Obama releasing torture memos. Change we can believe in.

[jackschmittusa]

This whole "no lasting harm" crap is ludicrous. Absurd beyond belief.

Ever read some of the things that happened in Cambodia? Making prisoners eat shit, drink piss. No lasting harm there folks. Car battery to the nuts. No lasting harm there either. The list is long and sickening. It is a list of ways to insure the subject stays alive for a long time so they can be abused again and again.

While what they did far exceeds what we did (I hope), I believe it shows that the "no lasting harm" argument is completely devoid of merit.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I think Obama's 3.5 trillion dollar deficit and doubling of the national debt is causing lasting harm.. it should probably be classified as torture.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I think Obama's 3.5 trillion dollar deficit and doubling of the national debt is causing lasting harm.. it should probably be classified as torture.

having to read your posts are enough cruel and unusual torture for one day!!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
This whole "no lasting harm" crap is ludicrous. Absurd beyond belief.

Ever read some of the things that happened in Cambodia? Making prisoners eat shit, drink piss. No lasting harm there folks. Car battery to the nuts. No lasting harm there either. The list is long and sickening. It is a list of ways to insure the subject stays alive for a long time so they can be abused again and again.

While what they did far exceeds what we did (I hope), I believe it shows that the "no lasting harm" argument is completely devoid of merit.

If we were making them eat shit, drink piss, and shocking prisoner's nuts the "no lasting harm" clause probably would be devoid of merit, not to mention it would likely violate other aspect of the anti-torture statutes. Since we weren't doing those things, bringing up those torture methods has no real relevance.

Nice attempt at equivalence employing the emotional aspect of revulsion. It falls quite a bit short though.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
This whole "no lasting harm" crap is ludicrous. Absurd beyond belief.

Ever read some of the things that happened in Cambodia? Making prisoners eat shit, drink piss. No lasting harm there folks. Car battery to the nuts. No lasting harm there either. The list is long and sickening. It is a list of ways to insure the subject stays alive for a long time so they can be abused again and again.

While what they did far exceeds what we did (I hope), I believe it shows that the "no lasting harm" argument is completely devoid of merit.

I tend to agree with you. It's like arguing that it's not rape if they didn't get pregnant because there was "no lasting harm".

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, I'm not being obtuse. The problem is that you are overlooking a major point in the issue, either purposefully or simply because you haven't even considered it.

Do you think Iran, China, Egypt, et al have issued numerous lengthy legal opinions as to the legality of their actions regarding torture? Do they worry whether or not what they are adhering to any laws in the process? Have they put constraints on the methods they use?

The difference between legality and illegality is often a fine line. The memos explicitly spell out what that line is. They define how to remain within the borders of legality in applying the techniques. Comparing what we do to what they do is ridiculous.

Some people seem to want to equate all interrogation methods and lump them as , 'OMG! TORTURE.' Sorry, but that's disingenius and ignores the details.

No, you are a tool. You deliberately misinterpret and ignore what has happened, and selectively quote snippets here and there to try and obfuscate what is going on.

You obviously had swallowed the Bush playbook of defining torture to whatever you want it to mean, so you can proudly claim that we don't torture. The reality is 99% of the rest of the world (including our court system) would say that this is torture. Just because you and a few other loonies (like Yoo and Cheney) want to claim otherwise doesn't make it so.

To put this in simple terms for you:

1. If I, a private citizen, did these acts to you, I'd be arrested and convicted.
2. If I , a policeman, did these acts to a suspect, I'd be arrested and convicted.
3. If I, a FBI agent, did these acts to a prisoner, I'd be arrested and convicted.
4. If I, a member of the military, did that do a POW, I'd be arrested and convicted.

Do you have a plausible reason how the CIA (American citizens, bound by US federal law) can somehow not get arrested?

Oh, and read this article , where we are obligated by law to investigate and prosecute this. Again, That's our law. Do you somehow feel like you are allowed to ignore (IOW break) the law?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the memos were very explicit about not breaking any laws in the process. That's the point I was making but it seems to have gone completely over your head in your little emotional tantrum of a response.

