DOJ: No misconduct by Woo or Bybee

[Doc Savage Fan]

Show me said the self admitted blind man, right! Like I should waste my time.

But what do you think of the free speech point that is always made, that we are all for free speech until it is about us? Then we want it silenced......that the true test of whether we believe in free speech is when it's hard.

It should not be difficult for someone of high moral standing and real faith to have compassion on a blind man by answering a simple question as simply, honestly, and straight-forward as possible. Btw you're an excellent dancer...but you should also know that...in addition to my blindness.... I'm a paraplegic and gave up dancing long ago.

How do you personally think we should respond to an ongoing organized effort to kill innocents?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Another moral leper. If we just kill them we will be them.

Ooh, our resident Decider of Morality pokes his head in. Didn't think it through very well though, did you?

The only way we would be them is if we indiscriminately killed anyone whenever it suited our purpose. We actually take care to try to avoid civilian casualities whenever possible though, while they purposefully target civilians. That, btw, is an important distinction between terrorist and non-terrorist actions, one you seem to either have forgotten or overlooked in order to point your finger of righteousness.

 

[Moonbeam]

It should not be difficult for someone of high moral standing and real faith to have compassion on a blind man by answering a simple question as simply, honestly, and straight-forward as possible. Btw you're an excellent dancer...but you should also know that...in addition to my blindness.... I'm a paraplegic and gave up dancing long ago.

How do you personally think we should respond to an ongoing organized effort to kill innocents?

Everybody is born equal. Nobody is better than anyone else. The equality isn't in intellectual or physical ability or condition at birth. The equality is in an infinite capacity every human has to love, that we are created in the image of God or if you prefer we created Him in our image.

Almost nobody ever realized that full potential because we are all born in a world where we are destroyed by language, we are told there is good and evil and that we are that evil. Every god on the planet has been taught the duality that makes it possible to self hate, some more so and some less.

The result is that we are sick and do not know it, because we couldn't have survived had we not buried our pain. And some are more sick than others.

We are all in need of healing and desperate to recover our lost love, some more than others, and this can lead to blame and violence. We look for somebody else to blame for our pain, somebody else to punish, to hurt like we hurt.

But there is nothing wrong with anybody and there is nobody to blame.

We are all free to be as sick as we like unless we cross a line and allow or intend for our sickness to hurt another.

This is what Al Quaeda has done. They have justified violence and the killing of innocents because it will lead to a greater good, a good that they imagine, not a good held by those they kill.

When a person crosses the live from personal insanity to harming others it is the right of those harmed or potentially harmed to take action.

But there is only one intent that any just person can have, and that is to stop the harmers from harming. They only have to be permanently stopped, not killed if there is any other way, but killed if necessary.

This, I believe, should be rational and understandable to any unbiased observer. It is therefore incumbent on the just to announce the intention of their justice, to call for the support in the effort from every other just man.

Al Quaeda is evil and that should be obvious to all humanity. People all over the world should be working to root them out. The notion that it is OK to kill for the greater good should be shown to be insane, that the end result of that kind of thinking will be the destruction of every Muslim by a besieged West. People will kill you and everybody around you if you try to harm their kids.

So Al Quaeda is a disease that everybody on earth should seek to destroy, especially Muslims.

The right to defend yourself against the insane is absolute but it would be nice not to be insane doing it.

The goal is to stop them and that is all.

And that is where the legal system comes in. Al Quaeda are criminals that use terror as a weapon, but they are only criminals, the insane who believe they are good when they kill. They need to be confronted and told they are mentally ill. Their ability to feed on injustice for recruits needs to be addressed by justice in the countries in which they live.

Criminals are dealt with by the legal system. It is what makes us civilized and them mentally ill.

Of course the sick among us want to address Al Quaeda at their own level, with their own mental illness and the desire to kill them for the greater good.

They only need to be stopped and that's the job of the police.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Another moral leper. If we just kill them we will be them.

Ooh, our resident Decider of Morality pokes his head in. Didn't think it through very well though, did you?

