Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481

that's a pretty awkward way of phrasing "sorry I said you fail at being a human being based on a typo," Harvey.

I've posted that TLC fails as a human being three times, and others have been nice enough to quote it. His claim that it was a "typo" is small crap. It doesn't even matter, other than it was funny that he accidentally posted a truthful statement that he believes "torture is legal."
He's been pimping essentially the denials, apologies and excuses for torture in every other post in this thread, as well. THAT is why I said he fails as a human being.

If that's the best you can come up with it's a pretty good way of showing you didn't read anything in the thread before you posted.

Go home and practice. :laugh:

 

[Lemon law]

Even though TLC will never admit he has lost the torture the argument, we can say with some certainty that TLC has not only lost the majority, TLC is now a only a very tiny majority. I can remember the days of 2002-2003 after the initial panic of 911, when GWB had a 90% approval rating. And now, some six years later, the country has wised up and has had a reality check as we have seen where all these GWB, Dick Cheney, and TLC type arguments take us. Not only into the moral bankruptcy poorhouse, but into the monetary poorhouse as well. We have to question a so called war on terror that has managed to create far more terrorists than ever before.

TLC in his arguments should also be called upon the defend the real world results of the policy he advocates, and that is where the real stinking problems are. We may mistakenly think the throwing liquid on a fire will put it out, but when the liquid is gasoline and not water, and TLC keeps failing to deny the results, it becomes a very dangerous argument that threatens my safety and yours.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, despite all the hot air, you still can't provide any specific legal argument to show that the methods we used would be classified as torture according to US laws.

Thought so. Don't feel bad. Nobody else in here has either.

No, we've just showed you how they have been successfully prosecuted as torture by the US in the past.

Now I'll wait for the desperate, flailing, 'buh...buh...buh the Japanese waterboarded them MORE!' argument.

Like I've said before though, arguing with you is more about establishing a record of you being a moron than it is actually getting you to ever admit you're wrong, because you don't do that no matter how embarrassing the conversation has become.

You say I'm a moron. I claim you're a dipshit because you're still trying to play the equivocation card when I've already explained why that's not valid.

OK. Next? Anyone with a decent reason?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even though TLC will never admit he has lost the torture the argument, we can say with some certainty that TLC has not only lost the majority, TLC is now a only a very tiny majority. I can remember the days of 2002-2003 after the initial panic of 911, when GWB had a 90% approval rating. And now, some six years later, the country has wised up and has had a reality check as we have seen where all these GWB, Dick Cheney, and TLC type arguments take us. Not only into the moral bankruptcy poorhouse, but into the monetary poorhouse as well. We have to question a so called war on terror that has managed to create far more terrorists than ever before.

TLC in his arguments should also be called upon the defend the real world results of the policy he advocates, and that is where the real stinking problems are. We may mistakenly think the throwing liquid on a fire will put it out, but when the liquid is gasoline and not water, and TLC keeps failing to deny the results, it becomes a very dangerous argument that threatens my safety and yours.

You still don't get it, do you, LL? In fact, very few seem to get it. This isn't about winning or losing. Unfortunately we have a preponderance of dumbasses in here that think along those ridiculously adolescent lines.

 

[Lemon law]

TLC< Its may be easy for you to assert that " You still don't get it, do you, LL? In fact, very few seem to get it. This isn't about winning or losing. Unfortunately we have a preponderance of dumbasses in here that think along those ridiculously adolescent lines."

But what I am asserting here is in the fact the scientific method, that maintains a hypothesis cannot progress any further than a mere hypothesis until it describes physical reality. And as soon as your basic hypothesis fails to account for actual result, it not only stays at the hypothesis stage, it also becomes
a failed and discredited hypothesis that all rational people are obliged to discard.

TLC, if you want to exclude yourself from the set of rational people, that is a decision only you can make, and in fact describes your current failed logic position on this thread.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, despite all the hot air, you still can't provide any specific legal argument to show that the methods we used would be classified as torture according to US laws.

Thought so. Don't feel bad. Nobody else in here has either.

No, we've just showed you how they have been successfully prosecuted as torture by the US in the past.

Now I'll wait for the desperate, flailing, 'buh...buh...buh the Japanese waterboarded them MORE!' argument.

Like I've said before though, arguing with you is more about establishing a record of you being a moron than it is actually getting you to ever admit you're wrong, because you don't do that no matter how embarrassing the conversation has become.[/quote]
You say I'm a moron. I claim you're a dipshit because you're still trying to play the equivocation card when I've already explained why that's not valid.

