Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped more of Harvey's tremendously billious bullshit

I already asked the question, troll. Answer it. Stop trying to evade and avoid.

You know what? It's obvious that you have no answer. That's why you feel compelled to continually repost your ridiculous assfest of links instead. You can't give a straight answer because you don't have one, Harvey.

I would love to know what you would even consider as proof that something constitutes torture. You have hilariously inept memos that you take as proof waterboarding isn't torture, and you dismiss actual court cases to which the US was the prosecuting party that state waterboarding is torture.

Your standards for what constitutes evidence so far are simply bewildering. (although they do explain a lot of why you seem to consider those memos anything other than embarrassing)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped more of Harvey's tremendously billious bullshit

I already asked the question, troll. Answer it. Stop trying to evade and avoid.

You know what? It's obvious that you have no answer. That's why you feel compelled to continually repost your ridiculous assfest of links instead. You can't give a straight answer because you don't have one, Harvey.

The only one dodging is you, and you've done it more than once in this thread. Coward.

I'll quote your justification for treating the detainees that way we did based on a comment of yours from another thread, since you felt it was such a great response:

"Karma's a bitch."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped more of Harvey's tremendously billious bullshit

I already asked the question, troll. Answer it. Stop trying to evade and avoid.

You know what? It's obvious that you have no answer. That's why you feel compelled to continually repost your ridiculous assfest of links instead. You can't give a straight answer because you don't have one, Harvey.

I would love to know what you would even consider as proof that something constitutes torture. You have hilariously inept memos that you take as proof waterboarding isn't torture, and you dismiss actual court cases to which the US was the prosecuting party that state waterboarding is torture.

Your standards for what constitutes evidence so far are simply bewildering. (although they do explain a lot of why you seem to consider those memos anything other than embarrassing)

If the memos are so inept then please show where there are US laws and case law that was ommitted. btw, when you compare our version of waterboarding to that of others, make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Tell me whether those other versions had very specific restrictions regarding the treatment of the person undergoing the method, just as ours did. I completely agree that waterboarding, as generally used throughout history, is torture. However, throughout history, waterboarding has been used ina much more brutal fashion, without any real concern for the person being waterboarded. We did it differently and that bit of nuance makes all the difference in the eyes of the law.

Surely you can easily rebut my claim that our interrogation methods did not violate US laws against torture since you seem so cocksure about it? The only actual rebuttal I've seen you use though is the denigration of those opposed to your own personal viewpoint. While that may prove something, it only proves something about you, not the law.

btw, for those claiming that Obama ended torture:

http://ccrjustice.org/get-invo...oles-army-field-manual

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If the memos are so inept then please show where there are US laws and case law that was ommitted. btw, when you compare our version of waterboarding to that of others, make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Tell me whether those other versions had very specific restrictions regarding the treatment of the person undergoing the method, just as ours did. I completely agree that waterboarding, as generally used throughout history, is torture. However, throughout history, waterboarding has been used ina much more brutal fashion, without any real concern for the person being waterboarded. We did it differently and that bit of nuance makes all the difference in the eyes of the law.

Surely you can easily rebut my claim that our interrogation methods did not violate US laws against torture since you seem so cocksure about it? The only actual rebuttal I've seen you use though is the denigration of those opposed to your own personal viewpoint. While that may prove something, it only proves something about you, not the law.

btw, for those claiming that Obama ended torture:

http://ccrjustice.org/get-invo...oles-army-field-manual

Jesus Christ not this again. You are basing your assessment that waterboarding is not torture off of memos that are nearly universally condemned and discredited by the entire legal community for the shakiness of their reasoning and the ridiculousness of their evidentiary support. It's not my personal opinion, it's the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the legal community. Since it doesn't fit your agenda though, you blindly cling to discredited memos as a life preserver. You're clinging to the lunatic fringe.

