Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: 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.

Hilter was just a good decent man compared to Bush I guess?

 

[Lemon law]

No TLC, I did not say, "Hilter was just a good decent man compared to Bush I guess?" I am just noting that GWB has a worse record on the Geneva Convention than Hitler, but in other ways Hitler was far far worse, which elevates GWB in no way simply because he has been overall better than some arch villain. And even then I can have some sympathies to GWB, someone out of his league, who was largely manipulated by smarter and more dastardly people.

You are simply trying to compare apples to oranges, and bad ones at that.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No TLC, I did not say, "Hilter was just a good decent man compared to Bush I guess?" I am just noting that GWB has a worse record on the Geneva Convention than Hitler, but in other ways Hitler was far far worse, which elevates GWB in no way simply because he has been overall better than some arch villain. And even then I can have some sympathies to GWB, someone out of his league, who was largely manipulated by smarter and more dastardly people.

You are simply trying to compare apples to oranges, and bad ones at that.

I'm not TLC. And the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists.. and torture is good.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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!"

Poor TLC, he just doesn't understand the way the world works. I've tried to educate you repeatedly, but you've fought against it in order to avoid admitting defeat. You make up arguments for me to have made, you try to twist reality in order to serve your agenda, but you can't escape reality.

 

[The Sauce]

Seems to me that the argument for torture is one of the-ends-justify-the-means. This is never a valid argument. This is similar to saying "Look, ok I beat my wife but hey, she is really a bitch." Does that make it ok? Is it ok to torture and break the law to achieve any end? Obviously not. As much as I might have liked to get in a few shots on these scumbags myself, it still is not right and it lowers all of us.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: The Sauce
Seems to me that the argument for torture is one of the-ends-justify-the-means. This is never a valid argument. This is similar to saying "Look, ok I beat my wife but hey, she is really a bitch." Does that make it ok? Is it ok to torture and break the law to achieve any end? Obviously not. As much as I might have liked to get in a few shots on these scumbags myself, it still is not right and it lowers all of us.

No, its like saying I beat my wife because she is a murderer and she was about to kill the kids and the only way I could stop her was to beat her until she told me where they were.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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!"

Poor TLC, he just doesn't understand the way the world works. I've tried to educate you repeatedly, but you've fought against it in order to avoid admitting defeat. You make up arguments for me to have made, you try to twist reality in order to serve your agenda, but you can't escape reality.

The liberal reality doesn't exist. Unicorns and rainbows with pots of gold at the end of them. All sound nice, all don't exist.. and never will no matter how much you try to make it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

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.

If people want to make determinations based on the media feeding frenzy over this issue there's little that can be done about it. I'd be willing to bet that if you talked to 100 different non-US citizens, 98 of them wouldn't have the first idea of the facts behind the so-called "torture" and the other 2 would be misinformed on the facts they do know. I think that's clear enough because most of the people in here who are arguing about this don't even seem to be aware of the facts around the issue. People love gulping at the trough of disinformation, particularly when it feeds their biases. You're a prime example of that yourself, LL.

You might want to hold off making any prognostications too. Your historical track record isn't exactly strong in that particular department. Not by any means.

 

[Lemon law]

Now Fear No Evil assert with no evidence, "The liberal reality doesn't exist.

And the other possible lesson is that the conservative reality may exist, but it shortly leads to disaster as GWB&co. amply proved.

And as the French say, all generalities including this one are false.

Nor will this thread be advanced in any way by slogans which seems to be the intellectual limits of Fear No Evil posts. Just more FUD noise while others at least make a serious attempt to debate the issues.

 

[Lemon law]

Now TLC asserts with no apparent evidence that "If people want to make determinations based on the media feeding frenzy over this issue there's little that can be done about it. I'd be willing to bet that if you talked to 100 different non-US citizens, 98 of them wouldn't have the first idea of the facts behind the so-called "torture" and the other 2 would be misinformed on the facts they do know."

Lets put it this way TLC, I very much doubt that statistic, especially in Afghanistan, where a recent poll showed some 90 % of the people regard the Nato presence as an assault on their religion. And virtually everyone on the planet have some awareness of the abuses of Abu Gharab and GITMO, it may not be clear knowledge, but perceptions and emotions are every bit as valid as facts.