Sorry, but judges in this country rule if laws are broken. Partisan appointed lawyers that get appointed by the president specifically because they will either agree with what he thinks, or because they will do what he tells them to do don't count. (See John Yoo and others. Bush says "write something that makes this legal", and Yoo does it. That doesn't make it legal, it's BS cover up designed to confuse everyone to try and get away with breaking the law)

Just because a defense lawyer of an accused criminal publicly states that their cleint is 100% innocent doesn't make that a fact.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC, torture does not need to cause lasting harm for it to be torture. And that is where you lose the argument.

By law it does, LL, and that's where you lose.

I think the left is deflated after reading the actual content of these memos. They thought they'd be some sort of smoking gun and a huge indictment of the Bush admin. Bummer for them, but overstatement born of partisanism is not an unknown quantity from either side when it comes to politics. It always leaves both sides looking like idiots.

Want to quote a real law where it says that?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Tell me this. Which is a bigger crime-commiting the acts themselves, or knowing they are/were commited and not doing anything about it? Before you answer, you may want to get your congressman's phone number handy to call and protest. If Bush is to be prosecuted for these crimes, then every member of the senate who stands idly by and does nothing should be prosecuted as an accesory for doing nothing. Why is it when its so clear to us...you know, the armchair lawyers here...that crimes were commited, and yet those with the power to do something about it do nothing? Can you answer that?

I'd rank them this way, (but what I think doesn't matter anyway )

Worst: Ordering the crime to be committed (Bush and his admin)
Next: Knowing it, but not doing anything (Congress, for bullshit political reasons)
Least: People doing it (but that doesn't absolve them of guilt)

We wouldn't be in this mess if Bush hadn't decided to break the law, so he gets top billing. Congress (both sides) is at fault for playing politics, and not really caring about anything other then re-election bids and who has more power.

Convicting all of Congress would be a good start , and probably the best thing that could happen, to clear out all those long-time corrupt people. But Bush ordered it, so he is responsible. This wasn't a one-time "whoops", this was a well planned systemic effort to routinely torture suspects by ignoring the laws of this country. They all knew what they were doing, and tried to cover it up with "legal opinions" to give them denialbility.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
This whole "no lasting harm" crap is ludicrous. Absurd beyond belief.

Ever read some of the things that happened in Cambodia? Making prisoners eat shit, drink piss. No lasting harm there folks. Car battery to the nuts. No lasting harm there either. The list is long and sickening. It is a list of ways to insure the subject stays alive for a long time so they can be abused again and again.

While what they did far exceeds what we did (I hope), I believe it shows that the "no lasting harm" argument is completely devoid of merit.

If we were making them eat shit, drink piss, and shocking prisoner's nuts the "no lasting harm" clause probably would be devoid of merit, not to mention it would likely violate other aspect of the anti-torture statutes. Since we weren't doing those things, bringing up those torture methods has no real relevance.

Nice attempt at equivalence employing the emotional aspect of revulsion. It falls quite a bit short though.

So sometimes "no lasting harm" doesn't count, but sometimes it does? That would be funny if you weren't defending torture.

Waterboarding can inflict permanent mental harm, but somehow that still isn't torture?

How about from the memo's themselves, where the writers admit that :

"the use of waterboarding constitutes a threat of imminent death,"

So the fact that it can kill you, but doesn't "cause lasting harm", you still equate that with not being torture?

People wonder how movements happen like in Cambodia and others, this is your answer. Because people like TLC will twist words around to believe whatever their government tells them. Cambodia, USSR, Germany, all blamed a group of people and that justified doing whatever they wanted to them. Well done TLC.

As such an expert in the field of torture, I'm sure you already know that Bush's (and your) argument for waterboarding and torture mimics almost exactly what the Gestapo said to justify their torture and waterboarding:

Link

Funny how the same actions, with the same excuses and reasons didn't work then, did they? But here we are, 60+ years later, and you are defending the exact same thing.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

I'm OK with immunity for the operatives...