It makes 'all the difference in the eyes of the law' according to who? Oh yeah, your discredited memos again. The memos base their idea that it is not torture off of the assessment of the agency being regulated, and that assessment alone. I can't possibly imagine why the CIA would be reluctant to give an assessment of their behavior that would land their agents in jail. This clearly violates one of the basic principles of collecting evidence for anything but you whistle on by and pretend not to notice because it fits your agenda and at this point you'll do anything it takes to avoid admitting you were wrong.

You further state that because we waterboard people differently than other places do, that suddenly it's not torture. The Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, etc... etc... all still say it meets the standard for torture. But you have a private memo that has been widely discredited which secretly uses evidence from an agency with a conflict of interest as your counter argument! How stupid can you be? As long as people's assessment's count as evidence the Red Cross, a worldwide recognized authority on what is torture and illegal treatment, called our interrogation techniques 'inhuman', a clear violation of US law and the Convention against Torture to which we are signatory.

I denigrate you not to help prove my point, as that's not necessary in the slightest, but because you deserve denigration. You're so angry at something (what, I don't know) that you spend hours desperately flailing against half a dozen or more people to defend an abandoned memo in the service of legalizing torture. Yet you keep going, no matter how beaten down you get. Like I've said before you're some sort of 'Pathetic Argument Rocky'. You're hoping we'll wear ourselves out by punching you in the face.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
He's blowing smoke. If the info really existed, he'd have found a way to leak it already. Someone else already pointed out the classic "move the goalposts" response as well.

1. We don't torture
2. Waterboarding isn't torture
3. We got useful info from it
4. Profit

And all very conveniently self-serving (prosecution or no).

These folk are the real apologists. Torture apologized into extreme interrogation techniques. How euphemistically quaint of them.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: Pens1566
He's blowing smoke. If the info really existed, he'd have found a way to leak it already. Someone else already pointed out the classic "move the goalposts" response as well.

1. We don't torture
2. Waterboarding isn't torture
3. We got useful info from it
4. Profit

And all very conveniently self-serving (prosecution or no).

These folk are the real apologists. Torture apologized into extreme interrogation techniques. How euphemistically quaint of them.

Not even EXTREME interrogation, enhanced interrogation.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: Pens1566
He's blowing smoke. If the info really existed, he'd have found a way to leak it already. Someone else already pointed out the classic "move the goalposts" response as well.

1. We don't torture
2. Waterboarding isn't torture
3. We got useful info from it
4. Profit

And all very conveniently self-serving (prosecution or no).

These folk are the real apologists. Torture apologized into extreme interrogation techniques. How euphemistically quaint of them.

Not even EXTREME interrogation, enhanced interrogation.

Now I see it, and it only makes perfect sense--how could I have missed it.

If anyone ever needed enhancement--its was the Dick and W show.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If the memos are so inept then please show where there are US laws and case law that was ommitted. btw, when you compare our version of waterboarding to that of others, make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Tell me whether those other versions had very specific restrictions regarding the treatment of the person undergoing the method, just as ours did. I completely agree that waterboarding, as generally used throughout history, is torture. However, throughout history, waterboarding has been used ina much more brutal fashion, without any real concern for the person being waterboarded. We did it differently and that bit of nuance makes all the difference in the eyes of the law.

Surely you can easily rebut my claim that our interrogation methods did not violate US laws against torture since you seem so cocksure about it? The only actual rebuttal I've seen you use though is the denigration of those opposed to your own personal viewpoint. While that may prove something, it only proves something about you, not the law.

btw, for those claiming that Obama ended torture:

http://ccrjustice.org/get-invo...oles-army-field-manual

Jesus Christ not this again. You are basing your assessment that waterboarding is not torture off of memos that are nearly universally condemned and discredited by the entire legal community for the shakiness of their reasoning and the ridiculousness of their evidentiary support. It's not my personal opinion, it's the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the legal community. Since it doesn't fit your agenda though, you blindly cling to discredited memos as a life preserver. You're clinging to the lunatic fringe.

