Obama releasing torture memos. Change we can believe in.

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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?

I was going to just copy and paste my previous comments to make the point, but I'll say the same thing yet another way.

Let's make the standard "they can do anything they want, including torturing their children to death in front of them." It's ok, since we don't do that. Right?

If not, when you are you going to get a clue that the standard should not include things we should not do - it should not include them even if 'we don't do them now'.

There goes the hyperbole again. Let's equate controlled interrogation techniques designed to comply with our laws with "torturing their children to death in front of them." Do you NOT realize that you and everyone else in here that trots out that sort of emotionally-charged tripe looks foolish doing it? How can you not recognize how pathetic your argument is?

Here's a clue for you, Craig. Try explaining how the techniques we actually used were illegal. Please explain.

No, let's try sticking to the topic. You defended the standard of 'no lasting harm' from an attack that is allows excesses with the defense that those excesses haven't happened.

That's *your* position: that if something hasn't been used, then it's just fine to let it be allowed in the law. That's what *you* said.

To better illuatrate how that's a mistake, since you didn't understand, the same rule you advocated was applied to even worse situation that would also be allowed under it.

That's called a rational argument. You on the other hand do little but dodge, evade, misrepresent, and other such things when your arguments are attacked.

Let me be clear: when YOU responded to the point that the 'lasting harm' standard included terrible things by saying they haven't beenused yet, YOU are the one who argued the general rule that 'hasn't been done yet' is a defense. When what you did is pointed out, you have no place to attack the poster, unless they get it wrong, they they didn't there. That's not hyperbole.

As for the charge I make of dodging - the topic is YOUR defense of the 'no lasting harm' against the post that pointed out some examples of terrible things it allows. But you aren't sticking to the topic - you are off demanding some point about 'proving the actions that were done were illegal', a completely separate topic I didn't post on, but pretending that's the issue. It's not. It's TLC standard evasion practice.

I've said for a long time that aguing with you is a terrible waste of time because you don't get that, but sometimes I indulge just for other readers.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

I don't need proof....they are *not* an un-biased group when they are appointed by the President. They are his lawyers.

And you are unbiased?

lol

Yes, you DO need proof of such a bold assertion. In fact, considering your known position concerning Bush, you need extraordinary proof that leaves no doubt as to your claims.

Let's see it.

I am biased...I believe in following the law. You are biased, you don't care about the law.

He pays them, they aren't unbiased. Period. Only an impartial person (read judge) can decide. You don't get it do you?

Again, do you believe what a suspects lawyers says outside of court? Or course not. Why? Beucase they are working for that person, and are biased to them.

Would you let a judge be pain by a defendant? Of oucrse not. It would be a major conflict of interest. Understand yet?

Anyone Bush appoints is partisan and biased to his view. I don't know how you can't comprehend that fact. In fact, you posted above:

Obama's advisors will tend to be more to the left in their interpretation of the law as well, at least in some cases. Doesn't seem to be a stretch to expect them of that either. Of course each side will interpret the law according to their own vision. That doesn't imply illegality though because the law, inherently, does have some flexibility to it. If it didn't we wouldn't need the Judicial branch in the first place. Legal issues would be cut and dried with no discussion.

So even you agree that his advisors are biased. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. Unfortunately for you, judges will rule, not your paid partisan lawyers.

Oh, and I guess you still disagree that according to the law, the US is obligated to investigate and prosecute anyone that does torture? Or is this another law you don't believe in?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
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?

I was going to just copy and paste my previous comments to make the point, but I'll say the same thing yet another way.

Let's make the standard "they can do anything they want, including torturing their children to death in front of them." It's ok, since we don't do that. Right?

If not, when you are you going to get a clue that the standard should not include things we should not do - it should not include them even if 'we don't do them now'.

There goes the hyperbole again. Let's equate controlled interrogation techniques designed to comply with our laws with "torturing their children to death in front of them." Do you NOT realize that you and everyone else in here that trots out that sort of emotionally-charged tripe looks foolish doing it? How can you not recognize how pathetic your argument is?

Here's a clue for you, Craig. Try explaining how the techniques we actually used were illegal. Please explain.

No, let's try sticking to the topic. You defended the standard of 'no lasting harm' from an attack that is allows excesses with the defense that those excesses haven't happened.

That's *your* position: that if something hasn't been used, then it's just fine to let it be allowed in the law. That's what *you* said.

To better illuatrate how that's a mistake, since you didn't understand, the same rule you advocated was applied to even worse situation that would also be allowed under it.

That's called a rational argument. You on the other hand do little but dodge, evade, misrepresent, and other such things when your arguments are attacked.

Let me be clear: when YOU responded to the point that the 'lasting harm' standard included terrible things by saying they haven't beenused yet, YOU are the one who argued the general rule that 'hasn't been done yet' is a defense. When what you did is pointed out, you have no place to attack the poster, unless they get it wrong, they they didn't there. That's not hyperbole.