Sure it was distasteful, and stupid, but they were also assured that it was in the best interests of the country. Aafter all they were just following orders from the DoJ, which basically told them that what they are doing was fuckin LEGAL. I am not really concerned about the well being of those pricks which perpertrated and planned 9/11 with no remorse when they were interorgated like Zubadyah, KSM etc. I do believe that those being held at Guantanimo indefinitly should be charged and tried ASAP.

The real harm done on the torture front was what happened at Abu Ghraib. That incident cost us big time in trust from the Arab world, time, cash, credibility, acountability etc. etc..

Just watched the video with Gen. Hayden. He argues that the release of these memos harms US security and refers to a secret study that is currently in progress. This study seems to be to probe the limits of how far the administration can depend on ingrained attitudes of American exceptionalism while breaking the law. Pehhh!..Give me a Break!

Hayden: "This began life as a covert action..."

- this is like a criminal saying they should be excused from committing a crime because they never expected to get caught.

Hayden: "To the degree to which we make these techniques public, ... it moots the study."

- And that threatens US security how exactly?

Hayden: - "because it will effectively take these techniques off the table...

- Not as Hayden claims, because the freakin enemy knows about them and what they are, but because they are ILLEGAL.

I've seen this argument before and it is utterly specious. Hayden's concern is that investigations or prosecutions will, as it's been put before, "send a chill through the intelligence community" or 'make our operatives think twice' before BREAKING THE LAW.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the primary purpose of making something illegal to deter people from doing that thing? Making them think twice, and hopefully taking the illegal activity off the table? Just look at an exact parallel to his argument to see how completely absurd it is.

- "If we prosecute bank robbers it will take robbing banks off the table."

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
This whole "no lasting harm" crap is ludicrous. Absurd beyond belief.

Ever read some of the things that happened in Cambodia? Making prisoners eat shit, drink piss. No lasting harm there folks. Car battery to the nuts. No lasting harm there either. The list is long and sickening. It is a list of ways to insure the subject stays alive for a long time so they can be abused again and again.

While what they did far exceeds what we did (I hope), I believe it shows that the "no lasting harm" argument is completely devoid of merit.

I tend to agree with you. It's like arguing that it's not rape if they didn't get pregnant because there was "no lasting harm".

Rape is an excellent example of the problem with 'lasting harm'. One problem with lasting harm is the fact it's difficult to objectively prove a lot of psychological harm.

TLC:

If we were making them eat shit, drink piss, and shocking prisoner's nuts the "no lasting harm" clause probably would be devoid of merit, not to mention it would likely violate other aspect of the anti-torture statutes. Since we weren't doing those things, bringing up those torture methods has no real relevance.

Nice attempt at equivalence employing the emotional aspect of revulsion. It falls quite a bit short though.

When discussing the standard of 'lasting harm', pointing out that those activities would be allowable under it to show why it's inadequate is perfectly relevant.

Your illogic - 'the standard is fine if it allows unacceptable things we haven't done yet' - is, well, tortured. Oh by the way, what 'other aspects of the anti-torture statues'?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC, torture does not need to cause lasting harm for it to be torture. And that is where you lose the argument.

By law it does, LL, and that's where you lose.

I think the left is deflated after reading the actual content of these memos. They thought they'd be some sort of smoking gun and a huge indictment of the Bush admin. Bummer for them, but overstatement born of partisanism is not an unknown quantity from either side when it comes to politics. It always leaves both sides looking like idiots.

Want to quote a real law where it says that?

It's already in the memos. Read them first, then post.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, I'm not being obtuse. The problem is that you are overlooking a major point in the issue, either purposefully or simply because you haven't even considered it.

Do you think Iran, China, Egypt, et al have issued numerous lengthy legal opinions as to the legality of their actions regarding torture? Do they worry whether or not what they are adhering to any laws in the process? Have they put constraints on the methods they use?