The only way we would be them is if we indiscriminately killed anyone whenever it suited our purpose. We actually take care to try to avoid civilian causalities whenever possible though, while they purposefully target civilians. That, btw, is an important distinction between terrorist and non-terrorist actions, one you seem to either have forgotten or overlooked in order to point your finger of righteousness.

When I referred to you as a moral leper I was referring to this comment you made:

"And to explain it further, I was stating that I have no problem with either Bush or Obama issuing orders that allow us to assassinate these guys on the battlefield or wherever. If we simply kill them instead there won't be any need for detention or torture. Comprende?"

I think our moral superiority in trying not to target civilians is not only admirable but infinitely superior to what I criticized you for suggesting:

"And to explain it further, I was stating that I have no problem with either Bush or Obama issuing orders that allow us to assassinate these guys on the battlefield or wherever. If we simply kill them instead there won't be any need for detention or torture. Comprende?"

Assassination is for moral lepers swine who take it upon themselves to kill anybody they like for the greater good. But of course I'm the one who's righteous. heheheheh

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

When I referred to you as a moral leper I was referring to this comment you made:

"And to explain it further, I was stating that I have no problem with either Bush or Obama issuing orders that allow us to assassinate these guys on the battlefield or wherever. If we simply kill them instead there won't be any need for detention or torture. Comprende?"

I think our moral superiority in trying not to target civilians is not only admirable but infinitely superior to what I criticized you for suggesting:

"And to explain it further, I was stating that I have no problem with either Bush or Obama issuing orders that allow us to assassinate these guys on the battlefield or wherever. If we simply kill them instead there won't be any need for detention or torture. Comprende?"

Assassination is for moral lepers swine who take it upon themselves to kill anybody they like for the greater good. But of course I'm the one who's righteous. heheheheh

I'm not sure you get it, moonie.

First of all, I don't care one whit about your moral proclamations or your lame attempts at smearing anyone in here who doesn't agree with your insanity. Nobody appointed you as any sort of moral authority and I have no idea why you feel entitled to assume such a position in the first place in here. iow, get off your fucking high horse.

Second, I was responding to your lame attempt to equate us and them. I pointed out one major difference that shows how and why we will never be them.

Finally, I wasn't claiming that we could "kill anybody they like for the greater good", not by a long shot. But I've come to expect the lame 'take a statement and twist it all to hell' form of response in here so I'm not one bit surprised you resorted to it.

 

[Moonbeam]

TLC: I'm not sure you get it, moonie.

M: Carry on as if you do:

TLC: First of all, I don't care one whit about your moral proclamations or your lame attempts at smearing anyone in here who doesn't agree with your insanity.

M: Next time you don't care about something don't refer to it and show you mean it. All your horse shit about not caring tells me you do.

TLC: Nobody appointed you as any sort of moral authority and I have no idea why you feel entitled to assume such a position in the first place in here. iow, get off your fucking high horse.

M: No no no, Fuck you. I appointed myself under my own moral authority which in my book is the best you can get. Naturally, you would want to be more modest with your own moral authority, it not having much value and all.

TLC: Second, I was responding to your lame attempt to equate us and them. I pointed out one major difference that shows how and why we will never be them.

M: Hey butt head, we are the same as them if we go nuts and kill any and all to get even like a bunch of lunatic assassins.

TLC: Finally, I wasn't claiming that we could "kill anybody they like for the greater good", not by a long shot. But I've come to expect the lame 'take a statement and twist it all to hell' form of response in here so I'm not one bit surprised you resorted to it.

M: You're not one bit surprised I take exception to nut case language like this:

"And to explain it further, I was stating that I have no problem with either Bush or Obama issuing orders that allow us to assassinate these guys on the battlefield or wherever. If we simply kill them instead there won't be any need for detention or torture. Comprende?"

If you don't want misinterpretation how about sharpening up what you say so you don't sound like a raving lunatic.

 

[JSt0rm]

TLC: I'm not sure you get it, moonie.

M: Carry on as if you do:

buahahahah. That shit is classic hahaha

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Everybody is born equal. Nobody is better than anyone else. The equality isn't in intellectual or physical ability or condition at birth. The equality is in an infinite capacity every human has to love, that we are created in the image of God or if you prefer we created Him in our image.