OK. Next? Anyone with a decent reason?[/quote]

OK. I'm not calling you a moron or a dipshit. I'm calling you a 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]

Last night, 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, at 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's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, despite all the hot air, you still can't provide any specific legal argument to show that the methods we used would be classified as torture according to US laws.

Thought so. Don't feel bad. Nobody else in here has either.

No, we've just showed you how they have been successfully prosecuted as torture by the US in the past.

Now I'll wait for the desperate, flailing, 'buh...buh...buh the Japanese waterboarded them MORE!' argument.

Like I've said before though, arguing with you is more about establishing a record of you being a moron than it is actually getting you to ever admit you're wrong, because you don't do that no matter how embarrassing the conversation has become.

You say I'm a moron. I claim you're a dipshit because you're still trying to play the equivocation card when I've already explained why that's not valid.

OK. Next? Anyone with a decent reason?[/quote]

OK. I'm not calling you a moron or a dipshit. I'm calling you a 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]

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

 

[OrByte]

I think they do waterboarding at the six flags theme park over in Vallejo.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

iow, despite all the hot air, you still can't provide any specific legal argument to show that the methods we used would be classified as torture according to US laws.

Thought so. Don't feel bad. Nobody else in here has either.

No, we've just showed you how they have been successfully prosecuted as torture by the US in the past.

Now I'll wait for the desperate, flailing, 'buh...buh...buh the Japanese waterboarded them MORE!' argument.

Like I've said before though, arguing with you is more about establishing a record of you being a moron than it is actually getting you to ever admit you're wrong, because you don't do that no matter how embarrassing the conversation has become.

You say I'm a moron. I claim you're a dipshit because you're still trying to play the equivocation card when I've already explained why that's not valid.

OK. Next? Anyone with a decent reason?[/quote]

OK. I'm not calling you a moron or a dipshit. I'm calling you a 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]

Last night, 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, at 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's cold blooded, toxic, dangerous and TastesLikeChicken? :shocked:[/quote]
Do you have the cojones to actually answer the question I asked instead of posting opinions?

If I wanted to argue like you, Harvey, I could pull out the tactic event8horizon uses in his 9/11 conspiracy threads and post links to a bunch of authority figures who claim Bush was behind 9/11; and that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were brought down by demolitions. You believe that crap too? Do a bunch of public proclamations constitute evidence? Of course not. So don't try to foist that kind of bullshit off as proof. It's completely ridiculous and an adolescent attempt at providing any proof.

Try again, kid.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481

that's a pretty awkward way of phrasing "sorry I said you fail at being a human being based on a typo," Harvey.

I've posted that TLC fails as a human being three times, and others have been nice enough to quote it. His claim that it was a "typo" is small crap. It doesn't even matter, other than it was funny that he accidentally posted a truthful statement that he believes "torture is legal."
He's been pimping essentially the denials, apologies and excuses for torture in every other post in this thread, as well. THAT is why I said he fails as a human being.

If that's the best you can come up with it's a pretty good way of showing you didn't read anything in the thread before you posted.

Go home and practice. :laugh:

tl;dr

 

[Fear No Evil]

And that's exactly what you don't understand about BEING an American. It has nothing to do with left or right. It has EVERYTHING to do with right and wrong.

As a matter of principle, WE have declared we will NOT engage in the evil you're so eager to commit against other human beings. Sadly, that's what your fortunatelyEX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers did. Even worse, they did it in our name and to our everlasting shame.

If you want to torture people, go join Al Qaeda or some tin pot dictatorship, but don't spread your venom around real Americans who reject your toxic insanity for what it is.

I really wish you would learn how to use the quote feature properly.. it really makes it easier to respond.

FACT is, our country has routinely done evil things in the name of defending its people. Was the bombing of civilians at Nagasaki and Hiroshima not ultimately evil? Did we REALLY need to bomb 100's of thousands of civilians? Would the proper thing, in your mind, not have been to lose 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of more Allied lives invading the Japanese mainland?

FACT is, we (And other allies) bombed Dresden into a pile of rubble just weeks before the end of the war. Was that neccessary? Killing 10's of thousands of citizens for no other reason than perhaps to end the war a little quicker.