The difference between legality and illegality is often a fine line. The memos explicitly spell out what that line is. They define how to remain within the borders of legality in applying the techniques. Comparing what we do to what they do is ridiculous.

Some people seem to want to equate all interrogation methods and lump them as , 'OMG! TORTURE.' Sorry, but that's disingenius and ignores the details.

No, you are a tool. You deliberately misinterpret and ignore what has happened, and selectively quote snippets here and there to try and obfuscate what is going on.

You obviously had swallowed the Bush playbook of defining torture to whatever you want it to mean, so you can proudly claim that we don't torture. The reality is 99% of the rest of the world (including our court system) would say that this is torture. Just because you and a few other loonies (like Yoo and Cheney) want to claim otherwise doesn't make it so.

To put this in simple terms for you:

1. If I, a private citizen, did these acts to you, I'd be arrested and convicted.
2. If I , a policeman, did these acts to a suspect, I'd be arrested and convicted.
3. If I, a FBI agent, did these acts to a prisoner, I'd be arrested and convicted.
4. If I, a member of the military, did that do a POW, I'd be arrested and convicted.

Do you have a plausible reason how the CIA (American citizens, bound by US federal law) can somehow not get arrested?

Oh, and read this article , where we are obligated by law to investigate and prosecute this. Again, That's our law. Do you somehow feel like you are allowed to ignore (IOW break) the law?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the memos were very explicit about not breaking any laws in the process. That's the point I was making but it seems to have gone completely over your head in your little emotional tantrum of a response.

Sorry, but judges in this country rule if laws are broken. Partisan appointed lawyers that get appointed by the president specifically because they will either agree with what he thinks, or because they will do what he tells them to do don't count. (See John Yoo and others. Bush says "write something that makes this legal", and Yoo does it. That doesn't make it legal, it's BS cover up designed to confuse everyone to try and get away with breaking the law)

Just because a defense lawyer of an accused criminal publicly states that their cleint is 100% innocent doesn't make that a fact.

Proof that Bush told them what to say? Your vivid, partisan imagination does not make for truth. It makes for nothing more pure, unfounded speculation.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
This whole "no lasting harm" crap is ludicrous. Absurd beyond belief.

Ever read some of the things that happened in Cambodia? Making prisoners eat shit, drink piss. No lasting harm there folks. Car battery to the nuts. No lasting harm there either. The list is long and sickening. It is a list of ways to insure the subject stays alive for a long time so they can be abused again and again.

While what they did far exceeds what we did (I hope), I believe it shows that the "no lasting harm" argument is completely devoid of merit.

I tend to agree with you. It's like arguing that it's not rape if they didn't get pregnant because there was "no lasting harm".

Rape is an excellent example of the problem with 'lasting harm'. One problem with lasting harm is the fact it's difficult to objectively prove a lot of psychological harm.

TLC:

If we were making them eat shit, drink piss, and shocking prisoner's nuts the "no lasting harm" clause probably would be devoid of merit, not to mention it would likely violate other aspect of the anti-torture statutes. Since we weren't doing those things, bringing up those torture methods has no real relevance.

Nice attempt at equivalence employing the emotional aspect of revulsion. It falls quite a bit short though.

When discussing the standard of 'lasting harm', pointing out that those activities would be allowable under it to show why it's inadequate is perfectly relevant.

Your illogic - 'the standard is fine if it allows unacceptable things we haven't done yet' - is, well, tortured. Oh by the way, what 'other aspects of the anti-torture statues'?

Lasting harm includes both physical and mental harm. Rape causes lasting mental harm.

And you guys are throwing every emotional red herring imaginable out there trying to keep a grasp on your "OMG. TORTURE!' claim. Eating shit, drinking piss, rape. What's next, Pedobear?

 

[Lemon law]

TLC is being rather obtuse by asking, "What's next, Pedobear?".

When in fact, the TLC position amounts to pedobear and every other vile human position possible.

TLC, you are trying to defend what can't and should not be defended.