Almost nobody ever realized that full potential because we are all born in a world where we are destroyed by language, we are told there is good and evil and that we are that evil. Every god on the planet has been taught the duality that makes it possible to self hate, some more so and some less.

The result is that we are sick and do not know it, because we couldn't have survived had we not buried our pain. And some are more sick than others.

We are all in need of healing and desperate to recover our lost love, some more than others, and this can lead to blame and violence. We look for somebody else to blame for our pain, somebody else to punish, to hurt like we hurt.

But there is nothing wrong with anybody and there is nobody to blame.

We are all free to be as sick as we like unless we cross a line and allow or intend for our sickness to hurt another.

This is what Al Quaeda has done. They have justified violence and the killing of innocents because it will lead to a greater good, a good that they imagine, not a good held by those they kill.

When a person crosses the live from personal insanity to harming others it is the right of those harmed or potentially harmed to take action.

But there is only one intent that any just person can have, and that is to stop the harmers from harming. They only have to be permanently stopped, not killed if there is any other way, but killed if necessary.

This, I believe, should be rational and understandable to any unbiased observer. It is therefore incumbent on the just to announce the intention of their justice, to call for the support in the effort from every other just man.

Al Quaeda is evil and that should be obvious to all humanity. People all over the world should be working to root them out. The notion that it is OK to kill for the greater good should be shown to be insane, that the end result of that kind of thinking will be the destruction of every Muslim by a besieged West. People will kill you and everybody around you if you try to harm their kids.

So Al Quaeda is a disease that everybody on earth should seek to destroy, especially Muslims.

The right to defend yourself against the insane is absolute but it would be nice not to be insane doing it.

The goal is to stop them and that is all.

And that is where the legal system comes in. Al Quaeda are criminals that use terror as a weapon, but they are only criminals, the insane who believe they are good when they kill. They need to be confronted and told they are mentally ill. Their ability to feed on injustice for recruits needs to be addressed by justice in the countries in which they live.

Criminals are dealt with by the legal system. It is what makes us civilized and them mentally ill.

Of course the sick among us want to address Al Quaeda at their own level, with their own mental illness and the desire to kill them for the greater good.

They only need to be stopped and that's the job of the police.

Thank you for answering in a way I can understand. IMO...I think pit bulls who attack children should be euthanized as they are unfit to be trusted among our children again. Killing is ugly no matter how you look at it...but if you let the pit bull free and it kills another child...then do you not have innocent blood on your hands? Or perhaps you choose to lock the dog up forever to suffer the remainder of its life in miserable confinement.

Who is morally superior? The one who euthanizes, the one who lets the dog free again hoping that it is truly rehabilitated and will not kill children again, or the one who locks the dog away forever?

 

[Moonbeam]

Thank you for answering in a way I can understand.

You are welcome. I would like you to know that the only reason I ask you questions when you ask me is because I see in you a thoughtful and respectful person. I can give you an answer but I feel it won't be of the same value to you as you answering mine. I can answer but I would rather you did.

Now:

DSF: IMO...I think pit bulls who attack children should be euthanized as they are unfit to be trusted among our children again.

M: The only requirement, as with Al Quaeda, is that the attacks be stopped. The dog is not a threat if it can't ever get to children. When it comes to dogs folk have less moral compunction about killing them and find killing expedient for practical reasons. A person who loves such a dog would not see things that way and might take on any expense to keep the animal alive. But fear and irrationality, especially the innate protectiveness of parents demand their pound of flesh, no?

DSF: Killing is ugly no matter how you look at it...but if you let the pit bull free and it kills another child...then do you not have innocent blood on your hands?

M: Of course you would.

DSF: Or perhaps you choose to lock the dog up forever to suffer the remainder of its life in miserable confinement.

M: How about a farm that has no children or some such other place?

DSF: Who is morally superior? The one who euthanizes, the one who lets the dog free again hoping that it is truly rehabilitated and will not kill children again, or the one who locks the dog away forever?

M: The one who locks away the dog in a place fit for dogs.

The question is, what expense are we willing to assume to be moral.

