Obama releasing torture memos. Change we can believe in.

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well well well, pardon me TLC, I was not aware that Cornell University is, was, or ever was the ultimate definer of domestic or international law.

And even then, contained in TLC's link is that little fine print "how current is this? And the answer is, "Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here."

Which is just another way to say that this is just another GWB&co interpretation of the law. You lose, TLC, by your own link.

:roll:

Yeah, how dare they make it easier to read the United States Code.

From now on everyone should go to the official sites:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go...N=BROWSE&TITLE=18USCPI

Scroll down several hundred pages to find "CHAPTER 113C--TORTURE"

Oh by the way, it says

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 18USC2340A]

And if you are going to question who GPO is

GPO Access is a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office that provides free electronic access to a wealth of important information products produced by the Federal Government. The information provided on this site is the official, published version and the information retrieved from GPO Access can be used without restriction, unless specifically noted. This free service is funded by the Federal Depository Library Program and has grown out of Public Law 103-40, known as the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Enhancement Act of 1993

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I defeat you is the honest question posed by sciwizan? I happen to think yes, both on the domestic and international law questions. And while I can read the fine fine print on various government printing office laws GWB&co panicked the congress into passing post 911, we also forget that these panicked induced laws forgot to supersede a huge body of prior law. Just another part of the incompetence of GWB&co. And it also ignores a huge body of international law the USA is signatory to. And also ignores the fact the courts will likely find many of these laws unconstitutional, a duty of courts that GWB&co was especially good at avoiding.

So I invite anyone to google the "definition of torture" without the quotes.

You will get lots of hits, this is just one of them:

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

Lots of luck if you think lasting damage is the only definition of torture.

Its now as obsolete as the dodo and quite rightlyfully so. GWB&co temporary insanity is no defense for sadistic and morally bankrupt behavior. Go to bed with Alberto Gonzales and darth Chaney at your own peril.

 

[blackangst1]

Well, on a related note, I hope Obama grants Cheney's request:

Cheney also said he found the administration?s release of memos about CIA interrogation techniques ?a little bit disturbing? since the government has not also release documents he claims would show ?the success of the effort.?

Cheney said he has ?formally asked? for the declassification of documents he says would ?lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.?

On his thoughts regarding the CIA memos that were recently declassified and his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration?s interrogation tactics: ?One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.?

?I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.?

?And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."





Im curious.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well well well, pardon me TLC, I was not aware that Cornell University is, was, or ever was the ultimate definer of domestic or international law.

And even then, contained in TLC's link is that little fine print "how current is this? And the answer is, "Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here."

Which is just another way to say that this is just another GWB&co interpretation of the law. You lose, TLC, by your own link.

:roll:

Yeah, how dare they make it easier to read the United States Code.

From now on everyone should go to the official sites:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go...N=BROWSE&TITLE=18USCPI

Scroll down several hundred pages to find "CHAPTER 113C--TORTURE"

Oh by the way, it says

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 18USC2340A]

And if you are going to question who GPO is

GPO Access is a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office that provides free electronic access to a wealth of important information products produced by the Federal Government. The information provided on this site is the official, published version and the information retrieved from GPO Access can be used without restriction, unless specifically noted. This free service is funded by the Federal Depository Library Program and has grown out of Public Law 103-40, known as the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Enhancement Act of 1993

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I defeat you is the honest question posed by sciwizan? I happen to think yes, both on the domestic and international law questions. And while I can read the fine fine print on various government printing office laws GWB&co panicked the congress into passing post 911, we also forget that these panicked induced laws forgot to supersede a huge body of prior law. Just another part of the incompetence of GWB&co. And it also ignores a huge body of international law the USA is signatory to. And also ignores the fact the courts will likely find many of these laws unconstitutional, a duty of courts that GWB&co was especially good at avoiding.

So I invite anyone to google the "definition of torture" without the quotes.

You will get lots of hits, this is just one of them:

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

Lots of luck if you think lasting damage is the only definition of torture.