It makes 'all the difference in the eyes of the law' according to who? Oh yeah, your discredited memos again. The memos base their idea that it is not torture off of the assessment of the agency being regulated, and that assessment alone. I can't possibly imagine why the CIA would be reluctant to give an assessment of their behavior that would land their agents in jail. This clearly violates one of the basic principles of collecting evidence for anything but you whistle on by and pretend not to notice because it fits your agenda and at this point you'll do anything it takes to avoid admitting you were wrong.

You further state that because we waterboard people differently than other places do, that suddenly it's not torture. The Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, etc... etc... all still say it meets the standard for torture. But you have a private memo that has been widely discredited which secretly uses evidence from an agency with a conflict of interest as your counter argument! How stupid can you be? As long as people's assessment's count as evidence the Red Cross, a worldwide recognized authority on what is torture and illegal treatment, called our interrogation techniques 'inhuman', a clear violation of US law and the Convention against Torture to which we are signatory.

I denigrate you not to help prove my point, as that's not necessary in the slightest, but because you deserve denigration. You're so angry at something (what, I don't know) that you spend hours desperately flailing against half a dozen or more people to defend an abandoned memo in the service of legalizing torture. Yet you keep going, no matter how beaten down you get. Like I've said before you're some sort of 'Pathetic Argument Rocky'. You're hoping we'll wear ourselves out by punching you in the face.

You're relying on a claim of condemnation as your legal proof? The majority of Americans condemn gay marriage as well. Does that make them right?

My anger comes from the fact that all I have been receiving is a bunch of hyperbole, false equivocation, avoidance, evasion, and any lame tactic that fails to actually address my question. If the legal community has "nearly universally condemned and discredited" these memos, surely some bright legal beagle has made the actual legal case to show where the memos run afoul of our US laws. So where is it? Condemnation from disgust, based on the media driven hype about this subject does not qualify as a legal argument and doesn't prove the methods used legally qualify as torture, no matter how many times you repeat that mantra.

Personally, I believe it's you and the rest of the "IT'S TORTURE" crew in here deserve denigration for doing nothing more than contributing to all the hype and hyperbole. That's all you've got because it's clear that you can't actually answer my question. In fact, I believe you don't even want to tread in the waters of discussing the specifics of where the memos run afoul of the law because you know that you have absolutely no case if you tried. But keep up your fantasy that you've somehow beaten me down on this issue. It's readily apparent that it's all you have, your ridiculous little fantasy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You're relying on a claim of condemnation as your legal proof? The majority of Americans condemn gay marriage as well. Does that make them right?

My ander comes from the fact that al I have been receiving is a but of hyperbole, false equivocation, avoidance, evasion, and any lame tactic that fails to actually address my question. If the legal community has "nearly universally condemned and discredited" these memos, surely some bright legal beagle has made the actual legal case to show where the memos run afoul of our US laws. So where is it? Condemnation from disgust, based on the media driven hype about this subject does not qualify as a legal argument and does prove the methods used legally qualify as torture, no matter how many times you repeat that mantra.

Personally, I believe it's you and the rest of the "IT'S TORTURE" crew in here deserve denigration for doing nothing more than contributing to all the hype and hyperbole. That's all you've got because it's clear that you can't actually answer my question. In fact, I believe you don't even want to tread in the waters of discussing the specifics of where the memos run afoul of the law because you know that you have absolutely no case if you tried. But keep up your fantasy that you've somehow beaten me down on this issue. It's readily apparent that it's all you have, your ridiculous little fantasy.

For about the 40th time you moron, YOUR legal analysis rests on the idea that the CIA told them the techniques being used didn't violate the law. They are a self interested party and it is a professional failure to rely on self interested parties for objective determinations of fact. (hint: this is one of the reasons why these memos are laughed at) The correct rebuttal to these memos is not to say "but this law here says we REALLY shouldn't torture", but it is to show that unbiased, uninterested, and authoritative entities (you know, the kind that should be ACTUALLY used for evidence) say that these techniques DO violate the law.

I've answered your question over and over and over again, you're just too stupid to understand what you're reading. Actually that's not true, you're not too stupid. You're Pathetic Argument Rocky.