So, your statement that we declared we will not engage in evil is just complete and utter BULLSHIT. We have slaughtered 100's of thousands of 'innocent' people to protect our interests and the lives of Americans and our allies. And the FACT is that other Presidents have done things so much worse than this torture that it makes this look like slapping a mosquito off your arm.

*I* support torture against people who want to kill me and my family. I fully support our President's making the decision to torture when necessary to protect the American people. The moral high ground does me absolutely no good if it means I am going to be DEAD. So, call me whatever name you want, call me evil, call me an idiot, call me a terrorist.. I'll take whatever label you want to give me. Ultimately this issue comes down to one thing for me:

I SUPPORT ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT TAKING ACTIONS INCLUDING KILLING, TORTURING, AND NAME CALLING OUR ENEMIES IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF ME, YOU, AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why does the U.S. government torture its own pilots?

Letter to the President

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why does the U.S. government torture its own pilots?

Letter to the President

Those pilots all willingly submitted to the training and preparation work in order to withstand torture tactics used by Americas enemies.

In a round about way...this pilot confirms that the US applied torture techniques to prisoners the same way Americas enemies would have or could have applied these very same techniques to it's soldiers and military men/women.

The pilot should be thanking the military machine for having the foresight to put him and all the other military personnel through such rigorous training.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

And that's exactly what you don't understand about BEING an American. It has nothing to do with left or right. It has EVERYTHING to do with right and wrong.

As a matter of principle, WE have declared we will NOT engage in the evil you're so eager to commit against other human beings. Sadly, that's what your fortunatelyEX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers did. Even worse, they did it in our name and to our everlasting shame.

If you want to torture people, go join Al Qaeda or some tin pot dictatorship, but don't spread your venom around real Americans who reject your toxic insanity for what it is.

I really wish you would learn how to use the quote feature properly.. it really makes it easier to respond.

FACT is, our country has routinely done evil things in the name of defending its people. Was the bombing of civilians at Nagasaki and Hiroshima not ultimately evil? Did we REALLY need to bomb 100's of thousands of civilians? Would the proper thing, in your mind, not have been to lose 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of more Allied lives invading the Japanese mainland?

FACT is, we (And other allies) bombed Dresden into a pile of rubble just weeks before the end of the war. Was that neccessary? Killing 10's of thousands of citizens for no other reason than perhaps to end the war a little quicker.

So, your statement that we declared we will not engage in evil is just complete and utter BULLSHIT. We have slaughtered 100's of thousands of 'innocent' people to protect our interests and the lives of Americans and our allies. And the FACT is that other Presidents have done things so much worse than this torture that it makes this look like slapping a mosquito off your arm.

*I* support torture against people who want to kill me and my family. I fully support our President's making the decision to torture when necessary to protect the American people. The moral high ground does me absolutely no good if it means I am going to be DEAD. So, call me whatever name you want, call me evil, call me an idiot, call me a terrorist.. I'll take whatever label you want to give me. Ultimately this issue comes down to one thing for me:

I SUPPORT ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT TAKING ACTIONS INCLUDING KILLING, TORTURING, AND NAME CALLING OUR ENEMIES IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF ME, YOU, AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN.

Its almost like you take some sort of glee in peoples suffering.

hell I dont think even the CIA agents that conducted the "harsh interrogations" were happy they had to do it.

maybe you are in the wrong line of work

 

[Lemon law]

A new clip on yahoo news is now worth noting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...NsawNob2xkZXJ3b250c2U-

Basically the AG, Holder will not play the Dick Cheney game of selectively releasing only the torture memo's Dick Cheney wants to site, and in short says those memo's will come out as they do.

Meaning the Cheney can participate in the debate but will not be allowed to control the content of the debate. And while Cheney may want to be interviewed by only favorable commentators, he will likely be smoked out and forced to answer very awkward questions as the price of being in the debate.

As GWB used to say, "bring it on." If nothing else, I have a pile of questions about what else Cheney has been up to. And if those questions also get answered in the process, the truth may set us free, and help jail Cheney.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why does the U.S. government torture its own pilots?

Letter to the President

Those pilots all willingly submitted to the training and preparation work in order to withstand torture tactics used by Americas enemies.

In a round about way...this pilot confirms that the US applied torture techniques to prisoners the same way Americas enemies would have or could have applied these very same techniques to it's soldiers and military men/women.

The pilot should be thanking the military machine for having the foresight to put him and all the other military personnel through such rigorous training.

This pilot claims this was not an 'option'. He was FORCED to attend this school. I doubt he was told before he signed up he would be tortured.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why does the U.S. government torture its own pilots?