As for the charge I make of dodging - the topic is YOUR defense of the 'no lasting harm' against the post that pointed out some examples of terrible things it allows. But you aren't sticking to the topic - you are off demanding some point about 'proving the actions that were done were illegal', a completely separate topic I didn't post on, but pretending that's the issue. It's not. It's TLC standard evasion practice.

I've said for a long time that aguing with you is a terrible waste of time because you don't get that, but sometimes I indulge just for other readers.

No, Craig. I defended no lasting harm concerning what was spelled out in the memos, not some figment of your imagination. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. Maybe I can point you to this:

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

In reality, that's what you and yours are doing. The memos don't suggest making US prisoners eat shit, drink piss, or raping them. The fact that people have to reach that far in the first place to make a rebuttal demonstrates how pathetically weak thier position is on this issue.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
There was ample national and international legal precedent that water boarding was a crime. The example of the Japanese War Crimes Trials alone is evidence of that. The CIA was acutely aware of that and begged the Administration to concoct some semblance of legal cover. The Administration, seemingly reluctantly, did just that by arranging for legal opinions using smoke and mirrors that magically made what was previously agreed to be illegal just jimdandy all of a sudden. They created a situation of plausibly denying they were breaking laws out of thin air.

Then why will no one be prosecuted for it? Can you explain? Some have mentioned the Hague. Why arent countries lining up to drag GWB & Co into international court?

You know the answer, it's politics. After Bush politicized 9/11, no one dares to vote/do anything that is "weak on terror" because of ignorant citizens.


To quote Hermann Goering, his infamous quote is approriate to this mess:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Sound familiar? It's what we have heard for the last 7 years.

Thats not the answer, IMO.

Yes it is. You really don't remember how for the past 6-7 years, anyone that disagreed with Bush was blasted from all sorts of places, and all the right-wing hacks were into character assassination? Hannity, Limbaugh, etc?

Anyone that spoke out against anything military was branded a traitor, accused of committing treason, etc....you seriously didn't hear any of that?

Do you remember 2004? Kerry was portrayed as "weak on terror" despite being a SEAL and was in Vietnam. All the while, the "great commander in chief", GWB, who actually snorted cocaine while in the ANG and hid from Vietnam, was hailed as a great military leader? (Nevermind that Kerry was an idiot, he still served in VN, which is a lot more then Bush and Cheney both did)

All republicans blasted democrats as "soft on terror" during that time. Remember all the "terror alerts" right before the election? Just to remind everyone about the danger? And right after the 2004 election, we stopped having them? Hmm......

Remember the head of DHS, admitting that the threat level increases were not suggested by him, and he was overruled in increasing the threat level? Just who is higher ranking then the head of DHS? Bush and Cheney.

You seriously don't remember any of this? Really?

On a strictly legal basis, a lot of people would have been charged with the illegal wiretapping, for the several years that Bush ordered the FISA to be ignored. FISA stated that any breach of it was a felony and punishable by prison time. And it's cut and dry that they broke it. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

So what other reason do you have?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

I don't need proof....they are *not* an un-biased group when they are appointed by the President. They are his lawyers.

And you are unbiased?

lol

Yes, you DO need proof of such a bold assertion. In fact, considering your known position concerning Bush, you need extraordinary proof that leaves no doubt as to your claims.

Let's see it.

I am biased...I believe in following the law. You are biased, you don't care about the law.

He pays them, they aren't unbiased. Period. Only an impartial person (read judge) can decide. You don't get it do you?

Again, do you believe what a suspects lawyers says outside of court? Or course not. Why? Beucase they are working for that person, and are biased to them.

Would you let a judge be pain by a defendant? Of oucrse not. It would be a major conflict of interest. Understand yet?

Anyone Bush appoints is partisan and biased to his view. I don't know how you can't comprehend that fact. In fact, you posted above:

Obama's advisors will tend to be more to the left in their interpretation of the law as well, at least in some cases. Doesn't seem to be a stretch to expect them of that either. Of course each side will interpret the law according to their own vision. That doesn't imply illegality though because the law, inherently, does have some flexibility to it. If it didn't we wouldn't need the Judicial branch in the first place. Legal issues would be cut and dried with no discussion.

So even you agree that his advisors are biased. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. Unfortunately for you, judges will rule, not your paid partisan lawyers.

Oh, and I guess you still disagree that according to the law, the US is obligated to investigate and prosecute anyone that does torture? Or is this another law you don't believe in?

I've explained that bias is in the eye of beholder and that you have a clear bias for all to see, which is still readily apparent in your response. If you believe the law has been transgressed then please proffer a viable rebuttal that legally explains how these memos are outside of the law. Despite all the Mariah Carey-esque handwaving we've seen from the lefties on this issue, not a one has challenged that point with anything reselmbling a decent legal argument, you least of all.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
There was ample national and international legal precedent that water boarding was a crime. The example of the Japanese War Crimes Trials alone is evidence of that. The CIA was acutely aware of that and begged the Administration to concoct some semblance of legal cover. The Administration, seemingly reluctantly, did just that by arranging for legal opinions using smoke and mirrors that magically made what was previously agreed to be illegal just jimdandy all of a sudden. They created a situation of plausibly denying they were breaking laws out of thin air.