Its now as obsolete as the dodo and quite rightlyfully so. GWB&co temporary insanity is no defense for sadistic and morally bankrupt behavior. Go to bed with Alberto Gonzales and darth Chaney at your own peril.

lol at LL questioning the Cornell law link. It's just a reference to the actual US code, dude. Those tricky Bush supporters at Cornell (*snicker*) didn't change a thing.

And now you seem to want to imply that Wiki supercedes US Code in a court of law?

If nothing else, you're always good for a chuckle or two, LL.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Can I defeat you is the honest question posed by sciwizan?

Time for you to go see a doc if you can't tell the difference between a lame internet game in a signature and a post

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, on a related note, I hope Obama grants Cheney's request:

Cheney also said he found the administration?s release of memos about CIA interrogation techniques ?a little bit disturbing? since the government has not also release documents he claims would show ?the success of the effort.?

Cheney said he has ?formally asked? for the declassification of documents he says would ?lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.?

On his thoughts regarding the CIA memos that were recently declassified and his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration?s interrogation tactics: ?One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.?

?I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.?

?And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."





Im curious.

Supposedly torture doesn't work, so this cannot be possible. Or so I've been told.

I hope Obama releases those memos and presents the other side. One of the reasons I voted for him is that he gave the impression of being fair and mostly non-partisan. Let's see if he backs that up.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, I can well understand why darth Cheney pees his pants as he dangles slowly slowly in the wind.

Its my country to too, and either Cheney has to go or I can't support moral degeneracy of Cheney.

And the end of the day, we all have to choose which side we are on in what amounts to a moral issue.

Maybe I can ague that robbing banks might get me desirable money, but it, like the phony arguments that torture might be effective, is still a phony phony argument.

Only in the mind of moral degenerates is torture ever legal.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, I can well understand why darth Cheney pees his pants as he dangles slowly slowly in the wind.

Its my country to too, and either Cheney has to go or I can't support moral degeneracy of Cheney.

And the end of the day, we all have to choose which side we are on in what amounts to a moral issue.

Maybe I can ague that robbing banks might get me desirable money, but it, like the phony arguments that torture might be effective, is still a phony phony argument.

Only in the mind of moral degenerates is torture ever legal.

Pssst.....he's gone! And he's wanting MORE transparency not less....I think you read the wrong link or something.

 

[Ackmed]

Trying to embarrass a party, or an individual, good job obama. Waterboarding? Old news. And justly deserved. Guess we shoulda lopped his head off like his kind do to us.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, I can well understand why darth Cheney pees his pants as he dangles slowly slowly in the wind.

Its my country to too, and either Cheney has to go or I can't support moral degeneracy of Cheney.

And the end of the day, we all have to choose which side we are on in what amounts to a moral issue.

Maybe I can ague that robbing banks might get me desirable money, but it, like the phony arguments that torture might be effective, is still a phony phony argument.

Only in the mind of moral degenerates is torture ever legal.

So if Cheney doesn't go what will you do about it? I hear Canada is accepting applications.

 

[Lemon law]

As TLC says, "So if Cheney doesn't go what will you do about it? I hear Canada is accepting applications.", I have to somewhat doubt Canada will grant Cheney asylum. Well maybe Dubai will grant Cheney asylum, your guess TLC is as good as mine, but somehow I still say Bush and Cheney for the Hague ASAP.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As TLC says, "So if Cheney doesn't go what will you do about it? I hear Canada is accepting applications.", I have to somewhat doubt Canada will grant Cheney asylum. Well maybe Dubai will grant Cheney asylum, your guess TLC is as good as mine, but somehow I still say Bush and Cheney for the Hague ASAP.

I was talking about YOU going to Canada. I guess you didn't get it?

No biggy. But if you want to immerse yourself in your partisan fantasies, LL, do us all a favor and wear a condom, just in case.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
1.) The 'evidence' used to determine what techniques could be used and if they violated statutes came entirely from the CIA. It's not a question of some scientific study that they included or omitted, they asked the CIA their opinion on the matter, and then used that opinion to say that it didn't violate the statute. It's circular reasoning... and it's complete bullshit.

