Cheney hospitalized again.

[Pens1566]

Wiki eh? Those soldiers were not authorized to waterboard anyone. They acted outside of the law.

Exactly, they acted outside of the law. They did not have the authority to waterboard anyone. The CIA interrogators, on the other hand, acted within the law. What they did was perfectly legal.

Those people acted outside of the law. The CIA interrogators did not. Hence no convictions, or indictments for that matter. It's really quite simple.


The lack of indictments alone are enough. However, since it is you that is claiming that the waterboarding of Zubaydah et al was illegal, the onus of proof is on you.

"Acting under orders" worked well at Nuremberg ...

 

[Darwin333]

Well if nothing else, cheer up, the grim reaper never takes a vacation. And as a even handed fellow, never discriminates regarding any particular partisan viewpoint.

I'll drink to that.

 

[PJABBER]

I call shens. Prove that. :thumbsdown:

I call shens on you (whatever that means.) Prove that they don't! :awe:

And in response to Darwin333's post, I'd make it a double.

 

[Loyalist]

I already did in a previous post, including names, dates, times and places. If you're too reading challenged to comprehend the list, or you're too incompetent to search for those quotes and confirm them, it's you're problem, not ours.

If anyone has a problem it would be you. You never posted anything that proves that the Bush Administration LIED to go to war. Not one single thing.

You really are a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal. I posted two of those names AND the circumstances under which they were canned. If you're not also mouse challenged, search another of my posts for Richard Clarke and Eric Shinseki.

Are you that dense? Where is your evidence that those responsible for putting together the 2002 NIE were pressured to lie? Put up or shut up.

You're damned right you can't speak for "most every American military man" so don't pretend that you can.

EVERY American citizen is responsible for obeying the laws of the United States of America. However, 58 percent of the American public are not responsible for upholding those laws. That's the responsibility of our elected officials and our law enforcement agencies.

Neither are 58 percent of American troops responsible for upholding those laws. That's the responsibility of their command structure all the way up to their Commander In Chief.

At the time, the most senior elected official of our civilian government and the Commander In Chief of our armed forces was the EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush who should be tried and convicted for his crimes. :thumbsdown:

Are you even an American citizen? If you are, you are a disgrace to our nation and to every American citizen and every value and every ideal Americans have fought and died to establish and defend for 234 years. :'(

If you're not an American citizen, please shut the fuck up and go back and shit all over whatever UN-American hell hole spawned you.

​

 

[Loyalist]

"Acting under orders" worked well at Nuremberg ...

Well, that didn't take long. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#cite_note-canonical_version-2

 

[CallMeJoe]

Well, that didn't take long. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#cite_note-canonical_version-2

When one of the thread participants resorts to arguing "They were only following orders", the Nuremberg citation becomes inevitable...

 

[Loyalist]

When one of the thread participants resorts to arguing "They were only following orders", the Nuremberg citation becomes inevitable...

Ok, but what does that have to do with this thread? Who here has resorted to a "They were only following orders" argument?

 

[Budarow]

Whether you like the guy or not...he'll get his in the end (just like all of us do).

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Wiki eh? Those soldiers were not authorized to waterboard anyone. They acted outside of the law.

Exactly, they acted outside of the law. They did not have the authority to waterboard anyone. The CIA interrogators, on the other hand, acted within the law. What they did was perfectly legal.

Those people acted outside of the law. The CIA interrogators did not. Hence no convictions, or indictments for that matter. It's really quite simple.


The lack of indictments alone are enough. However, since it is you that is claiming that the waterboarding of Zubaydah et al was illegal, the onus of proof is on you.

wow...logic fail. So it's illegal for others, but not the CIA, since it was "authorized"? How clueless are you?

Lets start with some simple things, to help you out. If something is illegal, no one can be "authorized" to make it legal.

Murder is illegal.....no one has permission to murder someone.
Rape is illegal...no one has permission to rape someone.
Torture is illegal....no one has permission to torture someone.

Get the concept? I mean really, this is basic law here.

If it's illegal, it's illegal, full stop. No one can legally perform an illegal act, and the executive branch (ie President) can NOT order someone to conduct an illegal act. The President also can NOT ignore the law or somehow change the law.

Again, you are totally clueless about this thing we have in the US called "law". I suggest you read up again before posting nonsense and embrassing yourself.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Personally, I find it amusing that most every American military man who has gone through waterboarding would like to see it used, if need be, on terrorists.

Oh look, another blabber BS post with no evidence to back it up....what a shock!!!!

You got any evidence to back up your BS? I know many retired military, and pretty much all are disgusted by what Bush did and are against torture.

But I guess you will let this go by the wayside, just like your man-crush post on Cheney, when you couldn't defend all the things he did, so you just ignore it.

Just more 100% content-free posting by blabber.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Well, that didn't take long. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#cite_note-canonical_version-2

Gee, you pretty much made it happen, with your "just follow orders" explanation.

Your concept of making torture OK is pretty much exactly the Nurenberg defense.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Ok, but what does that have to do with this thread? Who here has resorted to a "They were only following orders" argument?

You implicitly make the argument with your repetetive "it was legal when they did it" posts.