EDIT: Also for the 40th time, I have never claimed the memos 'ran afoul of the law'. I said they were badly reasoned and unsupportable. How many times do I have to beat this into your brain? I feel like I'm training a dog, only you aren't close enough for me to whack with a newspaper.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You're relying on a claim of condemnation as your legal proof? The majority of Americans condemn gay marriage as well. Does that make them right?

My ander comes from the fact that al I have been receiving is a but of hyperbole, false equivocation, avoidance, evasion, and any lame tactic that fails to actually address my question. If the legal community has "nearly universally condemned and discredited" these memos, surely some bright legal beagle has made the actual legal case to show where the memos run afoul of our US laws. So where is it? Condemnation from disgust, based on the media driven hype about this subject does not qualify as a legal argument and does prove the methods used legally qualify as torture, no matter how many times you repeat that mantra.

Personally, I believe it's you and the rest of the "IT'S TORTURE" crew in here deserve denigration for doing nothing more than contributing to all the hype and hyperbole. That's all you've got because it's clear that you can't actually answer my question. In fact, I believe you don't even want to tread in the waters of discussing the specifics of where the memos run afoul of the law because you know that you have absolutely no case if you tried. But keep up your fantasy that you've somehow beaten me down on this issue. It's readily apparent that it's all you have, your ridiculous little fantasy.

For about the 40th time you moron, YOUR legal analysis rests on the idea that the CIA told them the techniques being used didn't violate the law. They are a self interested party and it is a professional failure to rely on self interested parties for objective determinations of fact. (hint: this is one of the reasons why these memos are laughed at) The correct rebuttal to these memos is not to say "but this law here says we REALLY shouldn't torture", but it is to show that unbiased, uninterested, and authoritative entities (you know, the kind that should be ACTUALLY used for evidence) say that these techniques DO violate the law.

I've answered your question over and over and over again, you're just too stupid to understand what you're reading. Actually that's not true, you're not too stupid. You're Pathetic Argument Rocky.

EDIT: Also for the 40th time, I have never claimed the memos 'ran afoul of the law'. I said they were badly reasoned and unsupportable. How many times do I have to beat this into your brain? I feel like I'm training a dog, only you aren't close enough for me to whack with a newspaper.

For the last time, dumbass, the claim is that torture, as defined in the memos, was illegal. You haven't proven that in the least.

And I'd love to see you try to whack me with a newspaper. It'd be the last stupid thing you ever did, condescending asshole.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

For the last time, dumbass, the claim is that torture, as defined in the memos, was illegal. You haven't proven that in the least.

And I'd love to see you try to whack me with a newspaper. It'd be the last stupid thing you ever did, condescending asshole.

For the last time, the memos claim that the torture they describe is not illegal based on the evidentiary support of a non-neutral party that is directly contradicted by several neutral, authoritative parties, including the Red Cross.

Know what's sad about all this? I know that if you tried to hit me for whacking you with a newspaper it would be nowhere close to the last stupid thing you did, unless somehow you broke enough fingers that you were unable to post on here. Aren't you a 40 something year old man by the way?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

For the last time, dumbass, the claim is that torture, as defined in the memos, was illegal. You haven't proven that in the least.

And I'd love to see you try to whack me with a newspaper. It'd be the last stupid thing you ever did, condescending asshole.

For the last time, the memos claim that the torture they describe is not illegal based on the evidentiary support of a non-neutral party that is directly contradicted by several neutral, authoritative parties, including the Red Cross.

Know what's sad about all this? I know that if you tried to hit me for whacking you with a newspaper it would be nowhere close to the last stupid thing you did, unless somehow you broke enough fingers that you were unable to post on here. Aren't you a 40 something year old man by the way?

WTF is your comprehension problem? If it's contradicted by a legal argument that demonstrates how the methods used ran afoul of US law, present it. Let's see the specific legal arguments that you claim exist.

btw, I recently turned 50. I've been very athletic my entire life running the gamut from football, basketball, baseball, track & field, tennis, weightlifitng, surfing and just about any other sport. I'm confident that I'm in better shape at 50 than the vast majority of people posting in this forum. So don't imagine I am some fat old man on his last legs. You would be seriously wrong.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

For the last time, dumbass, the claim is that torture, as defined in the memos, was illegal. You haven't proven that in the least.