In the case of the folk we tortured we have assumed, in my opinion, a terrible moral burden. Bush is the reason we are in such a mess. He allowed us to become animals so he wouldn't lose an election by being soft on terror. Of course, by staying within the law and using legal interrogation techniques that have proven far more effective than torture, he created this completely stupid and unnecessary moral dilemma.

My opinion is that, for the sake of morality, if we really are a moral nation rather than a nation of moral talk that is a phony front, we owe these folk special compensation. They are human beings, not dogs. That is another problem with how you framed your questions.

The determination that they are dogs leads down one road, the fact that they are human beings we have wronged leads down another.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Moonie. I have a few suggestions that would definitely enhance your standing in here.

First Suggestion:

TLC: I'm not sure you get it, moonie.

M: Carry on as if you do:

Wow. As swing and a miss. That response seemed really forced and rather pathetic. When trying to be clever a response should flow and seem natural, not come off as a knee-jerk reaction.

btw, you can always tell when you're not being clever in here because one of the regular forum idiots will chime in and try to bolster your weak attempt. Case in point:

buahahahah. That shit is classic hahaha

See?

Second Suggestion:

Paragraphs are employed for a reason. The sentences contained within contain a related train of thought. When you parse paragraphs into individual sentences you remove context and come off as struggling to actually address the thought and context contained within. It's as foolish as breaking down a sentence into individual words and responding to each word. It would make no real sense because it doesn't address the entire context, much as your rambling responses that follow really don't address anything I said.

TLC: First of all, I don't care one whit about your moral proclamations or your lame attempts at smearing anyone in here who doesn't agree with your insanity.

M: Next time you don't care about something don't refer to it and show you mean it. All your horse shit about not caring tells me you do.

TLC: Nobody appointed you as any sort of moral authority and I have no idea why you feel entitled to assume such a position in the first place in here. iow, get off your fucking high horse.

M: No no no, Fuck you. I appointed myself under my own moral authority which in my book is the best you can get. Naturally, you would want to be more modest with your own moral authority, it not having much value and all.

TLC: Second, I was responding to your lame attempt to equate us and them. I pointed out one major difference that shows how and why we will never be them.

M: Hey butt head, we are the same as them if we go nuts and kill any and all to get even like a bunch of lunatic assassins.

TLC: Finally, I wasn't claiming that we could "kill anybody they like for the greater good", not by a long shot. But I've come to expect the lame 'take a statement and twist it all to hell' form of response in here so I'm not one bit surprised you resorted to it.

M: You're not one bit surprised I take exception to nut case language like this:

"And to explain it further, I was stating that I have no problem with either Bush or Obama issuing orders that allow us to assassinate these guys on the battlefield or wherever. If we simply kill them instead there won't be any need for detention or torture. Comprende?"

If you don't want misinterpretation how about sharpening up what you say so you don't sound like a raving lunatic.

Lastly, don't pretend to disagree with me when you really don't.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2044287&page=4

Far better that we never held any of them and killed them on the field than that we soiled our honor by allowing Bush to commit these crimes.

Merely pretending that you disagree with me only serves to make you look like an argumentative tool at best, and a troll at worst.

Hopefully you'll take all of the above suggestions to heart. You'll become a better contributor to ATP&N in the process. You can thank me later.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, TLC, you are still as clueless as you have ever been, and even if you refuse to admit that Moonbeam is correct and you miss the point, maybe you will believe our top General, General Petraeus. Who very recently pointed out that the abuses of Cheney and Yoo, as well as the crimes of Abu Ghrab, never never "biodegrade", they are everlasting stains on America, a nation I love, but evidently you can't understand such a blot and stain, is incompatible with an America worth loving.

And when I and General Petreaus understand the handicaps of such a blot and a stain far exceed the dubious benefits as we pursue a foreign policy, people like you are a big part of the problem and clueless for the solution.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Well, TLC, you are still as clueless as you have ever been, and even if you refuse to admit that Moonbeam is correct and you miss the point, maybe you will believe our top General, General Petraeus. Who very recently pointed out that the abuses of Cheney and Yoo, as well as the crimes of Abu Ghrab, never never "biodegrade", they are everlasting stains on America, a nation I love, but evidently you can't understand such a blot and stain, is incompatible with an America worth loving.