Letter to the President

Those pilots all willingly submitted to the training and preparation work in order to withstand torture tactics used by Americas enemies.

Thanks to the memos being released our enemies can do the same now.

Congrats guys. What a great victory for the anti-torture crowd. Go out and have a beer to celebrate. Good fucking job.

:thumbsup:

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

And that's exactly what you don't understand about BEING an American. It has nothing to do with left or right. It has EVERYTHING to do with right and wrong.

As a matter of principle, WE have declared we will NOT engage in the evil you're so eager to commit against other human beings. Sadly, that's what your fortunatelyEX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers did. Even worse, they did it in our name and to our everlasting shame.

If you want to torture people, go join Al Qaeda or some tin pot dictatorship, but don't spread your venom around real Americans who reject your toxic insanity for what it is.

I really wish you would learn how to use the quote feature properly.. it really makes it easier to respond.

FACT is, our country has routinely done evil things in the name of defending its people. Was the bombing of civilians at Nagasaki and Hiroshima not ultimately evil? Did we REALLY need to bomb 100's of thousands of civilians? Would the proper thing, in your mind, not have been to lose 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of more Allied lives invading the Japanese mainland?

FACT is, we (And other allies) bombed Dresden into a pile of rubble just weeks before the end of the war. Was that neccessary? Killing 10's of thousands of citizens for no other reason than perhaps to end the war a little quicker.

So, your statement that we declared we will not engage in evil is just complete and utter BULLSHIT. We have slaughtered 100's of thousands of 'innocent' people to protect our interests and the lives of Americans and our allies. And the FACT is that other Presidents have done things so much worse than this torture that it makes this look like slapping a mosquito off your arm.

*I* support torture against people who want to kill me and my family. I fully support our President's making the decision to torture when necessary to protect the American people. The moral high ground does me absolutely no good if it means I am going to be DEAD. So, call me whatever name you want, call me evil, call me an idiot, call me a terrorist.. I'll take whatever label you want to give me. Ultimately this issue comes down to one thing for me:

I SUPPORT ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT TAKING ACTIONS INCLUDING KILLING, TORTURING, AND NAME CALLING OUR ENEMIES IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF ME, YOU, AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN.

Its almost like you take some sort of glee in peoples suffering.

hell I dont think even the CIA agents that conducted the "harsh interrogations" were happy they had to do it.

maybe you are in the wrong line of work

I take glee in no such thing. However, I do take as my #1 priority the protection of MY life. After all, since there is no God according to most of you, its all I ultimately have. I'd rather be alive and tainted by torture than dead taking the moral high ground.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
A new clip on yahoo news is now worth noting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...NsawNob2xkZXJ3b250c2U-

Basically the AG, Holder will not play the Dick Cheney game of selectively releasing only the torture memo's Dick Cheney wants to site, and in short says those memo's will come out as they do.

Meaning the Cheney can participate in the debate but will not be allowed to control the content of the debate. And while Cheney may want to be interviewed by only favorable commentators, he will likely be smoked out and forced to answer very awkward questions as the price of being in the debate.

As GWB used to say, "bring it on." If nothing else, I have a pile of questions about what else Cheney has been up to. And if those questions also get answered in the process, the truth may set us free, and help jail Cheney.

Of course he won't release them because it would make him and this Administration look like idiots for persuing things against the former Administration.

 

[Lemon law]

Fear NO Evil manages to make two phony arguments with, "Of course he won't release them because it would make him and this Administration look like idiots for persuing things against the former Administration."

1. Holder is not saying memo's favorable to the Cheney case will not be released, he merely says memo's will be released as they are found.

2. Even if you maintain the release of torture memo's amount to only a democratic vendetta against the GOP, do any of us seriously think they could be forever buried from the judgment of history. As it is, they are already too well known while GWB was President, and they would fall to the preview of historians at some future GWB Presidential library. We, the American people, already know the results of GWB&co, should not we be informed of the step by step stinking thinking that led to those results? As soon as possible and not many many years later!

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Fear NO Evil manages to make two phony arguments with, "Of course he won't release them because it would make him and this Administration look like idiots for persuing things against the former Administration."

1. Holder is not saying memo's favorable to the Cheney case will not be released, he merely says memo's will be released as they are found.