And I'd love to see you try to whack me with a newspaper. It'd be the last stupid thing you ever did, condescending asshole.

For the last time, the memos claim that the torture they describe is not illegal based on the evidentiary support of a non-neutral party that is directly contradicted by several neutral, authoritative parties, including the Red Cross.

Know what's sad about all this? I know that if you tried to hit me for whacking you with a newspaper it would be nowhere close to the last stupid thing you did, unless somehow you broke enough fingers that you were unable to post on here. Aren't you a 40 something year old man by the way?

Son, i'm 40 something, try whacking me with a newspaper. Young navy boy, haven't your arse been in a world of hurt already?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

For the last time, dumbass, the claim is that torture, as defined in the memos, was illegal. You haven't proven that in the least.

And I'd love to see you try to whack me with a newspaper. It'd be the last stupid thing you ever did, condescending asshole.

For the last time, the memos claim that the torture they describe is not illegal based on the evidentiary support of a non-neutral party that is directly contradicted by several neutral, authoritative parties, including the Red Cross.

Know what's sad about all this? I know that if you tried to hit me for whacking you with a newspaper it would be nowhere close to the last stupid thing you did, unless somehow you broke enough fingers that you were unable to post on here. Aren't you a 40 something year old man by the way?

WTF is your comprehension problem? If it's contradicted by a legal argument that demonstrates how the methods used ran afoul of US law, present it. Let's see the specific legal arguments that you claim exist.

btw, I recently turned 50. I've been very athletic my entire life running the gamut from football, basketball, baseball, track & field, tennis, weightlifitng, surfing and just about any other sport. I'm confident that I'm in better shape at 50 than the vast majority of people posting in this forum. So don't imagine I am some fat old man on his last legs. You would be seriously wrong.

It's torture, period. Anyone who has been involved should be punished for it, period.

And btw, every living man is on his last legs.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

WTF is your comprehension problem? If it's contradicted by a legal argument that demonstrates how the methods used ran afoul of US law, present it. Let's see the specific legal arguments that you claim exist.

btw, I recently turned 50. I've been very athletic my entire life running the gamut from football, basketball, baseball, track & field, tennis, weightlifitng, surfing and just about any other sport. I'm confident that I'm in better shape at 50 than the vast majority of people posting in this forum. So don't imagine I am some fat old man on his last legs. You would be seriously wrong.

I don't think you understand how a legal argument works. The basic principle is the finding of fact, and the conclusion of law. You establish facts on a case and then come to the determination on how these facts apply to the law. Your facts say the law wasn't violated because the CIA said it didn't meet the legal standard. My facts say the law was violated because the techniques DID meet that standard. The thing is that MY facts come from neutral and authoritative parties, your facts come from the party the memo was intended to regulate.

Guess who wins on that one.

Oh, and the fact that you're 50 and still arguing like this just makes it all the more pathetic. You should probably keep that information to yourself.

 

[Lemon law]

IMHO, this thread has degenerated into just endless repetitions of the same points. At the end of the day, TLC has lost his argument because only a temporary aberration, namely GWB&co. ever advocated and used torture. And because GWB&co are now as obsolete as the dodo, when and if they are punished for what has always amounted to international war crimes and violations of domestic US laws, we will then see if TLC has the courage of his convictions needed to wack the prosecutors with rolled up newspapers.

Because that is where this argument is heading. A year ago or so, it was a forum consensus that no one in GWB&co would ever be prosecuted for torturing even though many of us realized, unlike TLC, that it was wrong, and now its become probable that some of the GWB&co perps are going to go to jail over this torture issue.

