Releasing Torture documents

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped

Harvey, you FAIL at comprehension.

First, lets get one thing clear. In fact, I'll do a copy/paste for you:

knowing and even approving of illegal activity (as pointed out by others) probably isnt a crime in this case. If it is, half the senate would be investigated and prosecuted; however, if there's evidence the law WAS broken, and no other laws or executive orders were used to get around the grey areas, then sure. Prosecute. But dont hold your breath.

Get it? You misunderstand my position (intentionally). You seem to think that my comments about how legally Bush/Cheney are in the clear equate to my approval. Dont be dense. As I also said, whats right and whats legal are two seperate issues. Youre stuck on stupid on this. Prior to WB (for example) being exclusivey outlawed, the POTUS got complete discretion in his activities as provided by law. Period. Cut and paste till your hands cripple with pain, it wont change that. Im leaving my personal feelings aside here, and you are equating the two. Stop it. Congress gave Bush ALOT of power authorizing the whole WOT, and he used it. Rightfully? With integrity? It really doesnt matter. He had the authority at that time.

And no, you havent "busted my ass" in showing there is clear evidence they DID break the law. You copy/pasted your usual bullshit, ignoring what you want. Let me give you an example. I can cut/paste where its a capital offense to murder someone, and then go on a diatribe on how governers of states should be prosecuted for capital murder in executing death penalty cases; however, I intentionally leave out statutes that allow them to do so. Thats exactly what you've been doing for 5 years. Youre stuck on stupid.

Also, as usual, you cherry picked my responses. When Garfield answered regarding Yoo, I accepted that. But you continued to copy and paste your bullshit. Learn to fucking read.

And lastly, please explain this to me:

if there is enough evidence to implicate Bush, explain why no one is pursuing it? Did you also know that you knowing of a crime and not reporting it...can be a crime? Did you know if you have power to and fail to prosecute a crime knowingly, that is a crime? Explain Pelosi's reasoning on why she refuses to even investigate it?

Of course you wont put as much thought or copypasta into THAT answer because its uncomfortable. But try.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped

Harvey, you FAIL at comprehension.

blackangst1, you fail at humanity. I won't waste my time replying to anymore of your bullshit.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped

Harvey, you FAIL at comprehension.

blackangst1, you fail at humanity. I won't waste my time replying to anymore of your bullshit.

Fair enough. And I'll try not to feed the king of trolls. Have a good day.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey
snipped

Harvey, you FAIL at comprehension.

blackangst1, you fail at humanity. I won't waste my time replying to anymore of your bullshit.

Fair enough. And I'll try not to feed the king of trolls. Have a good day.

Starving yourself won't save you, but if you keep at it long enough, you may help to reduce global warming. :laugh:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: JaskalasUnder no circumstances and under no context does a person afford anything less than a clean death. Those who would torture are my enemy.

What if that person has information about a terrorist act that could kill thousands of people and torturing him is the only way to get the information out of him? Now what?

has that ever happened? No.

If it did happen before would it be ok now?

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

The fact that you think Col. Jessup was the 'good guy' in that movie shows what a reprehensible piece of crap you are.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: JaskalasUnder no circumstances and under no context does a person afford anything less than a clean death. Those who would torture are my enemy.

What if that person has information about a terrorist act that could kill thousands of people and torturing him is the only way to get the information out of him? Now what?

has that ever happened? No.

If it did happen before would it be ok now?

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

The fact that you think Col. Jessup was the 'good guy' in that movie shows what a reprehensible piece of crap you are.

The fact you ASSume things shows what a dumbass you are

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1


The fact you ASSume things shows what a dumbass you are

I don't have to assume, you basically gave a justification for torture, you're a piece of shit. And reading the last several pages, it's obvious you're an apologist for those higher up the food chain who pushed for this shit.

And speaking of assumptions, how's Taiwan's deficit doing these days?

 

[LunarRay]

I agree torture is illegal. It is inhumane. There can be no real mitigation in law to its application. But, in the scenario I mentioned earlier, where say it is September 10, 2001, and viable Intel indicates a massive terrorist attack will occur in the morning and in custody is the master-mind terrorist revealed per the same Intel and it indicates he knows the details and no other legal technique has induced him to reveal those details, I think I'd have to weigh the massive potential loss of life and property against the human rights possessed by our in custody master-mind terrorist. In my mind would be the rights of the people to live that would otherwise die, their parents and children and spouses.... If I had the Command Authority how could I not weigh that?
Not having that awesome responsibility I can't say what I'd do... but, I'm certain I'd be hard pressed to issue a Finding and extract in any manner possible the details...
Would I do that to save a single citizen or a million? Is there a line that suggests beyond that it should be done?
It seems there are two conflicting mandates on a President in this case... He is charged to protect and defend and in there is the fundamental right for citizens to live and to uphold the law... where should he fall?... Which is the greater right or wrong... That is what it is about, I think.. choosing one over the other.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let me attempt to simplify this situation.

1) Some information that the administration feels appropriate to release will come out. What the criteria for that is a question I'm pondering.

2) In any case, damning evidence even if it exists against Bush or Cheney will be suppressed by Obama because he won't want to set a precedent of looking in the Presidential underwear for skidmarks. He will allow Bush to escape in order to protect the image of the Presidency. BTW, I think it's wrong.

3) If heads roll, they will be lesser players who will be sacrificed just like Ollie North.

I hope I'm wrong, but if the truth is that the Administration broke major laws there will never be justice.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Let me attempt to simplify this situation.

1) Some information that the administration feels appropriate to release will come out. What the criteria for that is a question I'm pondering.

2) In any case, damning evidence even if it exists against Bush or Cheney will be suppressed by Obama because he won't want to set a precedent of looking in the Presidential underwear for skidmarks. He will allow Bush to escape in order to protect the image of the Presidency. BTW, I think it's wrong.

3) If heads roll, they will be lesser players who will be sacrificed just like Ollie North.

I hope I'm wrong, but if the truth is that the Administration broke major laws there will never be justice.

The Administration has to have a position on it that includes your number two and three. That will generate the criteria. I think if the act in the OP is true it is more a sadistic act than anything... But, it may be yet another technique used dispassionately (assuming that is possible).

I have yet to see an illegal act not presented as Presidential Implied Powers or National Security Findings. As I recall, A Presidential Finding gives an order to violate the law in carrying out that order. The buck for that sits with the President and he then argues under those Implied Power notions.... Justice Jackson's three tier approach ought to guide Congress in clawing back some of them... Otherwise that Justice we seek becomes Acts with in the law... and Justified... imo

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The day you see Ron R. exposed for his involvement with the Contras, is the day you'll see Bush on trial. That's the thing about dirty politics. Everyone has something on someone else. If one skeleton came out of the closet, you never know how many will tumble out behind it.

My belief (sadly) is that DC politics are inherently corrupt, and CYA is the order of the day.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Let me attempt to simplify this situation.

1) Some information that the administration feels appropriate to release will come out. What the criteria for that is a question I'm pondering.

2) In any case, damning evidence even if it exists against Bush or Cheney will be suppressed by Obama because he won't want to set a precedent of looking in the Presidential underwear for skidmarks. He will allow Bush to escape in order to protect the image of the Presidency. BTW, I think it's wrong.

3) If heads roll, they will be lesser players who will be sacrificed just like Ollie North.

I hope I'm wrong, but if the truth is that the Administration broke major laws there will never be justice.

If that turns out to be the case, I will be looking for a new country, because the United States of American in which I was raised will have ceased to exist and will been replaced by a hollow shell of two faced liars, north to south, coast to coast, from sea to polluted sea.

I see men who are trying to squeeze us,
And taking whatever they can,
While they buy those who try to appease us with scraps from their table.

It gets harder each day to break even.
This wasn't a part of my plan.
Time is right to be fighting or leaving this tower of Babel.

And Whos's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?
Tell me, who's telling who's telling you what to do what to do?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The day you see Ron R. exposed for his involvement with the Contras, is the day you'll see Bush on trial. That's the thing about dirty politics. Everyone has something on someone else. If one skeleton came out of the closet, you never know how many will tumble out behind it.

My belief (sadly) is that DC politics are inherently corrupt, and CYA is the order of the day.

But, how many of us really care? I mean really care. I spout off about all manner of right and wrong cuz at that moment that is how it hit me and how I feel. Tomorrow I'm back asleep! I don't see me doing more than writing Congress' appropriate Committee and my Congresspersons. That is about all the motivation I see from me. I think the truth is that we enable them to be what we hate them to be... we are just apathetic chimps. Maybe not you but I think I am... and I think I've lots of friends..
So, what would get me to do something and what would that be?... Guess not much. We have a system that relies on the heart and soul of the folks in office to guide them to do the right thing... but such a wide array of opportunities for them to pursue... they can't... or won't..

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'll wait for the actual content of the documents to be released before immediately jumping to a conclusion, as certain people have done in here. A reading of Greenwald's story doesn't actually make it clear who it was that sliced this guy's genitals, though he does seem to try his best to imply it was people in the CIA.

If it's the case that it was the CIA then it definitely constitutes torture and the individuals involved should be tried for their crimes.

Also has there been any physical evidence that this occurred? Surely a physician has verified this and documented the evidence somewhere. I apologize if I missed this part in the article.