Then why will no one be prosecuted for it? Can you explain? Some have mentioned the Hague. Why arent countries lining up to drag GWB & Co into international court?

You know the answer, it's politics. After Bush politicized 9/11, no one dares to vote/do anything that is "weak on terror" because of ignorant citizens.


To quote Hermann Goering, his infamous quote is approriate to this mess:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Sound familiar? It's what we have heard for the last 7 years.

Thats not the answer, IMO.

Yes it is. You really don't remember how for the past 6-7 years, anyone that disagreed with Bush was blasted from all sorts of places, and all the right-wing hacks were into character assassination? Hannity, Limbaugh, etc?

Anyone that spoke out against anything military was branded a traitor, accused of committing treason, etc....you seriously didn't hear any of that?

Do you remember 2004? Kerry was portrayed as "weak on terror" despite being a SEAL and was in Vietnam. All the while, the "great commander in chief", GWB, who actually snorted cocaine while in the ANG and hid from Vietnam, was hailed as a great military leader? (Nevermind that Kerry was an idiot, he still served in VN, which is a lot more then Bush and Cheney both did)

All republicans blasted democrats as "soft on terror" during that time. Remember all the "terror alerts" right before the election? Just to remind everyone about the danger? And right after the 2004 election, we stopped having them? Hmm......

Remember the head of DHS, admitting that the threat level increases were not suggested by him, and he was overruled in increasing the threat level? Just who is higher ranking then the head of DHS? Bush and Cheney.

You seriously don't remember any of this? Really?

On a strictly legal basis, a lot of people would have been charged with the illegal wiretapping, for the several years that Bush ordered the FISA to be ignored. FISA stated that any breach of it was a felony and punishable by prison time. And it's cut and dry that they broke it. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

So what other reason do you have?

Because prior to the Justice Departments ruling in 2008 techniques such as waterboarding werent specifically illegal. No crime, no time. The justice departments ruling narrored techniques by a narrow margin. Going forward we will see prosecution should it happen again, but again, as has been already stated, the line between illegal and legal was very large and very grey.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Because prior to the Justice Departments ruling in 2008 techniques such as waterboarding werent specifically illegal. No crime, no time. The justice departments ruling narrored techniques by a narrow margin. Going forward we will see prosecution should it happen again, but again, as has been already stated, the line between illegal and legal was very large and very grey.

I know you know this, but torture, in all it's forms, including waterboarding has been illegal for over 100 years. Please stop trying to make it seem that this is some new type of interrogation, and that the law doesn't cover it.

Again, it's been illegal for 100+ years. It's been condemned by international treaties for many years. The US itself has condemned other countries for doing these acts for a long time. None of this is new. We have convicted our own soldiers and citizens for 100 years for doing these acts. This isn't new.

The only thing changed is a bunch of people in 2001 got all scared, and Bush/Cheney used that to do what they want. They tried to write some justifications to try and make it look legal.

Tell me how people have been arrested/convicted of various torture techniques (including torture) for over 100 years if this isn't illegal? You can't, unless less you go into the Orwellian world like TLC, where you start redefining what everything means. So torture is illegal, but everything that used to be torture is now "enhanced interrogation", and thus legal. Which is complete BS, and everyone except the few Bush supporters know it.

For the next big thing TLC will state that unemployment is gone, because people that don't have jobs don't want one, and thus are choosing not to work. Voila! No unemployment. No one will believe it, but that's the same thing as trying to redefine torture. It's the "Ministry of Truth" all over again.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Because prior to the Justice Departments ruling in 2008 techniques such as waterboarding werent specifically illegal. No crime, no time. The justice departments ruling narrored techniques by a narrow margin. Going forward we will see prosecution should it happen again, but again, as has been already stated, the line between illegal and legal was very large and very grey.

I know you know this, but torture, in all it's forms, including waterboarding has been illegal for over 100 years. Please stop trying to make it seem that this is some new type of interrogation, and that the law doesn't cover it.

Again, it's been illegal for 100+ years. It's been condemned by international treaties for many years. The US itself has condemned other countries for doing these acts for a long time. None of this is new. We have convicted our own soldiers and citizens for 100 years for doing these acts. This isn't new.

The only thing changed is a bunch of people in 2001 got all scared, and Bush/Cheney used that to do what they want. They tried to write some justifications to try and make it look legal.

Tell me how people have been arrested/convicted of various torture techniques (including torture) for over 100 years if this isn't illegal? You can't, unless less you go into the Orwellian world like TLC, where you start redefining what everything means. So torture is illegal, but everything that used to be torture is now "enhanced interrogation", and thus legal. Which is complete BS, and everyone except the few Bush supporters know it.

For the next big thing TLC will state that unemployment is gone, because people that don't have jobs don't want one, and thus are choosing not to work. Voila! No unemployment. No one will believe it, but that's the same thing as trying to redefine torture. It's the "Ministry of Truth" all over again.