 

[jackschmittusa]

TastesLikeChicken

valid premise - previously submitted examples of acts that cause "no lasting harm"

Valid premise - that the overwhelming majority of civilized people would unambiguously recognize and identify those examples as torture

valid conclusion - that the metric of "no lasting harm" cannot be used to eliminate an act from being classified as torture

Is that simple enough for you to understand now? Please tell me where the red herring is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC is being rather obtuse by asking, "What's next, Pedobear?".

When in fact, the TLC position amounts to pedobear and every other vile human position possible.

TLC, you are trying to defend what can't and should not be defended.

Typical LL. He can't actually reply in a rational manner so he has to make vapid ad hom accusations.

You lose every argument immediately when you do that, LL, which is pretty much every time you post.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
TastesLikeChicken

valid premise - previously submitted examples of acts that cause "no lasting harm"

Valid premise - that the overwhelming majority of civilized people would unambiguously recognize and identify those examples as torture

valid conclusion - that the metric of "no lasting harm" cannot be used to eliminate an act from being classified as torture

Is that simple enough for you to understand now? Please tell me where the red herring is.

The problem is that you're being too simplisitic. Maybe all this legal stuff is too hard for you to understand? Your first premise isn't valid at all because:

1) We don't force prisoners to eat shit or drink piss.

2) You don't know that being forced to eat shit or drink piss wouldn't cause lasting harm because I seriously doubt you have any personal experience in that realm.

btw, for your edification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

From the medical literature, coprophagia has been observed in a small number of patients with dementia and/or schizophrenia[1] and depression.[2]

Consuming other people's feces carries the risk of contracting diseases spread through fecal matter, such as Hepatitis A, Hepatitis E, pneumonia, and influenza. Coprophagia also carries a risk of contracting intestinal parasites.

So eating shit can cause lasting harm. Your premise is invalid. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
TastesLikeChicken

valid premise - previously submitted examples of acts that cause "no lasting harm"

Valid premise - that the overwhelming majority of civilized people would unambiguously recognize and identify those examples as torture

valid conclusion - that the metric of "no lasting harm" cannot be used to eliminate an act from being classified as torture

Is that simple enough for you to understand now? Please tell me where the red herring is.

The problem is that you're being too simplisitic. Maybe all this legal stuff is too hard for you to understand? Your first premise isn't valid at all because:

1) We don't force prisoners to eat shit or drink piss.

So:

Premise: the US standard is "It's ok to blow prisoners' heads off in front of one another to scare others into talking."

TLC response: yes, that's ok, because we haven't done it.

He still does't get the concept that a standard is bad if it *allows* wrong actions, if they fit withint the definition, even if there isn't a history of those actions yet.

btw, for your edification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

From the medical literature, coprophagia has been observed in a small number of patients with dementia and/or schizophrenia[1] and depression.[2]

Consuming other people's feces carries the risk of contracting diseases spread through fecal matter, such as Hepatitis A, Hepatitis E, pneumonia, and influenza. Coprophagia also carries a risk of contracting intestinal parasites.

So eating shit can cause lasting harm. Your premise is invalid. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Other people's.

 

[jackschmittusa]

TastesLikeChicken

You have no concept of logic. You make a fool's argument.

The problem is that you're being too simplisitic. Maybe all this legal stuff is too hard for you to understand? Your first premise isn't valid at all because: 1) We don't force prisoners to eat shit or drink piss. 2) You don't know that being forced to eat shit or drink piss wouldn't cause lasting harm because I seriously doubt you have any personal experience in that realm. btw, for your edification:

1) You would have to be incredibly dense to claim that what "we do" in any way invalidates my first premise. I can take any valid premise and add enough to it so that it becomes invalid just like you did. Fortunately for thinking people, the rules of logic do not permit this.

2) It is well documented that people in the cited incidences often did not suffer any long lasting harm from eating shit. It was also usually their own by the way, since you seem devoid of knowledge on the subject.

