, and condemnations, but that's where it will end. Obama will give some serious speeches about how the US has learned from our mistake, and it will become a mere footnote for the Left to periodically trumpet. There will be no witch-hunts or prison sentences... history will record it as an error in judgment during a tough time because of the gray legal aspect and the post-9/11 context.

Who said they will be hauled off to jail? I see many wanting it, but everyone knows all to well there is too much power and money in Washington for anything like 'justice' to actually take place.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Where did US law define waterboarding as torture before GWB became president?

I'll be waiting for an answer to this one for a long time, because you're wrong.

Ummm... It could have been some time before we tried, convicted and hanged Japanese torturers for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

Tokyo Trials The war crimes trials of Japanese leaders after World War II. Between May 1946 and November 1948, 27 Japanese leaders appeared before an international tribunal charged with crimes ranging from murder and atrocities to responsibility for causing the war. Seven, including the former Prime Minister TOJO HIDEKI, were sentenced to death and 16 to life imprisonment (two others receiving shorter terms), but General MACARTHUR refused to allow the Emperor HIROHITO to be tried for fear of undermining the post-war Japanese state.

If that's too old for you, maybe you remember something during the adminstration of that smiling old grandfatherly Republican... Ronald something...

Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners

Written by Jason Leopold
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 21:47

By Jason Leopold

George W. Bush?s Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near-drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn?t even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan?s Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case ? which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later ? was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week.

The failure to cite the earlier waterboarding case and a half-dozen other precedents that dealt with torture is reportedly one of the critical findings of a Justice Department watchdog report that legal sources say faults former Bush administration lawyers ? Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury ? for violating ?professional standards.?
.
.
(continues)

Time to go out in the back yard and rewind your sundial, Chickeedoodle. You have no sense of time, let alone justice, civility or basic humanity. :roll:

These people are piling on me because they can't stand any opinion that doesn't toe their talking points line.

No. We're piling on you because you're an AMORAL LIAR defending the indefensible, horrific acts of torture commited by your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals. :|

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If GWB and Co are ever dragged into court over this and found guilty then I will gladly admit being in error. If they are not, or are found innocent, will you?

ABSOLUTELY!!! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Great. You're on. First straight answer I've ever seen you make in here, Harvey.

Why didn't you quit when you got all to belatedly got to the right answer?

What's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:[/quote]

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

These people are piling on me because they can't stand any opinion that doesn't toe their talking points line. Nothing new in here. The fist-pounding lefties, along with a few neo-con hating conservatives, have little tolerance for anyone that doesn't see things their way. That's not to mention the fact that the only reponse I've gotten in regard to how the interrogation techniques we used were illegal under US law is, 'Well, because this guy and that guy says so.' Talk about an argument not holding up in court. A judge would rake you over the coals if you tried to present that lameass argument and I have no doubt you know that already. But you try to play the game anyway because you can't seem to bring yourself to make the simple, honest admission of - "TLC, I can't provide any legitimate legal basis to show that the interrogation methods we used broke US laws."

Nor am I declaring any victory. It's you who are stuck on winning, losing, and ownage in P&N. A review of your post history will bear that out. It's a common theme of yours. So don't try to transpose your adolescent faults on me, kiddo.

Wrong, I've already shown you evidence that under the US legal system what is described would likely constitute torture. You're just an expert at ignoring inconvenient facts.

You don't have the first clue how the legal system works, if you did you wouldn't have made the basic mistakes you've already made in this thread.

Bad TLC! *whack*

Yes, I can see how deep your legal knowledge goes.

eskimospy - "But judge, this dude said it was torture and he was once an [insert authority position here]."

judge - "Sorry, but you're spouting hearsay that doesn't count as legal evidence."

eskimospy - "You're wrong judge. Me and all my cohorts in crime say you're wrong, so you're wrong."

judge - "Anything else?

eskimospy - "Yeah. Some human right organizations claimed it was torture too."

judge - "More hearsay. Anything else?"

eskimospy - "International law says waterboarding is torture."

judge - "How is International law binding to this case?"

eskimospy - "It must be somehow. It's law."

judge - "Take him away."

eskimospy, yelling as he's dragged away - "I'm right and you're just being an argumentative idiot ignoring the inconvenient facts!"

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Where did US law define waterboarding as torture before GWB became president?

I'll be waiting for an answer to this one for a long time, because you're wrong.

