conjur,
You've got to be fvcking kidding me? You think that a statement, and that's all it was, a statement, by the newly selected (and probably not even at the time he made the statement) Attorney General has any say in the legal definition of torture? You furthermore think that the entire court system and all parties working in concert to find and prosecute these heinous people would stand idly by and allow an offense as egregious as this to go away for something one person said? Man, you're reaching, you're really reaching. You've reached a new level of absurdity with this post and your subsequent conclusions that you're drawing from something completely unrelated. It pains me to even think that someone could be so near sighted by their own political hatred that they'd even begin to make a connection here. You've stooped below your own threshold for stupidity and flat out ignorance by your own assinine conclusions drawn in this thread. Your insistence on defending your original post only serves to taint the already twisted political ideal that you espouse here on these forums. I recommend you cease replying and save any sliver of dignity or apparent intelligence you may still have in some people's eyes around here, if not for them, for yourself and to the benefit of mankind.
Also, please, educate us on what specifically is covered in the Geneva Conventions. Time and again I've posted links to the US Army's doctrine on the Laws of War as governed by the Geneva Conventions. Can you even tell me specifically which Geneva/Hague Conventions the United States was party to? Please, give me the paragraph and originating document with the specifics of "allowable" methods of information extraction from a human being. I'm highly interested to know if you even know what you're talking about in even the slightest sense, because personally, I think you're full of $hit.
You've got to be fvcking kidding me? You think that a statement, and that's all it was, a statement, by the newly selected (and probably not even at the time he made the statement) Attorney General has any say in the legal definition of torture? You furthermore think that the entire court system and all parties working in concert to find and prosecute these heinous people would stand idly by and allow an offense as egregious as this to go away for something one person said? Man, you're reaching, you're really reaching. You've reached a new level of absurdity with this post and your subsequent conclusions that you're drawing from something completely unrelated. It pains me to even think that someone could be so near sighted by their own political hatred that they'd even begin to make a connection here. You've stooped below your own threshold for stupidity and flat out ignorance by your own assinine conclusions drawn in this thread. Your insistence on defending your original post only serves to taint the already twisted political ideal that you espouse here on these forums. I recommend you cease replying and save any sliver of dignity or apparent intelligence you may still have in some people's eyes around here, if not for them, for yourself and to the benefit of mankind.
Also, please, educate us on what specifically is covered in the Geneva Conventions. Time and again I've posted links to the US Army's doctrine on the Laws of War as governed by the Geneva Conventions. Can you even tell me specifically which Geneva/Hague Conventions the United States was party to? Please, give me the paragraph and originating document with the specifics of "allowable" methods of information extraction from a human being. I'm highly interested to know if you even know what you're talking about in even the slightest sense, because personally, I think you're full of $hit.
Facebook
Twitter