Somehow, I don't think you are really thinking things through before you post. Either that or the concept of logical thinking is beyond your experience and you feel the need to invent TLC logic.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
TastesLikeChicken

valid premise - previously submitted examples of acts that cause "no lasting harm"

Valid premise - that the overwhelming majority of civilized people would unambiguously recognize and identify those examples as torture

valid conclusion - that the metric of "no lasting harm" cannot be used to eliminate an act from being classified as torture

Is that simple enough for you to understand now? Please tell me where the red herring is.

The problem is that you're being too simplisitic. Maybe all this legal stuff is too hard for you to understand? Your first premise isn't valid at all because:

1) We don't force prisoners to eat shit or drink piss.

So:

Premise: the US standard is "It's ok to blow prisoners' heads off in front of one another to scare others into talking."

TLC response: yes, that's ok, because we haven't done it.

He still does't get the concept that a standard is bad if it *allows* wrong actions, if they fit withint the definition, even if there isn't a history of those actions yet.

It's wrong to kill someone too. But legally you can in the proper situation, like self-defense. Legally your home can be foreclosed on under certain conditions. Having your home taken away is wrong but foreclosure is legal.

So puhleeze stop confusing and conflating legality with righteousness. It's a strawman and I don't give a hoot if you don't personally like the legality of the interrogation techniaues. The argument here is about the legality, not your personal feelings on the matter or mine. Do you get that concept?

btw, for your edification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

From the medical literature, coprophagia has been observed in a small number of patients with dementia and/or schizophrenia[1] and depression.[2]

Consuming other people's feces carries the risk of contracting diseases spread through fecal matter, such as Hepatitis A, Hepatitis E, pneumonia, and influenza. Coprophagia also carries a risk of contracting intestinal parasites.

So eating shit can cause lasting harm. Your premise is invalid. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Other people's.

I'll repeat this for you:

1) We don't force prisoners to eat shit or drink piss. (their own or otherwise)

So knock it off with your red herrings and men of straw.

 

[fskimospy]

I think TLC's problem is that he doesn't understand the difference between OLC opinions that were drafted to support positions of the president, and actual binding law.

An OLC memo saying 'this doesn't break the law' means approximately shit as to whether or not the action ACTUALLY breaks the law or not. This is further complicated by the fact that the legal reasoning in these memos is so horrifically poor that Bush's own outgoing OLC chief repudiated Bybee's work. So not only are the memos not equivalent to actual court decisions and real statutory authority, they were so badly written that they have been disowned by the very administration that commissioned them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
TastesLikeChicken

valid premise - previously submitted examples of acts that cause "no lasting harm"

Valid premise - that the overwhelming majority of civilized people would unambiguously recognize and identify those examples as torture

valid conclusion - that the metric of "no lasting harm" cannot be used to eliminate an act from being classified as torture

Is that simple enough for you to understand now? Please tell me where the red herring is.

The problem is that you're being too simplisitic. Maybe all this legal stuff is too hard for you to understand? Your first premise isn't valid at all because:

1) We don't force prisoners to eat shit or drink piss.

So:

Premise: the US standard is "It's ok to blow prisoners' heads off in front of one another to scare others into talking."

TLC response: yes, that's ok, because we haven't done it.

He still does't get the concept that a standard is bad if it *allows* wrong actions, if they fit withint the definition, even if there isn't a history of those actions yet.

It's wrong to kill someone too. But legally you can in the proper situation, like self-defense. Legally your home can be foreclosed on under certain conditions. Having your home taken away is wrong but foreclosure is legal.

So puhleeze stop confusing and conflating legality with righteousness. It's a strawman and I don't give a hoot if you don't personally like the legality of the interrogation techniaues. The argument here is about the legality, not your personal feelings on the matter or mine. Do you get that concept?

You constantly argue by making a false statement, and then when a response shows it false, replying to a straw man that's an entirely different issue, to dodge the response.

In this case, we'll track the history.

The topic was that the 'no lasting harm' standard was immoral; to prove this, the posted listed immoral activities which would be allowed under that standard.