And like Manson's zealots standing in the peanut gallery outside of the courtroom as the Charles Manson guilty verdict came down , I very much doubt the prosecutors will pay a wit of attention to the very tiny minority position of TLC. And if the prosecutors will not be swayed by the phony arguments of GWB&co and TLC on the torture issue, why should we be swayed or try to convince TLC?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

WTF is your comprehension problem? If it's contradicted by a legal argument that demonstrates how the methods used ran afoul of US law, present it. Let's see the specific legal arguments that you claim exist.

btw, I recently turned 50. I've been very athletic my entire life running the gamut from football, basketball, baseball, track & field, tennis, weightlifitng, surfing and just about any other sport. I'm confident that I'm in better shape at 50 than the vast majority of people posting in this forum. So don't imagine I am some fat old man on his last legs. You would be seriously wrong.

I don't think you understand how a legal argument works. The basic principle is the finding of fact, and the conclusion of law. You establish facts on a case and then come to the determination on how these facts apply to the law. Your facts say the law wasn't violated because the CIA said it didn't meet the legal standard. My facts say the law was violated because the techniques DID meet that standard. The thing is that MY facts come from neutral and authoritative parties, your facts come from the party the memo was intended to regulate.

Guess who wins on that one.

I don't have to guess. It's definitely not you no matter how many iterations of the adolescent "You lose!" response you make, without actually supporting your argument in the first place. My facts claim the law wasn't violated, not based on what the CIA said, but because none of the "IT'S TORTURE" crowd can even begin to present a decent legal rebuttal. My facts claim that there are no US laws or US case law that make such a determination. It's a rather simple point you continue to conveniently overlook. If you're going to claim the methods qualify as torture under US laws you actually have to prove how that's the case. Either that or admit that you can't prove a damn thing, STFU, and allow someone else to try instead of simply muddying the waters with all your windbag pontifications.

Oh, and the fact that you're 50 and still arguing like this just makes it all the more pathetic. You should probably keep that information to yourself.

If you really want to see someone old and making pathetic arguments, look to Harvey. Go tell him how pathetic you think he is. Or do you excuse pathetic when it's pathetic hyperbolic sing-songing of your own personal opinion?

Hypocrite.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

For the last time, dumbass, the claim is that torture, as defined in the memos, was illegal. You haven't proven that in the least.

And I'd love to see you try to whack me with a newspaper. It'd be the last stupid thing you ever did, condescending asshole.

For the last time, the memos claim that the torture they describe is not illegal based on the evidentiary support of a non-neutral party that is directly contradicted by several neutral, authoritative parties, including the Red Cross.

Know what's sad about all this? I know that if you tried to hit me for whacking you with a newspaper it would be nowhere close to the last stupid thing you did, unless somehow you broke enough fingers that you were unable to post on here. Aren't you a 40 something year old man by the way?

WTF is your comprehension problem? If it's contradicted by a legal argument that demonstrates how the methods used ran afoul of US law, present it. Let's see the specific legal arguments that you claim exist.

btw, I recently turned 50. I've been very athletic my entire life running the gamut from football, basketball, baseball, track & field, tennis, weightlifitng, surfing and just about any other sport. I'm confident that I'm in better shape at 50 than the vast majority of people posting in this forum. So don't imagine I am some fat old man on his last legs. You would be seriously wrong.

It's torture, period. Anyone who has been involved should be punished for it, period.

And btw, every living man is on his last legs.

Torture is legally defined in this country by our own laws. Simply claiming these methods were torture does not make it so. I've already made the analogy that calling abortion "murder" doesn't make it so either, but that doesn't stop a certain group of people screaming it incessantly at the top of their lungs either. Sorry, but just because it can be stated loudly and repeatedly doesn't make it so.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I don't have to guess. It's definitely not you no matter how many iterations of the adolescent "You lose!" response you make, without actually supporting your argument in the first place. My facts claim the law wasn't violated, not based on what the CIA said, but because none of the "IT'S TORTURE" crowd can even begin to present a decent legal rebuttal. My facts claim that there are no US laws or US case law that make such a determination. It's a rather simple point you continue to conveniently overlook. If you're going to claim the methods qualify as torture under US laws you actually have to prove how that's the case. Either that or admit that you can't prove a damn thing, STFU, and allow someone else to try instead of simply muddying the waters with all your windbag pontifications.