Ummm... It could have been some time before we tried, convicted and hanged Japanese torturers for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

Tokyo Trials The war crimes trials of Japanese leaders after World War II. Between May 1946 and November 1948, 27 Japanese leaders appeared before an international tribunal charged with crimes ranging from murder and atrocities to responsibility for causing the war. Seven, including the former Prime Minister TOJO HIDEKI, were sentenced to death and 16 to life imprisonment (two others receiving shorter terms), but General MACARTHUR refused to allow the Emperor HIROHITO to be tried for fear of undermining the post-war Japanese state.

If that's too old for you, maybe you remember something during the adminstration of that smiling old grandfatherly Republican... Ronald something...

International tribunal, Harvey, not US law. Let's see what slight of hand you'll try next.

Oh, it's the old Texas sheriff one. Great, I'll show you your intentionally misleading claims regarding US laws about that too. Of course, you're just unknowingly parroting lefty talking points about that case so you probably just don't know any better.

Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners

Written by Jason Leopold
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 21:47

By Jason Leopold

George W. Bush?s Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near-drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn?t even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan?s Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case ? which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later ? was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week.

The failure to cite the earlier waterboarding case and a half-dozen other precedents that dealt with torture is reportedly one of the critical findings of a Justice Department watchdog report that legal sources say faults former Bush administration lawyers ? Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury ? for violating ?professional standards.?
.
.
(continues)

Parker was not found guilty of torture nor charged with torture. He was charged and plead guilty to extortion and civil rights violations.

Not only that, but US law enforcement officers are not permitted to coerce confessions in the first place, no matter which method they want to employ. We're also talking about US citizens vs. detainees, which the court of appeals recently ruled HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom...C3%A1namo-torture-suit

So, like usual and just like the rest in here, you are comparing apples to oranges and trying to pull a quick one. Either that or you read it on Democratic Underground or some other infested lefty fever-swamp and just assumed they were right witout checking the facts behind the case.

Time to go out in the back yard and rewind your sundial, Chickeedoodle. You have no sense of time, let alone justice, civility or basic humanity. :roll:

How embarrassing that I just showed you how wrong you were, eh? If you have any sense of a legal argument or the law in the first place that wouldn't have happened.

 

[Lemon law]

TLC, part of your failed argument is that you want to view torture as only a US domestic issue, when in fact its an international issue. And larely because of
the torture policies of GWB&co, the USA has lost a huge amounts of ground with our allies. Although it might never occur to you, international sanctions against this country if GWB&co are not tried in the Hague are possible. We are a huge debtor nation, have a big role in melting down the world economy, and cannot exist in a vacuum. There is a big possibility that if we in the USA do not show the good faith down payment of trying GWB&co domestically, the international community will make sure to show its very costly displeasure.

The other point being, we know a lot more than we did two weeks ago, and I suspect the coming months will bring new revaluations against GWB&co torture policies sufficient to gag any maggot, if you think you are being dumped on now, wait a month, its a gonna look far worse for GWB&co by then,
and its just likely to get far worse for GWB&co in another few months after that. The cats out of the bag that Cheney and his ilk tried to hide, and this country is just flat out going to have to address those painful facts.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC, part of your failed argument is that you want to view torture as only a US domestic issue, when in fact its an international issue. And larely because of
the torture policies of GWB&co, the USA has lost a huge amounts of ground with our allies. Although it might never occur to you, international sanctions against this country if GWB&co are not tried in the Hague are possible. We are a huge debtor nation, have a big role in melting down the world economy, and cannot exist in a vacuum. There is a big possibility that if we in the USA do not show the good faith down payment of trying GWB&co domestically, the international community will make sure to show its very costly displeasure.

The other point being, we know a lot more than we did two weeks ago, and I suspect the coming months will bring new revaluations against GWB&co torture policies sufficient to gag any maggot, if you think you are being dumped on now, wait a month, its a gonna look far worse for GWB&co by then,
and its just likely to get far worse for GWB&co in another few months after that. The cats out of the bag that Cheney and his ilk tried to hide, and this country is just flat out going to have to address those painful facts.

Kill like 20 million jews and the world loves you.. torture a couple terrorists and the world will come reigning down upon you.. lol.. give me a break.. nobody is going to sanction us.

 

[Lemon law]

How little Fear NO Evil knows of world history, that very fellow who killed 20 million jews not only called down the wrath of the international community, got forced regime change, and committed suicide to avoid having the fate of many of his fellow co-conspirators who stretched ropes after a fair trial at Nuremberg. Not exactly what I would call a world lovefest that FNE says it was.

But to that end, at least Hitler basically respected and did not violate the Geneva convention as a matter of historical record.