Im not saying I agree or disagree, Im just asking...if this is so, where is the line of people/countries wanting to prosecute GWB & Co for these horrific crimes on humanity? Maybe YOU can answer this?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Because prior to the Justice Departments ruling in 2008 techniques such as waterboarding werent specifically illegal. No crime, no time. The justice departments ruling narrored techniques by a narrow margin. Going forward we will see prosecution should it happen again, but again, as has been already stated, the line between illegal and legal was very large and very grey.

I know you know this, but torture, in all it's forms, including waterboarding has been illegal for over 100 years. Please stop trying to make it seem that this is some new type of interrogation, and that the law doesn't cover it.

Again, it's been illegal for 100+ years. It's been condemned by international treaties for many years. The US itself has condemned other countries for doing these acts for a long time. None of this is new. We have convicted our own soldiers and citizens for 100 years for doing these acts. This isn't new.

The only thing changed is a bunch of people in 2001 got all scared, and Bush/Cheney used that to do what they want. They tried to write some justifications to try and make it look legal.

Tell me how people have been arrested/convicted of various torture techniques (including torture) for over 100 years if this isn't illegal? You can't, unless less you go into the Orwellian world like TLC, where you start redefining what everything means. So torture is illegal, but everything that used to be torture is now "enhanced interrogation", and thus legal. Which is complete BS, and everyone except the few Bush supporters know it.

For the next big thing TLC will state that unemployment is gone, because people that don't have jobs don't want one, and thus are choosing not to work. Voila! No unemployment. No one will believe it, but that's the same thing as trying to redefine torture. It's the "Ministry of Truth" all over again.

Here's the simple fact. You completely overlook and patently ignore the nuances of law to try to make your typical accusatory rhetorical point about the Bush admin. In the past, waterboarding typically consisted of using the technique until the person being waterboarded passed out (which is what the Japanese did, btw.). Then they were revived and the practice started all over again.

Our laws don't define any specific method as torture. It simply defines what constitutes torture:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/us..._00002340----000-.html

(1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from?
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) ?United States? means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

You can cite International law (which no country ever gives a shit about unless it applies to the other guy), along with the US putting others on trial for war crimes, but you aren't making an apples to apples comparison. It's the same as you trying to claim that all killing is murder when it's not. There are many instances where it is legal to kill someone, by law. In the case of the memos, they designed the process so waterboarding could be used and not run afoul of the law. It's plain that's what they did and try as mightily as you can you simply cannot argue around that fact. Failing to recognize that fact does not make your point. To the contrary, it concedes the point by virtue of you knowingly avoiding it and employing hyperbole and rhetoric as your argument instead.

 

[jackschmittusa]

TastesLikeChicken

The memos were designed to fool people like you. And, boy did it work.

What the memos did was take acts considered by reasonable and rational people to be abhorrent and morally repugnant; add some meaningless restrictions, and suddenly, these same acts are cleansed to the point of acceptability.

The mental manipulation of the morally malleable.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah forget it, TLC... defend the position that nobody else will all you want.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ah forget it, TLC... defend the position that nobody else will all you want.

It's not "defending" anything. I am simply pointing out facts; facts that you clearly can't counter with any valid argument. So, instead, you and certain others in here have to go down the favorite last argumentation resort of the left, the villification route. 'Why, if we can't win an argument through logic and reason and legal issues, let's just label them evil schmucks instead. That'll show 'em.'

You instantly lose any argument when you guys do that.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ah forget it, TLC... defend the position that nobody else will all you want.

It's not "defending" anything. I am simply pointing out facts; facts that you clearly can't counter with any valid argument. So, instead, you and certain others in here have to go down the favorite last argumentation resort of the left, the villification route. 'Why, if we can't win an argument through logic and reason and legal issues, let's just label them evil schmucks instead. That'll show 'em.'

You instantly lose any argument when you guys do that.

TLC, the memos were so poorly written that Bush's OLC repudiated them, stating that they no longer represented the opinion of the OLC. Do you realize how rare that is for an administration's legal department to renounce their own findings?

You've just decided to take the opinion written by the President's lawyers on behalf of their client as some sort of self justifying proof. If the memos hadn't been thrown out by Bush's OLC (and now Obama's), you would see a whole ton of legal analysis refuting them. Because of their total lack of support however, people aren't doing that. (who takes the time to research and rebut a position that even the originator gave up on because it was so bad?) You're trying to use this very agreement about how worthless the memos were as some sort of statement to their quality.

It's silly and you know it's silly. Why do you persist?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ah forget it, TLC... defend the position that nobody else will all you want.

It's not "defending" anything. I am simply pointing out facts; facts that you clearly can't counter with any valid argument. So, instead, you and certain others in here have to go down the favorite last argumentation resort of the left, the villification route. 'Why, if we can't win an argument through logic and reason and legal issues, let's just label them evil schmucks instead. That'll show 'em.'