Oh, and the fact that you're 50 and still arguing like this just makes it all the more pathetic. You should probably keep that information to yourself.

If you really want to see someone old and making pathetic arguments, look to Harvey. Go tell him how pathetic you think he is. Or do you excuse pathetic when it's pathetic hyperbolic sing-songing of your own personal opinion?

Hypocrite.

Already addressed all your points many many times. Just because you ignore inconvenient facts and demand they be posted over and over and over again doesn't mean that your argument hasn't already been defeated. Like I said, you're just trying to wear everyone out so you can salvage some dignity.

Also, I find it funny that you're now trying to make the argument of 'but look at that guy over there!' to excuse your own behavior. I didn't know that 50 year olds still tried that one.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
IMHO, this thread has degenerated into just endless repetitions of the same points. At the end of the day, TLC has lost his argument because only a temporary aberration, namely GWB&co. ever advocated and used torture. And because GWB&co are now as obsolete as the dodo, when and if they are punished for what has always amounted to international war crimes and violations of domestic US laws, we will then see if TLC has the courage of his convictions needed to wack the prosecutors with rolled up newspapers.

Because that is where this argument is heading. A year ago or so, it was a forum consensus that no one in GWB&co would ever be prosecuted for torturing even though many of us realized, unlike TLC, that it was wrong, and now its become probable that some of the GWB&co perps are going to go to jail over this torture issue.

And like Manson's zealots standing in the peanut gallery outside of the courtroom as the Charles Manson guilty verdict came down , I very much doubt the prosecutors will pay a wit of attention to the very tiny minority position of TLC. And if the prosecutors will not be swayed by the phony arguments of GWB&co and TLC on the torture issue, why should we be swayed or try to convince TLC?

The endless repertition is coming from people like you who come in and make that same pronouncement without backing up your claims.

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? Somehow, I doubt it. In fact I'm willing to bet that it would only result in further hyperbole, rhetoric, and unfounded claims from people like you because you are so thoroughly wrapped up in the self-righteousness of your own opinion you could never even begin to fathom that you might be wrong about it.

 

[Lemon law]

Hate to tell you TLC, Harvey is anything but a hypocrite, he has had one consistent argument on this torture issue over the years, he had it when he was a distinct minority, and has the same consistent argument now as he becomes the majority.

Not to give Harvey a big head here, he may have done much on just this forum, but the larger nation has realized the Harvey type argument was correct all along, even though the larger nation has little or no knowledge of Harvey himself.

And at the same time, its GWB&co who erred on torture policy, they may have fooled too many in this country, and now its also just the results of GWB&co
policy that help the rational rest of us realize the GWB&co torture argument goes into nothing but a giant backfire against this country.

In short, TLC, don't call Harvey a hypocrite. That argument simply will not fly.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I don't have to guess. It's definitely not you no matter how many iterations of the adolescent "You lose!" response you make, without actually supporting your argument in the first place. My facts claim the law wasn't violated, not based on what the CIA said, but because none of the "IT'S TORTURE" crowd can even begin to present a decent legal rebuttal. My facts claim that there are no US laws or US case law that make such a determination. It's a rather simple point you continue to conveniently overlook. If you're going to claim the methods qualify as torture under US laws you actually have to prove how that's the case. Either that or admit that you can't prove a damn thing, STFU, and allow someone else to try instead of simply muddying the waters with all your windbag pontifications.

Oh, and the fact that you're 50 and still arguing like this just makes it all the more pathetic. You should probably keep that information to yourself.

If you really want to see someone old and making pathetic arguments, look to Harvey. Go tell him how pathetic you think he is. Or do you excuse pathetic when it's pathetic hyperbolic sing-songing of your own personal opinion?

Hypocrite.

Already addressed all your points many many times. Just because you ignore inconvenient facts and demand they be posted over and over and over again doesn't mean that your argument hasn't already been defeated. Like I said, you're just trying to wear everyone out so you can salvage some dignity.