And like it not TLC, as these torture memo's come to light, the debate will go international.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

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

Take that with a large ocean full of salt for two reasons:

1. The Geneva Conventions are intended to define and limit the behavior of nations during war, including the treatement of prisoners of war. During WW II, they did not cover acts of genocide such as the nazi holocaust against the Jews and others, which are covered in other treaties and understandings between nations, including <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html">United Nations Agreements
on Human Rights</a> and the U.N. Charter, itself. Some protections were extended to civilian populations by the http://protocols adopted in 1977]http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O63-GenevaConventions.html.

Geneva Conventions the first multilateral humanitarian treaty, established in Geneva August 22, 1864. It included provisions to protect all establishments and personnel that treated wounded soldiers, incorporate volunteers into the medical corps, and establish the Red Cross symbol as a sign of neutrality. Subsequent Geneva conventions were established in 1906 and 1929 to extend the provisions and concepts of the first. Another Geneva convention was approved on August 12, 1949, after World War II in response to the need to codify the nature of war crimes. They included torture and other inhumane treatment as violations of the laws of war and extended provisions from previous conventions. On June 8, 1977, two protocols to the 1949 conventions were approved to protect civilians from becoming objects of attack, extend protection to guerrilla combatants, and establish commissions to investigate violations of international law. Over 150 nations have approved the 1949 conventions, and approximately half that number have approved those of 1977. The United States has not approved the latter. The Hague Conventions also established similar treaties.

2. It is probably more accurate to say that the Bushwhackos used Hitler's example as model in their attempts to avoid liability under the Geneva Convention. For example, Hitler's the Commando Order was intended to circumvent existing rules of war.

Commando Order

The Commando Order was a secret order issued by Adolf Hitler on October 18, 1942 stating that all Allied commandos found in Europe and Africa should be killed immediately, even if in uniform or if they attempted to surrender. Any commando or small group of commandos or a similar unit, agents, and saboteurs not in uniform, who fell into the hands of the German military forces by some means other than direct combat (through the police in occupied territories, for instance) were to be handed over immediately to the Sicherheitsdienst (SD or Nazi security service). The order made it clear that failure to carry out these orders by any commander or officer would be considered to be an act of negligence punishable under German military law. Shortly after World War II, at the Nuremberg Trials, the Commando Order was found to be a direct breach of the laws of war, and German officers who carried out illegal executions under the Commando Order were found guilty of a war crime.
.
.
(continues)

Similarly, rather than complying with international laws, as well as any common sense of humanity, the Bushwhackos resorted to creating the fictions that "enemy combatants" constituted a separate class of human beings not covered by the Geneva Conventions and that actions by U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan were not bound by such social constraints because these were some "different" kind of war.

The "torture memos" and the twisted writings of Alberto Gonzales tell us that the first victims of American torture were sanity and reason.

Hitler would have been proud of George W. Bush and his criminal gang. :|

Real Americans should shudder at the thought of the horrific crimes they committed in our name.

We can't undo and uncommit those crimes. As a nation, the only way we can atone for them, both to ourselves and to the world, is to hold those who ordered, directed and committed them responsible for the crimes they committed.

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

And the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists.. and torture is good.

Please volunteer as a crash test dummy to prove it. You'll help to clean up the environment, and you already have the "dummy" part down. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[Lemon law]

With all due respects to Harvey who is correct about Hitler's other violations of Human rights, but when it came to regular army POW's, Hitler did basically follow the Geneva convention for British, French, and US prisoner of war.

In terms of hapless civilians that fell to German control, Hitlers freely violated not only the Geneva convention regarding things like collective punishment, his surviving henchmen were tried and convicted for war crimes using basic Geneva conventions codes of conduct standards. As have war criminals since tried and convicted by the Hague.

The comando distinction is a somewhat a dubious point, as soon as regular army personnel take off their uniforms and try to pretend to be civilians, the Geneva convention may not apply, and I seem to recall some Nazi saboteurs who were landing on the NJ coast during WW2 meeting the same fate. And when Winston Churchill was captured during the Boer war, his journalistic credentials made him a legitimate POW, but he was also carrying a pistol at the time, and that would have been a valid reason to shoot Churchill on the spot.