You instantly lose any argument when you guys do that.

TLC, the memos were so poorly written that Bush's OLC repudiated them, stating that they no longer represented the opinion of the OLC. Do you realize how rare that is for an administration's legal department to renounce their own findings?

You've just decided to take the opinion written by the President's lawyers on behalf of their client as some sort of self justifying proof. If the memos hadn't been thrown out by Bush's OLC (and now Obama's), you would see a whole ton of legal analysis refuting them. Because of their total lack of support however, people aren't doing that. (who takes the time to research and rebut a position that even the originator gave up on because it was so bad?) You're trying to use this very agreement about how worthless the memos were as some sort of statement to their quality.

It's silly and you know it's silly. Why do you persist?

Someone is being silly here, and it's not me. The memos weren't "repudiated" until the shitstorm of hyperbole from the left began on this issue. Their change in position wasn't based on any legal analysis, it was force by the blowhard winds of the left misrepresenting the facts and forcing public opinion in the direction they wanted it to go. And if the superficial aspects of this program wasn't leaked by some lefty nobjob I have little doubt that Obama would be continuing on with it today. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that Obama is still continuing many secret Bush policies that none of us have the first clue about, and that the left would go bizzaro, over-the-top insane over like they so frequently do if they found out about them. He's still continuing some we already know about.

So lets' not kid ourselves that the interrogation techniques were dropped because of the legality of the memos. That's pure, specious horseshit and we all know it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Someone is being silly here, and it's not me. The memos weren't "repudiated" until the shitstorm of hyperbole from the left began on this issue. Their change in position wasn't based on any legal analysis, it was force by the blowhard winds of the left misrepresenting the facts and forcing public opinion in the direction they wanted it to go. And if the superficial aspects of this program wasn't leaked by some lefty nobjob I have little doubt that Obama would be continuing on with it today. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that Obama is still continuing many secret Bush policies that none of us have the first clue about, and that the left would go bizzaro, over-the-top insane over like they so frequently do if they found out about them. He's still continuing some we already know about.

So lets' not kid ourselves that the interrogation techniques were dropped because of the legality of the memos. That's pure, specious horseshit and we all know it.

Now your real motivations come out, your desire to froth, foam, and shriek in an O'Reilly-esque fashion at what you perceive as 'the left'.

The memos weren't officially repudiated until they were revealed to the public, but the OLC itself said it had not been relying on them for quite some time prior to that. Translation: they already knew they were horseshit. But noooo... TLC knows that the OLC didn't change their position after analyzing the memos and the legal reasoning further while under different leadership, he talked to them and they let him know their REAL motivations. The only reason they called so many of the assertions 'unsupportable' was because of those damn lefties! Amazing how much insight you have into the internal deliberations of executive branch agencies about top secret memos. Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

There must be considerable other juicy tidbits you have for us, considering you also claim to know the course the Obama administration would have taken, undoubtedly due to your ability to see into the inner workings of their deliberative process as well.

In short, your argument has become 'I don't care that the same agency that drafted them said they were shit, and I don't care that they publicly stated the legal reasoning was bad because I know they didn't mean it.' Your rage and froth at the left has brought you to this.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ah forget it, TLC... defend the position that nobody else will all you want.

It's not "defending" anything. I am simply pointing out facts; facts that you clearly can't counter with any valid argument. So, instead, you and certain others in here have to go down the favorite last argumentation resort of the left, the villification route. 'Why, if we can't win an argument through logic and reason and legal issues, let's just label them evil schmucks instead. That'll show 'em.'

You instantly lose any argument when you guys do that.

TLC, the memos were so poorly written that Bush's OLC repudiated them, stating that they no longer represented the opinion of the OLC. Do you realize how rare that is for an administration's legal department to renounce their own findings?

You've just decided to take the opinion written by the President's lawyers on behalf of their client as some sort of self justifying proof. If the memos hadn't been thrown out by Bush's OLC (and now Obama's), you would see a whole ton of legal analysis refuting them. Because of their total lack of support however, people aren't doing that. (who takes the time to research and rebut a position that even the originator gave up on because it was so bad?) You're trying to use this very agreement about how worthless the memos were as some sort of statement to their quality.

It's silly and you know it's silly. Why do you persist?

Someone is being silly here, and it's not me. The memos weren't "repudiated" until the shitstorm of hyperbole from the left began on this issue. Their change in position wasn't based on any legal analysis, it was force by the blowhard winds of the left misrepresenting the facts and forcing public opinion in the direction they wanted it to go. And if the superficial aspects of this program wasn't leaked by some lefty nobjob I have little doubt that Obama would be continuing on with it today. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that Obama is still continuing many secret Bush policies that none of us have the first clue about, and that the left would go bizzaro, over-the-top insane over like they so frequently do if they found out about them. He's still continuing some we already know about.

So lets' not kid ourselves that the interrogation techniques were dropped because of the legality of the memos. That's pure, specious horseshit and we all know it.

what do we know? You say we all know it.........know what......
Sort of like the nutjob 9/11 conspiracists......they know...but what do they know..lol

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Someone is being silly here, and it's not me. The memos weren't "repudiated" until the shitstorm of hyperbole from the left began on this issue.