How did you address my points? International law, argumentum ad populum, proclamations from human rights agencies, equivocating torture by the Japanese, Nazis, and others to the methods we use when they are nowhere near identical in nature, not to mention your copious displays of condescention and arrogance all along the way?

Maybe you didn't notice, and clearly you haven't, but you didn't prove anything. You threw shit against the wall in the desperate hope it would stick. Didn't happen.

Don't even bother trying anymore because it's plain to see you just don't have anything valid and applicable.

Also, I find it funny that you're now trying to make the argument of 'but look at that guy over there!' to excuse your own behavior. I didn't know that 50 year olds still tried that one.

Shows what little you know about 50 year olds. Wouldn't be the first display of ignorance on that subject you've shown in here though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Hate to tell you TLC, Harvey is anything but a hypocrite, he has had one consistent argument on this torture issue over the years, he had it when he was a distinct minority, and has the same consistent argument now as he becomes the majority.

Not to give Harvey a big head here, he may have done much on just this forum, but the larger nation has realized the Harvey type argument was correct all along, even though the larger nation has little or no knowledge of Harvey himself.

And at the same time, its GWB&co who erred on torture policy, they may have fooled too many in this country, and now its also just the results of GWB&co
policy that help the rational rest of us realize the GWB&co torture argument goes into nothing but a giant backfire against this country.

In short, TLC, don't call Harvey a hypocrite. That argument simply will not fly.

Actually I wasn't calling Harvey a hypocrite. Read again what I wrote.

But Harvey has displayed himself to be a hypocrite on the subject a number of times. He doesn't support torture of the detainees, our enemy, but he has stated on numerous occassions that he wouldn't mind seeing certain people brutally treated, including some of the forum members in here. For nearly anyone else in this place it would have been a permaban, or at the very least a public admonishment along with a lengthy vacation. Not Harvey though.

So if you actually believe Harvey isn't a hypocrite then it's because you're turning a blind eye. I guess that's what people do to the members of their side of an issue though, isn't it?

 

[Lemon law]

Finally we have something definitive from TLC, namely, "If GWB and Co are ever dragged into court over this and found guilty then I will gladly admit being in error."

Rest assured TLC, this forum will hold you to that statement you just made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile, the fact that GWB&co officials have, as of yet, escaped punishment will still fail to alter my position that the torture policies of GWB&co have always been wrong. And you, TLC,
just called harvey a hypocrite, and now come back with the circular reasoning argument that if some GWB&co officials are in fact jailed for torturing, it must have been wrong all along. And if they are not it was right all along. The argument of a true hypocrite because something was right or wrong regardless of some independent end outcome.

Perhaps first up on the docket but not a full test, the Senate impeachment to remove Bybee from the Federal bench.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

How did you address my points? International law, argumentum ad populum, proclamations from human rights agencies, equivocating torture by the Japanese, Nazis, and others to the methods we use when they are nowhere near identical in nature, not to mention your copious displays of condescention and arrogance all along the way?

Maybe you didn't notice, and clearly you haven't, but you didn't prove anything. You threw shit against the wall in the desperate hope it would stick. Didn't happen.

Don't even bother trying anymore because it's plain to see you just don't have anything valid and applicable.

Also, I find it funny that you're now trying to make the argument of 'but look at that guy over there!' to excuse your own behavior. I didn't know that 50 year olds still tried that one.

Shows what little you know about 50 year olds. Wouldn't be the first display of ignorance on that subject you've shown in here though.

No TLC. Just no. You can feel free to dismiss the judgments of legal experts, the judgments of international agencies considered the authority on what constitutes torture and inhuman treatment, precedent for the same technique used in the past, all of it. If you ignore it all long enough, maybe all of the rest of us on here will get tired and it will go away. So long as you keep your fingers in your ears and your eyes tightly shut you'll never have to admit being wrong about anything, no matter how much piles up against you.

Nice comeback on the 50 year old thing by the way, 'you're wrong! 50 year olds ARE immature enough to think that another's behavior excuses their own!' I heartily concede defeat on that one TLC.