But in terms of the GWB torture policies regarding civilian nationals, GWB takes a page straight from Hitler. Even after Hitler's and other henchmen have set long standing international precedents that these can be capital crimes or be enough to justify life sentences. Since the Hague has now abandoned the death penalty, the worse they face is a life sentence.

The end conclusion has to be, GWB&co can face not only US criminal domestic charges, they also are subject to international criminal charges. And which entity ends up conducting the trial may be a academic point.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

Little boy, it is you who should be embarrassed 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. :|

Unforturnately, that would require you to have a conscience, which you obviously do not.

What to do with a cold blooded, toxic, dangerous beast that TastesLikeChicken? :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Oh and by the way TLC, you should probably go take a minute and read up on what hearsay is as you seem to have no idea. Expert evaluation of agreed upon facts has absolutely nothing to do with hearsay whatsoever.

TLC has now fallen to the level of inventing imaginary courts that he can win in. This is why I've said this thread should be euthanized, because it seems like TLC has gotten so angry and so tied up in the personal pride thing there that he's becoming pretty unbalanced.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now TLC asserts with no apparent evidence that "If people want to make determinations based on the media feeding frenzy over this issue there's little that can be done about it. I'd be willing to bet that if you talked to 100 different non-US citizens, 98 of them wouldn't have the first idea of the facts behind the so-called "torture" and the other 2 would be misinformed on the facts they do know."

Lets put it this way TLC, I very much doubt that statistic, especially in Afghanistan, where a recent poll showed some 90 % of the people regard the Nato presence as an assault on their religion. And virtually everyone on the planet have some awareness of the abuses of Abu Gharab and GITMO, it may not be clear knowledge, but perceptions and emotions are every bit as valid as facts.

And like it not TLC, as these torture memo's come to light, the debate will go international.

You're like that weird guy that talks himself constantly, aren't you?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

Little boy, it is you who should be embarrassed 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. :|

Unforturnately, that would require you to have a conscience, which you obviously do not.

What to do with a cold blooded, toxic, dangerous beast that TastesLikeChicken? :laugh:

Translation: Harvey'd got nuthin but his little spastic assaults as a rebuttal.

Thought so.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh and by the way TLC, you should probably go take a minute and read up on what hearsay is as you seem to have no idea. Expert evaluation of agreed upon facts has absolutely nothing to do with hearsay whatsoever.

TLC has now fallen to the level of inventing imaginary courts that he can win in. This is why I've said this thread should be euthanized, because it seems like TLC has gotten so angry and so tied up in the personal pride thing there that he's becoming pretty unbalanced.

Do tell? Funny how your usual defense in here consistently seems to be "So and so doesn't know what they're talking about.

I think it's been well demonstrated that in regard to this issue, you, Harvey, LL, and the rest of your ilk are doing nothing but blowing major smoke. You can't prove that the methods we used broke any US laws and that irks the holy hell out of you. But rather than admit it you'd rather prattle on with gyrations and handwaving. Pathetic. Like Harvey, you got nuthin. Suck it up like a man instead of a whiney little bitch and move on.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Translation: Harvey'd got nuthin but his little spastic assaults as a rebuttal.

Thought so.

[/quote]

Translation: TLC has no meaningful response to anyone chewing his sorry ass for being an amoral jerkoff who has lost his humanity and would rather continue his failed efforts to defend the illegal, immoral, inhuman acts committed by his thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals who squandered eight years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars shitting all over more than 230 years of our once proud, once nobel history as a nation of laws and the principles embodied in our Constitution.

TLC -- You're such a good little sycophant that, after they're convicted, there may be a job for you. You can visit Cheney in his undisclosed prison cell and jump start his pace maker by giving him mouth to ass resuscitation. :Q

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh and by the way TLC, you should probably go take a minute and read up on what hearsay is as you seem to have no idea. Expert evaluation of agreed upon facts has absolutely nothing to do with hearsay whatsoever.

TLC has now fallen to the level of inventing imaginary courts that he can win in. This is why I've said this thread should be euthanized, because it seems like TLC has gotten so angry and so tied up in the personal pride thing there that he's becoming pretty unbalanced.