The fuck? The memo specifically states:

"Our advice is based upon the following facts, which you provided to us. We also understand that you do not have any facts in your posession contrary to the facts outlined here, and this opinion is limited to these facts."

If the CIA withheld facts that's an entirely different issue that is outside the bounds of this discussion. I don't even know why you seem so confused about it. It's a completely separate issue.

2.) Wrong. Opinions can be right or wrong, supportable and unsupportable. The method by which you reach an opinion and the way in which you craft it can be legal, or illegal. An argument can easily be unsupportable, yet still legal.

There is no conflict of interest between the OLC and the President whatsoever. They are the President's lawyers that work in the interests of their client. My statements were simply to how legally supportable the arguments the OLC gave, and that's where the conflict of interest came in. The OLC's evidentiary argument is basically: "The CIA's interrogation programs aren't torture, because the CIA told us that they aren't torture." You can't use someone's interpretation of their own actions to base your supposedly objective interpretation of their actions unless you want to end up with a shit result. The OLC did that, and so a shit result is exactly what they ended up with.

You seem not to understand the argument, it's not that the memos are legal or not, it's whether or not they are persuasive. The evidence they used to bolster their arguments fails the basic test of what good evidence is, and so shockingly enough they ended up with unsupportable arguments.

I have no idea what you've been reading, but the memos don't say or even imply anything of the sort. The memos specifically lay out the OLC's legal opinion as to the legal constraints of the interrorgation techniques. They speel out how the techniques can be used within the law.

btw, I'm really getting tired of your incessant yammering about how I don't understand. You trot out that condescendingly arrogant bullshit frequently to quite a few people in here. Right now all you been doing is trying deperately to throw out any argument against the memos, whether it makes sense or not, to the point of outright speculation. It's clearly you who do not understand and it's getting to the point where you're just making shit up to continue on purely for argumentation sake.

The CIA might have withheld evidence. What a load of horseshit. Just quit if you can't manufacture anything better than that load of manure.

Apparently now out of desperation you're making up arguments for me to have made? What is this shit you're babbling about in relation to the CIA withholding evidence? Who said anything even slightly related to that?

For about the 5th time, I said that the evidence the memos used to determine that the techniques were lawful came from the people being regulated by the memo. It's like asking the burgler who is lifting your TV out of the front door if what he's doing counts as burglary or not. They say and imply exactly this, as the memos repeatedly state the source for their 'evidence'. You seem to think that just because the memos say their goal is to stay within the law it matters when once again, I'll remind you that it's not if they tried or not but if their reasoning is persuasive.

When it relies upon shit evidence, it's not. This is why I think you don't understand the basic point of the argument.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well well well, pardon me TLC, I was not aware that Cornell University is, was, or ever was the ultimate definer of domestic or international law.

And even then, contained in TLC's link is that little fine print "how current is this? And the answer is, "Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here."

Which is just another way to say that this is just another GWB&co interpretation of the law. You lose, TLC, by your own link.

Congratulations TLC, you are every bit as current as Alberto Gonzales. A fellow so toxic that no one wants anything to do with him.

i'm looking at the 2000 volume of USCA 18 2231-2440 with the 2008 cumulative annual pocket part. what TLC posted is how the statute current reads, including the 2004 amendments (which changed the definition of 'United States' to be more clear). that is the definition of torture according to the united states criminal code.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Apparently now out of desperation you're making up arguments for me to have made? What is this shit you're babbling about in relation to the CIA withholding evidence? Who said anything even slightly related to that?

It's certainly what you implied. You complain that it was the CIA who supplied the legal support (don't know where you got that from), and the evidentiary support, implying they only provided the evidentiary support that would bolster their case. i.e. - They ommitted that which didn't support their case.

For about the 5th time, I said that the evidence the memos used to determine that the techniques were lawful came from the people being regulated by the memo. It's like asking the burgler who is lifting your TV out of the front door if what he's doing counts as burglary or not. They say and imply exactly this, as the memos repeatedly state the source for their 'evidence'. You seem to think that just because the memos say their goal is to stay within the law it matters when once again, I'll remind you that it's not if they tried or not but if their reasoning is persuasive.