And when I and General Petreaus understand the handicaps of such a blot and a stain far exceed the dubious benefits as we pursue a foreign policy, people like you are a big part of the problem and clueless for the solution.

The actual point is that this thread is about Woo and Bybee and that the DOJ has found that there was no misconduct by either man.

Apparently though, much like Jhhhn, you can't add anything of value unless you try to turn this thread into "OMG! TORTCHAH!" so you can go down the talking points checklist and regurgitate the same, tiresome old crap for the bazillionth time. IOW, your response has little to no bearing on the actual subject of the thread. Nice try at a diversion though.

 

[Jhhnn]

The actual point is that this thread is about Woo and Bybee and that the DOJ has found that there was no misconduct by either man.

Apparently though, much like Jhhhn, you can't add anything of value unless you try to turn this thread into "OMG! TORTCHAH!" so you can go down the talking points checklist and regurgitate the same, tiresome old crap for the bazillionth time. IOW, your response has little to no bearing on the actual subject of the thread. Nice try at a diversion though.

Gawd, I love the smell of denial, and the fear underlying it. The conduct of Woo and Bybee was just a part of the excrable arrogance of the Bush Admin and the Rightwing in general. They're gone, but the kind of thinking that allowed it and promoted it is now attempting to excuse it.

Basically, what the DoJ said is that they don't think they can make a case, not that Woo and Bybee are "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination. So we let 'em go- goodbye and good riddance, even though they certainly never applied those same standards to others, like the guys they approved being tortured in Gitmo.

Too deep? Obviously. To understand that, you'd have to take a long hard look at yourself, and what you believe.

Moonbeam is close to correct in the reference to moral lepers- it's really more like alcoholism, a disease of the mind, body, and spirit that only a miracle can overcome.

 

[Darwin333]

I had no problem with that when Bush did it and I have no problem when Obama does it. We would have been better off killing these guys on the battlefield instead of capturing them and sending them to Gitmo.

Did you miss the "American citizen" part?

That due process shit and bullshit jury of your peers and worthless fair trials are all unnecessary right? As long as the President says your a bad guy then you should be shot in cold blood?

You are basically saying that even the most basic of our constitutional rights apply only as long as the president thinks they should.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Did you miss the "American citizen" part?

That due process shit and bullshit jury of your peers and worthless fair trials are all unnecessary right? As long as the President says your a bad guy then you should be shot in cold blood?

You are basically saying that even the most basic of our constitutional rights apply only as long as the president thinks they should.

No, I didn't miss the "American citizen" part. Let's not pretend as if this gives the President free reign either, as if he's going to indiscriminately decide to have US citizens assassinated. That sort of thing is hyperbole to the extreme.

Unfortunately there is a small group of American citizens who have decided to side with al Qaeda. imo, when an American citizen makes the decision to join the enemy and becomes determined to attack those same citizens they deserve to be killed right along side that same enemy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Gawd, I love the smell of denial, and the fear underlying it. The conduct of Woo and Bybee was just a part of the excrable arrogance of the Bush Admin and the Rightwing in general. They're gone, but the kind of thinking that allowed it and promoted it is now attempting to excuse it.

Basically, what the DoJ said is that they don't think they can make a case, not that Woo and Bybee are "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination. So we let 'em go- goodbye and good riddance, even though they certainly never applied those same standards to others, like the guys they approved being tortured in Gitmo.

Too deep? Obviously. To understand that, you'd have to take a long hard look at yourself, and what you believe.

Moonbeam is close to correct in the reference to moral lepers- it's really more like alcoholism, a disease of the mind, body, and spirit that only a miracle can overcome.

LOL. Right on cue. Perfect.

I can picture guys like you, LL, and Moonbeam 40 years from now. You'll still be blaming Bush for every ill in your life and the neighborhood kids will refer to you as 'That creepy old paranoid dude that mumbles to himself all the time.'

 

[jackschmittusa]

TLC

Let's just build a government stadium and feed them to the lions in the afternoon. The morning show could be simple torture and humiliation.

That'll show 'em we mean business. And pay-per-view revenues can go toward the deficit.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

TLC

Let's just build a government stadium and feed them to the lions in the afternoon. The morning show could be simple torture and humiliation.