Do tell? Funny how your usual defense in here consistently seems to be "So and so doesn't know what they're talking about.

I think it's been well demonstrated that in regard to this issue, you, Harvey, LL, and the rest of your ilk are doing nothing but blowing major smoke. You can't prove that the methods we used broke any US laws and that irks the holy hell out of you. But rather than admit it you'd rather prattle on with gyrations and handwaving. Pathetic. Like Harvey, you got nuthin. Suck it up like a man instead of a whiney little bitch and move on.

It's no defense at all, it's a fact. If you were better educated before opening your mouth, I wouldn't have to tell you this. You've already been given all the evidence you need over and over and over again. If you still have questions, go re-read this thread or any one of the 3 other threads where you are flailing to defend torture. Your pride just won't let you admit defeat.

Actually definitely read all the threads again, I want to insult you more but I don't really feel like re-typing it. If you re-read all the old times I called you a moron that would be almost as good.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh and by the way TLC, you should probably go take a minute and read up on what hearsay is as you seem to have no idea. Expert evaluation of agreed upon facts has absolutely nothing to do with hearsay whatsoever.

TLC has now fallen to the level of inventing imaginary courts that he can win in. This is why I've said this thread should be euthanized, because it seems like TLC has gotten so angry and so tied up in the personal pride thing there that he's becoming pretty unbalanced.

Do tell? Funny how your usual defense in here consistently seems to be "So and so doesn't know what they're talking about.

I think it's been well demonstrated that in regard to this issue, you, Harvey, LL, and the rest of your ilk are doing nothing but blowing major smoke. You can't prove that the methods we used broke any US laws and that irks the holy hell out of you. But rather than admit it you'd rather prattle on with gyrations and handwaving. Pathetic. Like Harvey, you got nuthin. Suck it up like a man instead of a whiney little bitch and move on.

It's no defense at all, it's a fact. If you were better educated before opening your mouth, I wouldn't have to tell you this. You've already been given all the evidence you need over and over and over again. If you still have questions, go re-read this thread or any one of the 3 other threads where you are flailing to defend torture. Your pride just won't let you admit defeat.

Actually definitely read all the threads again, I want to insult you more but I don't really feel like re-typing it. If you re-read all the old times I called you a moron that would be almost as good.

Translation: Nyah nyah nyah! I win because I say so!

Give it up.. this is the internet.. nobody will ever admit defeat, even though you clearly have been.

 

[Lemon law]

Even though the title of this thread is Cheney enters the torture debate, the new news is that the Senate and Congress of the USA are also entering the debate as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...ogation_memos_congress

Even as Republican legislators urge that the US turns the page on past torture, Levin probably has the best response in saying, he wants to read the page before turning it. I suspect that the heat under this stinking torture mess will continue to get hotter, I doubt either Obama or Holder will fight Legislative branch subpoenas, and now that Cheney's hands are off the levers of government, what has been so effectively hidden may at long last revealed. And as each new fact will imply other facts and documents, patient staff investigators can piece together most of the complete story.

Let the truth come out.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you were better educated before opening your mouth...

You're a never ending source of condescending excrement.

Post all the knee-jerk responses you want in your little P&N thread tantrum. Watching you flail and spasm away in this thread has been a pleasure all in iteself. Really. It's been highly entertaining.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: The Sauce
Seems to me that the argument for torture is one of the-ends-justify-the-means. This is never a valid argument. This is similar to saying "Look, ok I beat my wife but hey, she is really a bitch." Does that make it ok? Is it ok to torture and break the law to achieve any end? Obviously not. As much as I might have liked to get in a few shots on these scumbags myself, it still is not right and it lowers all of us.

Yeah, its funny how that question never gets an answer...

U.S. Code Title 18, S2340, and the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

2340A (a): Offense.? Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

"(c) Conspiracy.? A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death)"

CAT: "2.2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Link

Link

And, just in case somebody argues that "that's just a treaty", let's not forget this:

United States Constitution, Article VI...

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

BTW, It would be nice if someone would like to cite that a number of experts that opine that torture works ? I mean actual interrogators, rather than fuckwits like Scalia et al. who have never set foot in an actual charnel?