When it relies upon shit evidence, it's not. This is why I think you don't understand the basic point of the argument.

The evidence being "shit," amazingly, just happens to be your personal opinion (Which you generally seem to believe is way more important and correct than just about anyone else in here.) and the opinion of others opposed to torture and Bush's policies. Do you not even recognize that you are aguing about the CIA's alleged bias in this while displaying your own at the very same time?

It's so insipidly ironic it's hilarious.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Apparently now out of desperation you're making up arguments for me to have made? What is this shit you're babbling about in relation to the CIA withholding evidence? Who said anything even slightly related to that?

It's certainly what you implied. You complain that it was the CIA who supplied the legal support (don't know where you got that from), and the evidentiary support, implying they only provided the evidentiary support that would bolster their case. i.e. - They ommitted that which didn't support their case.

For about the 5th time, I said that the evidence the memos used to determine that the techniques were lawful came from the people being regulated by the memo. It's like asking the burgler who is lifting your TV out of the front door if what he's doing counts as burglary or not. They say and imply exactly this, as the memos repeatedly state the source for their 'evidence'. You seem to think that just because the memos say their goal is to stay within the law it matters when once again, I'll remind you that it's not if they tried or not but if their reasoning is persuasive.

When it relies upon shit evidence, it's not. This is why I think you don't understand the basic point of the argument.

The evidence being "shit," amazingly, just happens to be your personal opinion (Which you generally seem to believe is way more important and correct than just about anyone else in here.) and the opinion of others opposed to torture and Bush's policies. Do you not even recognize that you are aguing about the CIA's alleged bias in this while displaying your own at the very same time?

It's so insipidly ironic it's hilarious.

Okay, now I know you must be doing this on purpose, there's no way you can be this stupid.

I in no way implied the CIA withheld evidence, the OLC asked the CIA for their evaluation of the techniques, and the CIA gave it. Not rocket science, but I understand. You were desperate for a counter argument, because anything to avoid admitting defeat, right TLC? When you evaluate someone's conduct, you don't use only evidence they supply you in order to evaluate it, or you will frequently come to poor conclusions. It's a conflict of interest. This is also not difficult to understand.

You're now desperately flailing in two separate threads as you're getting clobbered from all sides. What's strange is that you're doing it to defend memos that nobody outside of Sean Hannity has even stuck a finger up for. Think there might be a reason why?

 

[Lemon law]

To TLC,

I have my personal opinion, you have your personal opinion, and the notion that GWB&co can re write domestic and international law to suit their own own conclusion is something this country is unlikely to tolerate. When quire a few GWB&co officials end up in the slammer, you may finally realize you lost the argument.

From the results elsewhere when leaders pulled similar stunts, you can ask what happened to Chile, who if nothing else regards Penochet as a long national nightmare, the same in Argentina, Bosnia, Serbia, Germany, and Stalin's rein of terror is also their national nightmare. Progress is being made in Rwanda at jailing their international war criminals, the Darfar head of State has been indicted. Saddam paid for his sins in Iraq, and why should we in the USA be any less learning disabled. The process is far slower than I would like, but in the USA, public opinion is flowing against yours TLC and jailing those criminals is mandated. Only then can we close an ugly chapter of American history and regain the moral high ground we used to have before GWB&co pissed it away. And for all the trillions wasted in the so called war on terrorism, we have created more terrorists simply because of those morally bankrupt actions of GWB&co.

 

[IGBT]

it's amazing how reckless and foolish the obama is. and now this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Apparently now out of desperation you're making up arguments for me to have made? What is this shit you're babbling about in relation to the CIA withholding evidence? Who said anything even slightly related to that?

It's certainly what you implied. You complain that it was the CIA who supplied the legal support (don't know where you got that from), and the evidentiary support, implying they only provided the evidentiary support that would bolster their case. i.e. - They ommitted that which didn't support their case.