That'll show 'em we mean business. And pay-per-view revenues can go toward the deficit.

Just got done watching an episode of Rome, eh?

Taking arguments to ridiculous extremes in order to villify does nobody any favors, least of all you in this particular case, especially since it's such a transparent attempt. I'd find it insulting if it didn't make you look so silly in the first place.

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL. Right on cue. Perfect.

I can picture guys like you, LL, and Moonbeam 40 years from now. You'll still be blaming Bush for every ill in your life and the neighborhood kids will refer to you as 'That creepy old paranoid dude that mumbles to himself all the time.'

You got nothin' other than bluster, TLC, nothin' at all. That's obvious, given that you have not, and will not, address any of the points that have been raised. You act as if the tide of rightwing filth that's been building for 30 years didn't crest and collapse with the Bush Admin and the formerly Repub congress, as if you've really been right all along, as if GWB really did "restore honor and dignity" to the Whitehouse. Hogwash. Malarkey. If you actually believe your own doublespeak, you're a lot dimmer bulb than I ever imagined.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You got nothin' other than bluster, TLC, nothin' at all. That's obvious, given that you have not, and will not, address any of the points that have been raised. You act as if the tide of rightwing filth that's been building for 30 years didn't crest and collapse with the Bush Admin and the formerly Repub congress, as if you've really been right all along, as if GWB really did "restore honor and dignity" to the Whitehouse. Hogwash. Malarkey. If you actually believe your own doublespeak, you're a lot dimmer bulb than I ever imagined.

I started this thread Jhhhn. I already raised the points. The problem is that you want to divert them to something else instead.

We know how you despise the Bush admin so there's no need to provide yet another avenue for you to vent your tiresome and stale rant. You've been regurgitating the same crap for years already. Pssst. It's over. Bush is gone. You really need to learn when to stop and move on. Either that or you can still post irrelevant crap that makes you look like a partisan goof who's stuck in the past? You decide.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonie. I have a few suggestions that would definitely enhance your standing in here.

First Suggestion:

Wow. As swing and a miss. That response seemed really forced and rather pathetic. When trying to be clever a response should flow and seem natural, not come off as a knee-jerk reaction.

btw, you can always tell when you're not being clever in here because one of the regular forum idiots will chime in and try to bolster your weak attempt. Case in point:



See?

Second Suggestion:

Paragraphs are employed for a reason. The sentences contained within contain a related train of thought. When you parse paragraphs into individual sentences you remove context and come off as struggling to actually address the thought and context contained within. It's as foolish as breaking down a sentence into individual words and responding to each word. It would make no real sense because it doesn't address the entire context, much as your rambling responses that follow really don't address anything I said.


Lastly, don't pretend to disagree with me when you really don't.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2044287&page=4



Merely pretending that you disagree with me only serves to make you look like an argumentative tool at best, and a troll at worst.

Hopefully you'll take all of the above suggestions to heart. You'll become a better contributor to ATP&N in the process. You can thank me later.

My God, you are genuinely pathetic. But how lucky you are to be too stupid to know it.

 

[cubby1223]

Because it's more complicated than crayons can deal with, and their masters didn't tell them to. When's the last time Beck or Palin took the position against these policies?

More complicated than grammar can deal with, too.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

My God, you are genuinely pathetic. But how lucky you are to be too stupid to know it.

Well waddyaknow? I have the exact same opinion of you.

At least there's one thing we can agree on.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can grasp what TLC says in, "I can picture guys like you, LL, and Moonbeam 40 years from now. You'll still be blaming Bush for every ill in your life and the neighborhood kids will refer to you as 'That creepy old paranoid dude that mumbles to himself all the time."

Cheer up TLC, you already fit your own description of a creepy paranoid, age has nothing to do with with creepy or morally bankrupt.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well waddyaknow? I have the exact same opinion of you.

At least there's one thing we can agree on.

The opinion of the pathetic is of little worth, but then again your luck holds out. You are too stupid to know it and so, full of glee and bombast, and without the slightest self reflection, you continue to play the part of a titanically supercilious and smug ass.