Torture proponents simply don't know better. Intuitively, they deduce that if a person isn't being forthcoming with her information, applying testicular torque will make her so. Countless would-be interrogators have made the same intuitive deduction over the course of human history, then revised it when empirical results proved contrarian. Sometimes it took them centuries to correlate wrong results with a need for a different technique. Sometimes they decided to work with wrong results. Sometimes they *wanted* wrong results. ut every civilization eventually evolved away from torture, and frowned on those who didn't. What makes Cheneys brand of torture so special ?

Speaking of Cheney, How can anyone not believe that Cheney, would not have been all over Fox News leaking like the dribble down his pants leg the very minute he had ever learned anything, any damned thing, useful from torturing.

If we are to assume torture does indeed produce incontrovertibly better results, why not use it across the board ? After all, terrorists are only one of many problems affecting America. Goat herders from across the world, plotting a bombing at a café terrace pale in comparison to what our own internal problems, for example: judges and policemen taking bribes from the Mafia, gangs having turf wars in the downtown streets etc. So why not advocate its use in US courts of law? It would speed up the process tremendously. And we'd finally be 100% positively certain who the hell killed O.J.'s wife.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The "OMG, IT'S TORTURE" crowd just doesn't seem to get it. The argument is not FOR torture. THE argument is actually a number of arguments:

1) We need to retain interrogation capabilities. What seems to be happening is that thre are people who want to completely handcuff the US in that department. To make their argument they slap the label of "TORTURE" on the interrogation techniques they find personally distasteful, then become shrill and accusatory and demand we stop the TORTURE. Of course, they haven't actually shown that the techniques we use qualify as TORTURE under our laws. Instead they'll conflate, diseemble, and equivocate to make their point, ignoring all differences and nuances in the process. iow, they employ a gross level of intellectual dishonesty to make their case.

2) Citing the Constitution is meaningless in regard to the detainees. It was recently ruled, with the court agreeing with the Obama administration, that Constitutional rights do not apply to detainess in Gitmo, with the exception of habeus corpus.

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

3) Nobody in here is a proponent of torture. I'm certainly not. I do support using harsh interrogation techniques when they are necessary and used with discretion though, and at the time they were deemed necessary. The problem is those that absolutely refuse to recognize that there's a fine line between valid, harsh interrogation techniques and actual torture. Many don't want to recognize that line, which is legally defined in the country, because all their hyperbolic utterances on the subject over the last years would be moot and for not, and some people just have way too big of an ego and too much hot air already invested to admit they may have been wrong on the subject. So they continue to twist the issue in all kinds of directions.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You're a never ending source of condescending excrement.

Post all the knee-jerk responses you want in your little P&N thread tantrum. Watching you flail and spasm away in this thread has been a pleasure all in iteself. Really. It's been highly entertaining.

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

What to do with a cold blooded, toxic, dangerous beast that TastesLikeChicken? :laugh:

---

Since you're still in lying and denying mode, you win another round of macro.

I'm calling you an AMORAL LIAR. I posted replies to you with legal references, and you STILL deny them.

In this thread, on 4/22/2009 at 1:07 PM pdt, I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Despite all the numerous threads on the subject not a single person in here who has been screaming "WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE" at the top of their lungs has done that yet. Not a one.

Attorney General, Eric Holder is one legal authority who disagrees with your assessment.

Waterboarding Is Torture, Holder Tells Senators
Justice Dept. Nominee Rejects Policies Of Bush Era but Stresses Bipartisanship

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009
.
.
In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder declared that the interrogation practice known as waterboarding amounts to torture, departing from the interpretation of his Bush administration predecessors.
.
.
(continues)

Deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage is another.

Ex-Bush official says waterboarding is torture

By PAMELA HESS ? 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) ? A former No. 2 State Department official in the Bush administration says he hopes he would have had the courage to resign if he had known the CIA was subjecting terrorism suspects to waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, told Al Jazeera English television in an interview airing Wednesday that waterboarding is torture. However, he said he does not believe CIA officials who engaged in waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation should be prosecuted.
.
.
(continues)[/b]

On 4-22-09, on Rachel Maddow's show, Philip Zelikow, an attorney and a former under secretary of state to Condoleezza Wright, said that, in 2005, he wrote a memo disputing "THE memos" by John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, the attorneys who wrote the opinions supporting torture, and their boss, Alberto Gonzales. Full segment.