For about the 5th time, I said that the evidence the memos used to determine that the techniques were lawful came from the people being regulated by the memo. It's like asking the burgler who is lifting your TV out of the front door if what he's doing counts as burglary or not. They say and imply exactly this, as the memos repeatedly state the source for their 'evidence'. You seem to think that just because the memos say their goal is to stay within the law it matters when once again, I'll remind you that it's not if they tried or not but if their reasoning is persuasive.

When it relies upon shit evidence, it's not. This is why I think you don't understand the basic point of the argument.

The evidence being "shit," amazingly, just happens to be your personal opinion (Which you generally seem to believe is way more important and correct than just about anyone else in here.) and the opinion of others opposed to torture and Bush's policies. Do you not even recognize that you are aguing about the CIA's alleged bias in this while displaying your own at the very same time?

It's so insipidly ironic it's hilarious.

Okay, now I know you must be doing this on purpose, there's no way you can be this stupid.

I in no way implied the CIA withheld evidence, the OLC asked the CIA for their evaluation of the techniques, and the CIA gave it. Not rocket science, but I understand. You were desperate for a counter argument, because anything to avoid admitting defeat, right TLC? When you evaluate someone's conduct, you don't use only evidence they supply you in order to evaluate it, or you will frequently come to poor conclusions. It's a conflict of interest. This is also not difficult to understand.

You're now desperately flailing in two separate threads as you're getting clobbered from all sides. What's strange is that you're doing it to defend memos that nobody outside of Sean Hannity has even stuck a finger up for. Think there might be a reason why?

No, being stupid is speculatively claiming they somehow cooked the books on this when you have zero proof of that other than your own idiotic partisan suspicions fueling that speculation. The memos don't see things eskimospy's way so clearly there were shenanigans involved.

:roll:

Fucking pathetic. Don't even talk about flailing because it's clear the flailing one is you, coming up with such vapid reasoning.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, being stupid is speculatively claiming they somehow cooked the books on this when you have zero proof of that other than your own idiotic partisan suspicions fueling that speculation. The memos don't see things eskimospy's way so clearly there were shenanigans involved.

:roll:

Fucking pathetic. Don't even talk about flailing because it's clear the flailing one is you, coming up with such vapid reasoning.

I never claimed they cooked the books. Christ, you're dumb. It's not about nefarious intent on the part of the CIA you moron, it's about the basic due diligence necessary to construct an effective legal opinion that can be supported. So far you're doing fabulously well battling against the argument's you've invented for me. Any other pretend ideas you want to attribute to me that you can fight?

You know people in that other thread were trying to help you get out while you still had some dignity left. Maybe you should listen to their advice.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, being stupid is speculatively claiming they somehow cooked the books on this when you have zero proof of that other than your own idiotic partisan suspicions fueling that speculation. The memos don't see things eskimospy's way so clearly there were shenanigans involved.

:roll:

Fucking pathetic. Don't even talk about flailing because it's clear the flailing one is you, coming up with such vapid reasoning.

I never claimed they cooked the books. Christ, you're dumb. It's not about nefarious intent on the part of the CIA you moron, it's about the basic due diligence necessary to construct an effective legal opinion that can be supported. So far you're doing fabulously well battling against the argument's you've invented for me. Any other pretend ideas you want to attribute to me that you can fight?

You know people in that other thread were trying to help you get out while you still had some dignity left. Maybe you should listen to their advice.

I see. So you know that the CIA didn't do their due diligence on the issue. Withholding evidence, cooking the books, not doing their job properly, whatever. It's still pure speculation on your part.

btw, when I want your advice concerning my actions or statements, I'll ask you for it. Until then, keep it to yourself. K? Thanks.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, being stupid is speculatively claiming they somehow cooked the books on this when you have zero proof of that other than your own idiotic partisan suspicions fueling that speculation. The memos don't see things eskimospy's way so clearly there were shenanigans involved.

:roll:

Fucking pathetic. Don't even talk about flailing because it's clear the flailing one is you, coming up with such vapid reasoning.