Ah yes, George W. Bush, always caving in to any verbal attacks from the left. What a pussy. Barney Frank's bitch.

(that's what 'obstinate', which the left frequently called Bush, means in the TLC to English dictionary, as I recall).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Someone is being silly here, and it's not me. The memos weren't "repudiated" until the shitstorm of hyperbole from the left began on this issue. Their change in position wasn't based on any legal analysis, it was force by the blowhard winds of the left misrepresenting the facts and forcing public opinion in the direction they wanted it to go. And if the superficial aspects of this program wasn't leaked by some lefty nobjob I have little doubt that Obama would be continuing on with it today. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that Obama is still continuing many secret Bush policies that none of us have the first clue about, and that the left would go bizzaro, over-the-top insane over like they so frequently do if they found out about them. He's still continuing some we already know about.

So lets' not kid ourselves that the interrogation techniques were dropped because of the legality of the memos. That's pure, specious horseshit and we all know it.

Now your real motivations come out, your desire to froth, foam, and shriek in an O'Reilly-esque fashion at what you perceive as 'the left'.

The memos weren't officially repudiated until they were revealed to the public, but the OLC itself said it had not been relying on them for quite some time prior to that. Translation: they already knew they were horseshit. But noooo... TLC knows that the OLC didn't change their position after analyzing the memos and the legal reasoning further while under different leadership, he talked to them and they let him know their REAL motivations. The only reason they called so many of the assertions 'unsupportable' was because of those damn lefties! Amazing how much insight you have into the internal deliberations of executive branch agencies about top secret memos. Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

There must be considerable other juicy tidbits you have for us, considering you also claim to know the course the Obama administration would have taken, undoubtedly due to your ability to see into the inner workings of their deliberative process as well.

In short, your argument has become 'I don't care that the same agency that drafted them said they were shit, and I don't care that they publicly stated the legal reasoning was bad because I know they didn't mean it.' Your rage and froth at the left has brought you to this.

Yeah, the OLC claims they didn't rely on them for quite some time, but didn't happen to write a memo to that effect until what? 2008?

Nor is this MY contention. I already linked a WaPo article previously that stated the very same thing about how the political direction didn't change until public opinion did. Even Pelosi and crew didn't jump on the "TORCHAH! bandwagon until they stuck up their fingers to test the winds of public opinion on the issue. But that's nothing new. Most of the Dems did the very same thing in regard to the Iraq War.

And stop with your typical distortions of my statements. That intellectually disingenius little tactic from you got tiresome long ago. I didn't claim to "know" the course the Obama administration would have taken. I specifically said "I have little doubt..." and then backed that up with very specific reasoning. So cut the horseassery, bub.

Last of all, quit trying to divert the discussion to being about my motivations as well. You're doing that purely to avoid actually showing us specifically where or how these memos were illegal. I'm still waiting.

 

[Lemon law]

As much as detest the TLC position on this issue, at least we can have some faith that under Obama, the US use of torture will come to a screeching halt. But at the same time, we should defend the free speech rights of TLC to take what ever position he wants to at Anand tech.

But as they say, we maybe have bigger fish to fry than the minnow TLC adopts as his icon, and mission number one may be to remove one judge from the Federal Bench by using the quite legal impeachment process.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenat...BbwGZqeIRpEAH1nL79wxIF

Stinking thinkers should have no place in our Federal Courts. We may not have to send the judge in question to the Hague, but we need to strip this given judge of all his emperor wears no clothes authority. Then and only then will he be another TLC harmless nutcase. Until then, this judge is a clear and ever present danger to us all.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Someone is being silly here, and it's not me. The memos weren't "repudiated" until the shitstorm of hyperbole from the left began on this issue. Their change in position wasn't based on any legal analysis, it was force by the blowhard winds of the left misrepresenting the facts and forcing public opinion in the direction they wanted it to go. And if the superficial aspects of this program wasn't leaked by some lefty nobjob I have little doubt that Obama would be continuing on with it today. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that Obama is still continuing many secret Bush policies that none of us have the first clue about, and that the left would go bizzaro, over-the-top insane over like they so frequently do if they found out about them. He's still continuing some we already know about.

So lets' not kid ourselves that the interrogation techniques were dropped because of the legality of the memos. That's pure, specious horseshit and we all know it.

Now your real motivations come out, your desire to froth, foam, and shriek in an O'Reilly-esque fashion at what you perceive as 'the left'.

The memos weren't officially repudiated until they were revealed to the public, but the OLC itself said it had not been relying on them for quite some time prior to that. Translation: they already knew they were horseshit. But noooo... TLC knows that the OLC didn't change their position after analyzing the memos and the legal reasoning further while under different leadership, he talked to them and they let him know their REAL motivations. The only reason they called so many of the assertions 'unsupportable' was because of those damn lefties! Amazing how much insight you have into the internal deliberations of executive branch agencies about top secret memos. Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

There must be considerable other juicy tidbits you have for us, considering you also claim to know the course the Obama administration would have taken, undoubtedly due to your ability to see into the inner workings of their deliberative process as well.