2. Even if you maintain the release of torture memo's amount to only a democratic vendetta against the GOP, do any of us seriously think they could be forever buried from the judgment of history. As it is, they are already too well known while GWB was President, and they would fall to the preview of historians at some future GWB Presidential library. We, the American people, already know the results of GWB&co, should not we be informed of the step by step stinking thinking that led to those results? As soon as possible and not many many years later!

1. Right, and it will take many years to find them I am sure.. :roll:

2. No, they can't be buried forever.. but they can be buried long enough that nobody cares anymore. Honestly - If a bunch of stuff was released about Watergate now which showed Nixon was not involved, would anyone really give a shit? I wouldn't..

 

[Lemon law]

Wrong again, Fear No Evil, people will always care for quite some time, because fixing the mistakes of GWB&co is going to drive events for decades.
We therefore need to know in detail, where they went wrong so we can learn from past mistakes.

As it is, a financial meltdown and subsequent bail outs already started by GWB now drive the bulk of the current Obama agenda, and if nothing else, full honesty with allies we had already alienated through torture policies are now crucial to rebuild past alliances. In only that way of full disclosure can we assure our allies that we will never use these torture policies again.

We are somewhat fortunate this taint does not paralyze our current sitting President, meaning the torture issue can be handled by subcommittees of our legislative and judicial branches, meaning the rest of government is free to move forward pursuing other policies.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Wrong again, Fear No Evil, people will always care for quite some time, because fixing the mistakes of GWB&co is going to drive events for decades.
We therefore need to know in detail, where they went wrong so we can learn from past mistakes.

As it is, a financial meltdown and subsequent bail outs already started by GWB now drive the bulk of the current Obama agenda, and if nothing else, full honesty with allies we had already alienated through torture policies are now crucial to rebuild past alliances. In only that way of full disclosure can we assure our allies that we will never use these torture policies again.

We are somewhat fortunate this taint does not paralyze our current sitting President, meaning the torture issue can be handled by subcommittees of our legislative and judicial branches, meaning the rest of government is free to move forward pursuing other policies.

Right.. decades.. we will still be deeply discussing Bush and Cheney in 2040.. give me a break.. we probably won't be discussing them in 10 years. But feel free to continue your 'Buh Buh Bush' rant.

Which allies did we torture? I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Our allies were alienated by torturing of their enemies? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Is Britain REALLY that worried that we may have waterboarded some terrorists from Pakistan? If the British are more concerned about us waterboarding terrorists than the threat these terrorists pose then we are truly hopeless.

I am pleased though that the Messiah is free to continue spending us into oblivion though.. don't want to bother him with important issues like national security or anything.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, why are you still bothering with TLC? At this point he's crouching in the corner clinging to discredited memos, wild speculation, and the determination to repeat the same tired and discredited things over and over and over again. It doesn't matter, he will literally never give in. All he's going to do is wear everyone else down until they give up with him in frustration because they are simply too tired to keep going.

Yeah, he has "tortured" me enough. He will dodge answering any question that doesn't support his worldview, which is very narrow to begin with...but Im sure in his next post he'll call me a troll or a libby or somesuch for pointing that out.

Regarding the memo's. This is the heart of it: It isn't torture because we hired a bunch of aggressive lawyers to say it isn't and put it on paper for just this opportunity.

Its interesting, the Pentagons involvement in torture. When you use or copy SERE techniques, which was setup to help prepare soldiers for illegal interrogations and torture is then copied to use on our prisoners, you know something is wrong. Especially when several people in the SERE program came out and said that this amounted to torture and is illegal. If they thought otherwise they would have some kind of oversight to monitor and record the events just like executions.

Hell!, if waterboarding and the like are not torture, maybe we can have some politician like Cheney or Pelosi authorize and hand it to local law enforcement.

Now the police can really find out where all these teenagers are getting all that weed.

iow, despite all the hot air, you still can't provide any specific legal argument to show that the methods we used would be classified as torture according to US laws.

Thought so. Don't feel bad. Nobody else in here has either.

John Boehner disagrees with you Clip

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why does the U.S. government torture its own pilots?

Letter to the President

Those pilots all willingly submitted to the training and preparation work in order to withstand torture tactics used by Americas enemies.

Thanks to the memos being released our enemies can do the same now.

Congrats guys. What a great victory for the anti-torture crowd. Go out and have a beer to celebrate. Good fucking job.

:thumbsup:

Wow, you're still posting? Advice: create a new avatar, it's the only way you can come back from this thread (and other torture ones).