I never claimed they cooked the books. Christ, you're dumb. It's not about nefarious intent on the part of the CIA you moron, it's about the basic due diligence necessary to construct an effective legal opinion that can be supported. So far you're doing fabulously well battling against the argument's you've invented for me. Any other pretend ideas you want to attribute to me that you can fight?

You know people in that other thread were trying to help you get out while you still had some dignity left. Maybe you should listen to their advice.

I see. So you know that the CIA didn't do their due diligence on the issue. Withholding evidence, cooking the books, not doing their job properly, whatever. It's still pure speculation on your part.

btw, when I want your advice concerning my actions or statements, I'll ask you for it. Until then, keep it to yourself. K? Thanks.

No, my comments on due diligence had absolutely nothing to do with the CIA. Jesus.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, being stupid is speculatively claiming they somehow cooked the books on this when you have zero proof of that other than your own idiotic partisan suspicions fueling that speculation. The memos don't see things eskimospy's way so clearly there were shenanigans involved.

:roll:

Fucking pathetic. Don't even talk about flailing because it's clear the flailing one is you, coming up with such vapid reasoning.

I never claimed they cooked the books. Christ, you're dumb. It's not about nefarious intent on the part of the CIA you moron, it's about the basic due diligence necessary to construct an effective legal opinion that can be supported. So far you're doing fabulously well battling against the argument's you've invented for me. Any other pretend ideas you want to attribute to me that you can fight?

You know people in that other thread were trying to help you get out while you still had some dignity left. Maybe you should listen to their advice.

I see. So you know that the CIA didn't do their due diligence on the issue. Withholding evidence, cooking the books, not doing their job properly, whatever. It's still pure speculation on your part.

btw, when I want your advice concerning my actions or statements, I'll ask you for it. Until then, keep it to yourself. K? Thanks.

No, my comments on due diligence had absolutely nothing to do with the CIA. Jesus.

You made this comment previously:

"For about the 5th time, I said that the evidence the memos used to determine that the techniques were lawful came from the people being regulated by the memo. It's like asking the burgler who is lifting your TV out of the front door if what he's doing counts as burglary or not."

Seems as if you were blaming the CIA. If not, then you're just all over the place and your statements aren't making any fucking sense whatsover.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Looks like Isikoff feels left out and is trying to join the fray by recycling old news:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/194846

Wow. You mean interrogation might actually work on a person's fears and include ridicule and humiliation?

Paging Stuart Smalley.

 

[JSt0rm]

tlc you have been debating this nonsense for something like 12 hours. It's time to take a break from the computer. Go outside it must be getting nice where ever you live.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, being stupid is speculatively claiming they somehow cooked the books on this when you have zero proof of that other than your own idiotic partisan suspicions fueling that speculation. The memos don't see things eskimospy's way so clearly there were shenanigans involved.

:roll:

Fucking pathetic. Don't even talk about flailing because it's clear the flailing one is you, coming up with such vapid reasoning.

I never claimed they cooked the books. Christ, you're dumb. It's not about nefarious intent on the part of the CIA you moron, it's about the basic due diligence necessary to construct an effective legal opinion that can be supported. So far you're doing fabulously well battling against the argument's you've invented for me. Any other pretend ideas you want to attribute to me that you can fight?

You know people in that other thread were trying to help you get out while you still had some dignity left. Maybe you should listen to their advice.

I see. So you know that the CIA didn't do their due diligence on the issue. Withholding evidence, cooking the books, not doing their job properly, whatever. It's still pure speculation on your part.

btw, when I want your advice concerning my actions or statements, I'll ask you for it. Until then, keep it to yourself. K? Thanks.

No, my comments on due diligence had absolutely nothing to do with the CIA. Jesus.

You made this comment previously:

"For about the 5th time, I said that the evidence the memos used to determine that the techniques were lawful came from the people being regulated by the memo. It's like asking the burgler who is lifting your TV out of the front door if what he's doing counts as burglary or not."

Seems as if you were blaming the CIA. If not, then you're just all over the place and your statements aren't making any fucking sense whatsover.

No you moron, learn how to read. That paragraph was about the OLC's bad drafting policies, I was blaming the OLC for not being diligent.