You did not challenge that the activities would be immoral; rather, you argues that they're irrlevant because they haven't been done yet.

I then explained the concept to you that what's irrelevant in considering a standard, is whether what it allows has been done or not.

You then tried to change the subject from the wrongness of the standard under discussion, to a discussion of how sometimes the law allows immoral actions - and you used bad examples, of things that are justified. So, you compared the *justified* exceptions in the laws for self-defense killing and foreclusures, with the avts of torture that the 'no lasting harm' standard allows such as making someone eat and drink their own waste. You dodged the issue that the standard is immoral because it allows too much.

btw, for your edification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

From the medical literature, coprophagia has been observed in a small number of patients with dementia and/or schizophrenia[1] and depression.[2]

Consuming other people's feces carries the risk of contracting diseases spread through fecal matter, such as Hepatitis A, Hepatitis E, pneumonia, and influenza. Coprophagia also carries a risk of contracting intestinal parasites.

So eating shit can cause lasting harm. Your premise is invalid. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Other people's.

I'll repeat this for you:

1) We don't force prisoners to eat shit or drink piss. (their own or otherwise)

So knock it off with your red herrings and men of straw.

TLC, you pretty clearly either have some brain damage or are utterly dishonest.

Again, as to the health aspects *you posted about*, the information says *other people's*.

That has nothing to do with whether we have done that or not.

Prediction: If you are true to form, next you'll repeat your behavior where after you behave so badly that the appropriate response is to criticize you and point out the problem, you then play the victim with a complaint that the person has pointed out what you did with an ad hominem attack.

If this were in person, I could imaging you spitting at your opponent, and then when they say you are a jerk for it, you whine that they made an ad hominem attack.

If you did not act so badly as to provoke the criticism, the well-earned criticism wouldn't be justified. It's just another dodge on your part.

The funny thing is, you seem to think you are clever for your trolling. It's sad.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234
TLC, you pretty clearly either have some brain damage or are utterly dishonest.

Again, as to the health aspects *you posted about*, the information says *other people's*.

That has nothing to do with whether we have done that or not.

Prediction: If you are true to form, next you'll repeat your behavior where after you behave so badly that the appropriate response is to criticize you and point out the problem, you then play the victim with a complaint that the person has pointed out what you did with an ad hominem attack.

If this were in person, I could imaging you spitting at your opponent, and then when they say you are a jerk for it, you whine that they made an ad hominem attack.

If you did not act so badly as to provoke the criticism, the well-earned criticism wouldn't be justified. It's just another dodge on your part.

The funny thing is, you seem to think you are clever for your trolling. It's sad.

Stop being so fucking dense. Eating shit, drinking piss, rape and all the rest of the bullshit are fucking red herrings in this dicussion. We don't do those so they have no place in this dicussion. The discussion is about "no lasting harm" in regard to the techniques we do use. So please stop with your indulgently idiotic line of reasoning. Got it?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think TLC's problem is that he doesn't understand the difference between OLC opinions that were drafted to support positions of the president, and actual binding law.

An OLC memo saying 'this doesn't break the law' means approximately shit as to whether or not the action ACTUALLY breaks the law or not. This is further complicated by the fact that the legal reasoning in these memos is so horrifically poor that Bush's own outgoing OLC chief repudiated Bybee's work. So not only are the memos not equivalent to actual court decisions and real statutory authority, they were so badly written that they have been disowned by the very administration that commissioned them.

What I understand is that OLC opinions are drafted by experts in this case to explain how to avoid breaking the law while doing what we needed to do to maintain valid interrorgation capabilities during a time of crisis. Nor has a single person in here, including you, argued how or where the contents of the memos are in violation of the law. It certainly skirts the edges, no doubt. But skirting the edge of the law doesn't imply a law is broken. But instead of discussing that all I get is a bunch of strawmen rebuttals, red herrings, and ad homs in return.

So prove that these memos broke the law. I'll be waiting.