In short, your argument has become 'I don't care that the same agency that drafted them said they were shit, and I don't care that they publicly stated the legal reasoning was bad because I know they didn't mean it.' Your rage and froth at the left has brought you to this.

Yeah, the OLC claims they didn't rely on them for quite some time, but didn't happen to write a memo to that effect until what? 2008?

Nor is this MY contention. I already linked a WaPo article previously that stated the very same thing about how the political direction didn't change until public opinion did. Even Pelosi and crew didn't jump on the "TORCHAH! bandwagon until they stuck up their fingers to test the winds of public opinion on the issue. But that's nothing new. Most of the Dems did the very same thing in regard to the Iraq War.

And stop with your typical distortions of my statements. That intellectually disingenius little tactic from you got tiresome long ago. I didn't claim to "know" the course the Obama administration would have taken. I specifically said "I have little doubt..." and then backed that up with very specific reasoning. So cut the horseassery, bub.

Last of all, quit trying to divert the discussion to being about my motivations as well. You're doing that purely to avoid actually showing us specifically where or how these memos were illegal. I'm still waiting.

Who cares when they wrote the public refutation? They didn't just stop using the legal reasoning of those memos because they felt like they needed more work to do. Use your brain. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the political direction, and everything to do with the legal direction. Stop trying to divert to the Democrats, it doesn't matter what they did.

Glad to see that you don't claim to know what the Obama administration is thinking (although you claim near certainty on the issue). You still claim knowledge of the inner deliberations of the OLC on secret memos however, which is still laughably stupid.

The memos themselves were never stated to be illegal, they were said to be hilariously badly reasoned in an attempt to excuse torture. I have yet to see any analysis of these memos that has said anything but that their reasoning was unsustainable.

Come on man, stop shrieking about 'the left' for a minute and think.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As much as detest the TLC position on this issue, at least we can have some faith that under Obama, the US use of torture will come to a screeching halt. But at the same time, we should defend the free speech rights of TLC to take what ever position he wants to at Anand tech.

But as they say, we maybe have bigger fish to fry than the minnow TLC adopts as his icon, and mission number one may be to remove one judge from the Federal Bench by using the quite legal impeachment process.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenat...BbwGZqeIRpEAH1nL79wxIF

Stinking thinkers should have no place in our Federal Courts. We may not have to send the judge in question to the Hague, but we need to strip this given judge of all his emperor wears no clothes authority. Then and only then will he be another TLC harmless nutcase. Until then, this judge is a clear and ever present danger to us all.

My position is one of legality. If that makes me a nutcase, so be it. Doesn't surprise me one bit though that you'd consider trying to work within the law a nutty thing to do.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Who cares when they wrote the public refutation? They didn't just stop using the legal reasoning of those memos because they felt like they needed more work to do. Use your brain. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the political direction, and everything to do with the legal direction. Stop trying to divert to the Democrats, it doesn't matter what they did.

Bullshit. I'll post this again because clearly you didn't bother to read it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2007120801664.html

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general.

They abandoned the practice because of potential political blowback. After that, the partisan hacks began bellowing and ensured they had to step back. Yet on such an important issue that was directly in the public eye, they still didn't refute the memos until 2008? Methinks it's you that need to engage your brain.

Glad to see that you don't claim to know what the Obama administration is thinking (although you claim near certainty on the issue). You still claim knowledge of the inner deliberations of the OLC on secret memos however, which is still laughably stupid.

Way to distort something else I said. I guess that shows how low you need to sink to make whatever poor point you can on this issue though?

The memos themselves were never stated to be illegal, they were said to be hilariously badly reasoned in an attempt to excuse torture. I have yet to see any analysis of these memos that has said anything but that their reasoning was unsustainable.

Please stop jerking me off with that sort of revisionism. It has been stated ad nauseum that Bush should be tried for his crimes regarding torture. Those memos defined the Bush admin position. If the memos transgress the law then Bush did.

Come on man, stop shrieking about 'the left' for a minute and think.

Do everyone a big favor and take your own advice.
The memos were said to be "hilariously badly reasoned" by the people on the left.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure it was only people on the left who said the memos were badly reasoned. Suuuuuuure it was. The left condemned the use of Guantanamo and what happened? It stayed open. The people on the left condemned black sites and what happened? They stayed open. The people on the left condemned warrantless wiretapping and what happened? Bush kept doing it. But now you want us to believe that Bush was so cowed by the super powerful forces of the left that he had his OLC abandon perfectly good and legally supportable positions because the left was mad about it. This requires a truly amazing amount of self delusion on your part.