He further says his superiors tried to destroy every copy of his contrary memo. From the transcript:

MADDOW: Rather than just disagreeing with you or saying that they thought that you were wrong and the Office of Legal Counsel memos that you were rebutting were correct, why do you think they tried to destroy every copy of the memo that they knew existed? And how did you find out that they did try to destroy copies of the memo?

ZELIKOW: Well, I found out because I was told. I mean, we're trying to collect these and destroy them, and you have a copy, don't you? But I -- the -- I know copies that were retained in my building, and as I mentioned, Secretary Rice understood what I was doing on her behalf. I was her agent in these matters. And the -- so I think copies still exist.

Are you out of lies, yet, TLC? :roll:

And in this thread, on 4/23/2009 at 1:13 PM I posted this reply to you:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

I can't believe you think you can explain it.

These interrogation methods, that you insist on calling "torture" (when you STILL haven't shown qualifies as such under US law) have been publicly defined, with the primary theme of applying these methods being that no harm comes to the individual being interrogated. These methods aren't torture. They are smoke and mirrors designed to appear to be torture, if they didn't know what was coming. Now they know exactly what to expect. If a detainee knows that no harm will come to him why does he care if he's getting interrogated? He's got nothing to worry about anything. He's in no danger. The fear/coersion factor, which is an important part of interrogation has been eradicated completely. The methods become ineffective by removing that factor.

You fail at law.

You fail at history.

You fail at civility.

You fail as an American.

You fail as a human being. :thumbsdown: :|

Torture includes not only the physical acts of harm. It includes the THREAT of physical harm, and it is explicitly illegal under both U.S. codes and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, giving them the full weight and force of law in the U.S.

Torture and the United States
.
.
Legislation and treaties regarding torture

Torture is illegal and punishable within US territorial bounds. The potential for prosecution of abuse occurring on foreign soil, outside of usual US territorial jurisdiction, is difficult.

Domestic Legislation

Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
   
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

.
.
"Stress and duress"

In 2003 and 2004 there was substantial controversy over the "stress and duress" methods that were used in the U.S.'s War on Terrorism, that had been sanctioned by the U.S. Executive branch of government at Cabinet level. Similar methods in 1978 were ruled by ECHR to be inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture, when used by the U.K. in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. CIA agents have anonymously confirmed to the Washington Post in a December 26, 2002 report that the CIA routinely uses so-called "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, which are claimed by human rights organisations to be acts of torture, in the US-led War on Terrorism. These sources state that CIA and military personnel beat up uncooperative suspects, confine them in cramped quarters, duct tape them to stretchers, and use other restraints which maintain the subject in an awkward and painful position for long periods of time. The phrase 'torture light' has been reported in the media and has been taken to mean acts that would not be legally defined as torture. Techniques similar to "stress and duress" were used by the UK in the early 1970s and were ruled to be "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture by the European Court of Human Rights. While this is in no way binding on the United States, it is seen as indicative of the state of international law on what constitutes torture.

Some techniques within the "stress and duress" category, such as water boarding, have long been considered as torture, by both the United States government and human rights groups. In its annual ?Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,? the U.S. State Department has described the following practices as torture:

• stripping and blindfolding of prisoners (Egypt)
• subjecting prisoners to prolonged sun exposure in high temperatures and tying of hands and feet for extended periods (Eritrea)
• sleep deprivation and "suspension for long periods in contorted positions" (Iran)
• sleep deprivation and solitary confinement (Jordan)
• prolonged standing and isolation (Turkey)

.
.
(more)

Do you have any credible references to counter the FACT that the United States of America has considered waterboarding as torture for at least the last hundred years?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Eric Holder the Attorney General of the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the legal opinion of Richard Armitage, the former Deputy secretary of state the United States of America?

What qualifies you to dispute the experiential opinion of John McCain, a former POW and torture survivor that waterboarding is torture?

What qualifies you to be considered a human being? :shocked: