The lie that is Dick Cheney: His allegations on CIA torture memos false

[TastesLikeChicken]

And you are an idiot spouting bullsheit. "no charges have been brought"?

WHY do you stupid arse twats have to deny reality to justify your own stupidity?

Wait... that is a question that kinda answers itself, isn't it?

What's your reality, jackass? Have charges been brought or not? They haven't, so stick a sock in it, son.

 

[Harvey]

What's your reality, jackass? Have charges been brought or not? They haven't, so stick a sock in it, son.

That's an old, stale argument, and it's as much BULLSHIT, now, as it's always been. There are many possible reasons why charges haven't been brought... YET, none of which negates the fact of the Bushwhackos' crimes or the validty of the charges that could and should be brought against them.

Do I really have to repost one of my foot long macros from the old forum to make the point?

 

[Fear No Evil]

I didn't ask you if you'd let random people torture you.

But i get your point, you are here to be over the top a la theflyingpig.

At least he was funny, your way of being so over the top is just stupid, it's almost as if you get upset about people not getting that you are just spouting nonsense and doing an over the top charade.

It's not funny when it's this obvious.

I understand your job is killing people and not thinking, but you are making yourself look silly here. Here's your quote to me:

Would YOU be ok with being tortured because some random person (who might not like you, there must be a sheitload of people who don't like you) say you are a terrorist, without any other kind of evidence WHAT SO EVER?

Would you like to be more specific in your example? By your statement you are of course implying that RANDOM people have somehow accused people of being terrorists and tortured them. I assume you mean the United States since that is where I am from. Is English your first language? You are making the Queen cry with your foolishness.

 

[Fear No Evil]

That's an old, stale argument, and it's as much BULLSHIT, now, as it's always been. There are many possible reasons why charges haven't been brought... YET, none of which negates the fact of the Bushwhackos' crimes or the validty of the charges that could and should be brought against them.

Do I really have to repost one of my foot long macros from the old forum to make the point?

One of those reasons is that Obama is a a part of the Rebel Alliance and a TRAITOR.

And YOU continue to support this criminal.

 

[Harvey]

One of those reasons is that Obama is a a part of the Rebel Alliance and a TRAITOR.

Prove Obama's a traitor or STFU. Please specify the acts Obama has committed that constitute treason and the precise code sections defining those acts as treason.

I've posted the names, dates and acts that constitute the felonies committed by the Bushwhackos and the statutory citations defining their crimes. For as many times as you've repeated your dumbass assertion that Obama is a traitor, if you can't prove it, YOU are a pathetic liar. But we already knew that. :hmm:

And YOU continue to support this criminal.

Yeah. I know. I do it just to piss you off. Am I succeeding?

 

[PJABBER]

Looks like the "progressives" are trying to satisfy Harvey and pals.

Time to invest in kid gloves.

Looks like the Dems chickened out after trying to pull a fast one.

Intel bill pulled over controversial added interrogation provision

By Susan Crabtree
02/25/10 08:00 PM ET

A controversial bill that would have levied criminal punishments on intelligence officers for harsh interrogations was pulled Thursday evening.
House Republicans charged Democrats with trying to sneak a provision into the intelligence authorization bill that would establish criminal punishment for CIA agents and other intelligence officials who engage in “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” during interrogations.

Democrats inserted an 11-page addition into the bill late Wednesday night as the House Rules Committee considered the legislation. The provision, previously not vetted in committee, applied to “any officer or employee of the intelligence community” who during interrogations engages in beatings, infliction of pain or forced sexual acts. The bill said the acts covered by the provision would include inducing hypothermia, conducting mock executions or “depriving the [detainee] of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care.”

The language gave Congress the discretion to determine what the terms mean, and it would have imposed punishments of up to 15 years in prison, and in some cases, life sentences if a detainee died as a result of the interrogation.

Republicans criticized the language and the way it was introduced.

“This will fundamentally change the nature of the intelligence community by creating a criminal statute governing interrogations,” said Rep. Pete Hoesktra (R-Mich.).

He added that it had appeared “out of nowhere” in a manager’s amendment.

“Would someone on the other side please explain the rationale behind this and why the majority was unwilling to have hearings on this issue?" he said.

On Thursday night, Hoekstra lauded the GOP effort against the bill.

"Republicans brought this to the attention of the American people, who were rightly outraged that Democrats would try to target those we ask to serve in harm’s way and with a unified push we were successful in getting them to pull the bill," Hoekstra said in a statement. "The annual intelligence bill should be about protecting and defending our nation, not targeting those we ask to do that deed and giving greater protections to terrorists."

Intelligence committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) added the language, originally offered by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), to his manager’s amendment, which makes several changes to the bill passed by committee.

Reyes and other Democrats argued that the language simple underscores existing anti-torture laws.

“I’m hearing from Republicans that we are somehow sacrificing our national security” through this bill, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). She said the language underscores existing law and enhances national security.

Because Reyes included it in his manager's amendment, Republicans were not able to try to strike it from the bill before passage. The only recourse they had was to try to excise it during the House-Senate conference. The Senate version does not contain similar language.

Congress has not passed an intelligence authorization bill since 2004. Usually, the House does not consider the bill so late in the fiscal year, but Democrats in the House and Senate have stressed the importance of passing one this year to address a host of intelligence issues that have arisen.

House members had submitted 77 amendments to the bill as of Wednesday, but the House Rules panel allowed votes on only a handful of them.

Reyes’s manager’s amendment also included language that would change the rules governing executive branch notification to Congress about covert intelligence operations.

The issue of changing the notification process became a priority last year after a partisan fight over when and how Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was informed about the use of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding. The media spotlight grew hotter after a briefing in June when CIA Director Leon Panetta informed lawmakers that the agency had failed to notify them about plans for an assassination program begun in 2001 that was designed to capture or kill al-Qaeda leaders.

The White House last year threatened to veto initial changes to congressional notification requirements that would have allowed the intelligence committee to write guidelines on when the administration could restrict briefings of congressional leaders on sensitive covert operations.

Such briefings were limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, the Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence panels.

Reyes has been working with the White House for months to write language that could avert a veto. The new language would allow the administration to limit the full committee’s access to information about sensitive operations only if the president submitted certification that an action met “extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States.”

The Senate version of the bill also included congressional notification language that drew a White House veto. It would require the full committee to be briefed broadly about any more detailed briefings provided to the Gang of Eight. The two chambers now must hash out their differences in conference.

Republicans tried to add language denying any money from being spent on moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S., requiring the director of national intelligence to submit a report detailing any steps taken to fix problems identified in the president’s Fort Hood intelligence review before the Christmas Day bombing attempt.

Hoekstra, as well as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), also tried to add language requiring the president to report to the congressional intelligence committees on the identities of U.S. citizens targeted for association by the CIA and others and establishing a process for authorization and notification of covert actions that could result in the death of a targeted citizen. Democrats did not allow votes on those amendments.

This story was updated from an earlier version

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83817-gop-cries-foul-over-amendment-to-intel-bill

 

[Fear No Evil]

Prove Obama's a traitor or STFU. Please specify the acts Obama has committed that constitute treason and the precise code sections defining those acts as treason.

I've posted the names, dates and acts that constitute the felonies committed by the Bushwhackos and the statutory citations defining their crimes. For as many times as you've repeated your dumbass assertion that Obama is a traitor, if you can't prove it, YOU are a pathetic liar. But we already knew that. :hmm:



Yeah. I know. I do it just to piss you off. Am I succeeding?

Well at least you admit he's a criminal. The PROOF he is a traitor is his refusal to act upon the previous administration.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

That's an old, stale argument, and it's as much BULLSHIT, now, as it's always been. There are many possible reasons why charges haven't been brought... YET, none of which negates the fact of the Bushwhackos' crimes or the validty of the charges that could and should be brought against them.

Do I really have to repost one of my foot long macros from the old forum to make the point?

Repost your partisan, swamp-fevered accusations all you want Harvey. What could be and what is are two entirely different things. Your wild-eyed claims and actual charges being brought in a court of law are like the difference between night and day.

The Obama admin has already looked into this issue. If they felt they could have had a slam dunk of a case you can bet that charges would have been brought. They haven't though because they know there's a good chance they could have lost in court, which would have been a HUGE embarrassment for the Dems. Obama simply could not take that chance which is why your "YET" will never, ever come. Keep fantasizing though.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Repost your partisan, swamp-fevered accusations all you want Harvey. What could be and what is are two entirely different things. Your wild-eyed claims and actual charges being brought in a court of law are like the difference between night and day.

The Obama admin has already looked into this issue. If they felt they could have had a slam dunk of a case you can bet that charges would have been brought. They haven't though because they know there's a good chance they could have lost in court, which would have been a HUGE embarrassment for the Dems. Obama simply could not take that chance which is why your "YET" will never, ever come. Keep fantasizing though.

I'll go even further and say that if Obama brought charges against the previous administration he'd open HIS OWN to them as well. Harvey is just too blinded by partisanship to see this.

 

[zsdersw]

Harvey is just too blinded by partisanship to see this.

.. says the pot to the kettle.

 

[Harvey]

Prove Obama's a traitor or STFU. Please specify the acts Obama has committed that constitute treason and the precise code sections defining those acts as treason.

I've posted the names, dates and acts that constitute the felonies committed by the Bushwhackos and the statutory citations defining their crimes. For as many times as you've repeated your dumbass assertion that Obama is a traitor, if you can't prove it, YOU are a pathetic liar. But we already knew that. :hmm:

Yeah. I know. I do it just to piss you off. Am I succeeding?

Well at least you admit he's a criminal. The PROOF he is a traitor is his refusal to act upon the previous administration.

The Obama administration's failure to prosecute your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal... YET... is not proof that Obama's a traitor. If you believe otherwise, please provide links to credible sources to establish a legally enforcible definition of treason, and please list any specific act or acts he committed, alone or in concert with others, that conform to the specifications of the crime. If you can't, thanks for proving you're as functionally illiterate as you are mean and stupid.

In my previous posts, using the same criteria, I've established that the Bushwhackos are guilty of murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, obstruction of justice and more. I included names, dates, specific acts and links to statutory citations defining those crimes. I know such details are irrelevant to you because little things like truth and reality have no meaning in your shallow, mindless world.

By your standards, I could post that Fear No Evil is guilty of the same crimes. I could even toss in accusations that Fear No Evil is guilty of rape, incest, child molestation and acts of terrorism. By your standards, I wouldn't have to prove that any actual act you committed conforms to any legal definition of those crimes. Even if my statements are false, by your standards, you are guilty simply because I posted the accusations, and, if you challenge any of them, by your standards, I could prove them by simply repeating the same lies over and over.

Fear No Evil -- Why do you continue to commit murder, torturer, war crimes, crimes against humanity, rape, incest, child molestation and acts of terrorism?

If you deny you are committing these crimes, when did you stop? D:

You previously posted that you are 100% open to being tortured if you commit an act of terrorism. Does that mean it's OK to torture you to elicit your confession to these crimes?

I could have included < sarcasm > < /sarcasm > tags, but I question whether you'd understand that word, either.

ObamaBigAssMistakeAmerika

Fear Evoking Absurd Reactionary Nonsense Obviously Entirely Void In Logic

 

[shira]

So what is the alternative? Since your ways can get answers much faster. Plus, I mean, pouring water on someone is just absolutely horrible!

Maybe you ought to do a little reading:

But as the Justice report points out, this [that Zubaydah’s claimed EIT-induced reporting led to the arrest of Padilla on his arrival in Chicago in May 2003] was wrong. “In fact, Padilla was arrested in May 2002, not 2003 … The information ‘[leading] to the arrest of Padilla’ could not have been obtained through the authorized use of EITs.” (The use of enhanced interrogations was not authorized until Aug. 1, 2002 and Zubaydah was not waterboarded until later that month.) “ Yet Bradbury relied upon this plainly inaccurate information” in two OLC memos that contained direct citations from the CIA Effectiveness Memo about the interrogations of Zubaydah, the Justice report states.

As Newsweek reported last year, the information about Padilla’s plot was actually elicited from Zubaydah during traditional interrogations in the spring of 2002 by two FBI agents, one of whom, Ali Soufan, vigorously objected when the CIA started using aggressive tactics.