Not only that, but you don't even appear to know the history of what is going on. The most infamous of the memos, the 'Bybee torture memo' was rescinded in June of 2004, which in case you were wondering is before 2005. Was the new OLC afraid of Congress coming back from the future to get him in trouble? By Goldsmith's admission, the OLC very rarely overturns its own opinions. Goldsmith's own quote on the memo:

...I ultimately decided that I had to withdraw those and under suspicions, stand by it, because it was so thoroughly flawed.

Seems like he thinks that Bybee memo was pretty awfully reasoned. Interesting that Bush's own OLC is now a member of 'the left', as we know they are the ones that thought that.

Keep on defending these memos though TLC! Defend them to your last breath! Bush's own administration figured that it was a bad idea, but I'm sure they are glad to have you pick up where they left off! Avoid admitting defeat at all costs!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sure it was only people on the left who said the memos were badly reasoned. Suuuuuuure it was. The left condemned the use of Guantanamo and what happened? It stayed open. The people on the left condemned black sites and what happened? They stayed open. The people on the left condemned warrantless wiretapping and what happened? Bush kept doing it. But now you want us to believe that Bush was so cowed by the super powerful forces of the left that he had his OLC abandon perfectly good and legally supportable positions because the left was mad about it. This requires a truly amazing amount of self delusion on your part.

Not only that, but you don't even appear to know the history of what is going on. The most infamous of the memos, the 'Bybee torture memo' was rescinded in June of 2004, which in case you were wondering is before 2005. Was the new OLC afraid of Congress coming back from the future to get him in trouble? By Goldsmith's admission, the OLC very rarely overturns its own opinions. Goldsmith's own quote on the memo:

...I ultimately decided that I had to withdraw those and under suspicions, stand by it, because it was so thoroughly flawed.

Seems like he thinks that Bybee memo was pretty awfully reasoned. Interesting that Bush's own OLC is now a member of 'the left', as we know they are the ones that thought that.

Keep on defending these memos though TLC! Defend them to your last breath! Bush's own administration figured that it was a bad idea, but I'm sure they are glad to have you pick up where they left off! Avoid admitting defeat at all costs!

Erm, you might want to check your facts. The Bybee memo was was superceded.

The superceding memo disagreed with one basic point, the definition of "severe" pain:

Questions have since been raised, both by this Office and by others, about the appropriateness and relevance of the non-statutory discussion in the August 2002 Memorandum, and also about various aspects of the statutory analysis, in particular the statement that "severe" pain under the statute was limited to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Id. at 1. (5) We decided to withdraw the August 2002 Memorandum, a decision you announced in June 2004. At that time, you directed this Office to prepare a replacement memorandum. Because of the importance of--and public interest in--these issues, you asked that this memorandum be prepared in a form that could be released to the public so that interested parties could understand our analysis of the statute.

This memorandum supersedes the August 2002 Memorandum in its entirety. (6) Because the discussion in that memorandum concerning the President's Commander-in-Chief power and the potential defenses to liability was--and remains--unnecessary, it has been eliminated from the analysis that follows. Consideration of the bounds of any such authority would be inconsistent with the President's unequivocal directive that United States personnel not engage in torture. (7)

We have also modified in some important respects our analysis of the legal standards applicable under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A. For example, we disagree with statements in the August 2002 Memorandum limiting "severe" pain under the statute to "excruciating and agonizing" pain, id. at 19, or to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death," id. at 1. There are additional areas where we disagree with or modify the analysis in the August 2002 Memorandum, as identified in the discussion below."

The memo did not prohibit waterboarding or any other torture. In fact, the author explicitly stated:

"[w]hile we have identified various disagreements with the August 2002 Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum."

Thanks for trying to confuse people on the issue with your dishonest prestidigitation. You didn't fool me.

 

[fskimospy]

Jesus TLC, you are a prisoner of your own delusions and desperate attempts to defend the indefensible. Why would the fact that the memo was superseded matter as to the argument I put down? It's nice to see that you've abandoned the idea that only 'the left' thinks those memos were terrible though... as Jack Goldsmith is heavily conservative. Also to note, that the memo you quoted from came after Goldsmith's resignation... a resignation that many people believe came because of his opposition to the Bush administration's legal posture. My point was that you said the memos weren't badly reasoned, and I showed you that they were. Now you are responding 'well, a later memo said that we could get to the same conclusion a different way'... as if that somehow makes these memos any better.

The definition of what constituted 'severe pain' and such is the primary vehicle for which the OLC tried to avoid what was legal or not. There are two funny things about this, first that the infliction of 'severe pain' is a requirement for torture, but not for 'cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment'. The think is, that 'cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment' is ALSO illegal for our agencies to engage in, so even if you bought the OLC's idea that these things weren't torture, we still wouldn't be allowed to do them. (the difference is for torture you go to jail, while the lesser 'inhumane treatment' statute doesn't specify criminal penalties.)

Second thing that is funny about that is that the OLC's definition of what might reach the level of 'severe pain' came ENTIRELY from the people asking permission to commit these acts. Anyone should be able to see what a horrific conflict of interest that is, and shows why the legal reasoning of these memos is so hilariously bad.