Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder: No charges against CIA officials for torture - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 11:25 AM

Okay.. just call Olly Olly Oxen Free so that all those guys come out of the caves... Hide and Seek is over!

Okay, then it's not torture it's enhanced interrogation.

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 11:34 AM

We're not at war, we have an authorization to use military force, therefore, since I've established that we're not at war and thus the war context no longer applies, you're no longer fine with torture.

I'm glad we cleared that up. It only took 200 posts.

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 11:35 AM

you're right now that it's cleared up and it's not war.

I'm fine with enhanced interrogation.

You will not get me to bend on my belief on this subject.

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 11:42 AM

I already did.

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 11:48 AM

No. You didn't. You may want to think that you did, but that's only in your head.

Ferdinand Marcos did what he did under the auspices of saving democracy. Uncles who were statesmen had their senate seats revoked. The family newspaper editor was arrested and the press shut down. It was all just Martial Law. He wasn't a dictator. He was elected. Many times, ever time.

You can decide for yourself what the words may be so that it's palatable to yourself, but it's actions that determine what and who you are. We may be intending it to not be war, but it is. Call it whatever you like to call it, soldiers come home dead, traumatized, tortured, etc.

And here I thought you thought for yourself, not what the government nor the media told you...

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Ferdinand Marcos did what he did under the auspices of saving democracy. Uncles who were statesmen had their senate seats revoked. The family newspaper editor was arrested and the press shut down. It was all just Martial Law. He wasn't a dictator. He was elected. Many times, ever time.

Democratically elected officials can not only make mistakes, but be bad leaders. Marcos demonstrates nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You can decide for yourself what the words may be so that it's palatable to yourself, but it's actions that determine what and who you are. We may be intending it to not be war, but it is. Call it whatever you like to call it, soldiers come home dead, traumatized, tortured, etc.

You're acting like our treatment of prisoners has something to do with those dead, traumatized or tortured soldiers when you know that's not true. Torture started before the invasion of Iraq, the time line is completely clear. It seems that we started in 2002, perhaps even 2001. We didn't invade Iraq until 2003. Even Pelosi was informed in 2002.

We tortured to establish a lie, that Iraq was connected to 9/11. You say you're "fine" with torture in the context of war, but are you fine with torture to intentionally extract unconfirmed supposition or outright falsehood? Are you really fine with torture being used to form the basis of the great lie that leads us to war with someone that wasn't going to attack us? How far into this corner are you really willing to paint yourself?

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 12:25 PM

nothing. again, you can parse it out as you'd like to to be.... remember it's all under the Global War on Terrorism, just like the Cold War, only shinier! Or the Vietnam War, but that wasn't a war either, but yet it's called that, same with Gulf War. Just like you said, we're not at war! Or let's not forget the Forgotten War, you know the Korean War?

I'm acting like those tortured for information were dealt with based on the assumption that 2 planes slammed into two towers not more than 1 mile from where I'm sitting now.

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 12:27 PM

Would you like to respond to what I posted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

We tortured to establish a lie, that Iraq was connected to 9/11. You say you're "fine" with torture in the context of war, but are you fine with torture to intentionally extract unconfirmed supposition or outright falsehood? Are you really fine with torture being used to form the basis of the great lie that leads us to war with someone that wasn't going to attack us? How far into this corner are you really willing to paint yourself?

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 12:28 PM

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR... see the war word in there?

I already did.

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 12:34 PM

WAR ON POVERTY... see the war word in there? Let's go torture some homeless people because you're too stubborn to admit that you're wrong.

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

WAR ON POVERTY... see the war word in there? Let's go torture some homeless people because you're too stubborn to admit that you're wrong.

yep, just like the war on poverty, crime literacy, drugs, blah blah blah...

you remember your fallacies? Look up which one the poverty is.... duh.

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 01:58 PM

You were using the use of the word "war on" as evidence that it was a war. I used the same exact example with the war on poverty. You can cry about it all you want, but your point was demonstrated to be incorrect.

You said that the context of war excuses torture, but I explained that the torture started even before the AUMF on Iraq.

What other points would you like me to successfully refute?

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 02:01 PM

because you won't take the idea that people with guns shooting at each other has some bearing to my opinions and belief. You'd rather it be a battle of semantics, which is absurd when people are shooting each other, trying to blow up each other, and shooting missles and bombs from planes.

all the trappings of war...but you'd like to pussyfoot around with words.

I'm fine with toture.

You, you're not so fine with it.

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 02:08 PM

You're changing your case. You said, very clearly, that because the term "war on" is in the label, it's a war. But fine, let's pretend that you included combat in your definition. The war on drugs includes guns and bombs and fatalities. Are we at war with drugs? No. No, we're not. The drug war cannot be used to suggest "context of war", so we can't torture drug dealers or drug users.

Would you like to change what you said again?

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 02:57 PM

No, because you're looking to parse and lawyer this into some semantic debate. I've said it time again and again and it hasn't changed.

You just want to be right, and hey, I don't care but you seem to.

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 03:15 PM

You can throw "lawyering" and "parse" around all you want, but they don't change the fact that you've had to change positions several times and you're still putting fourth a position that you are having serious trouble defending. Eventually you'll be back at "torture is a part of life" (paraphrasing), which is where you started, but even that position is weak.

You don't actually believe that torture is fine, you just were trying to make yourself feel unattached to what your and my government is doing. I can't say I blame you, it's shameful what we've done.

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

You can throw "lawyering" and "parse" around all you want, but they don't change the fact that you've had to change positions several times and you're still putting fourth a position that you are having serious trouble defending. Eventually you'll be back at "torture is a part of life" (paraphrasing), which is where you started, but even that position is weak.

You don't actually believe that torture is fine, you just were trying to make yourself feel unattached to what your and my government is doing. I can't say I blame you, it's shameful what we've done.

You really just don't understand what my belief is... you keep misunderstanding what I've said, and you keep wanting to put words in my mouth.

go back and re-read.

You keep wanting to have the last word, so go ahead, you can have it, just like you can have "being right."

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 05:01 PM

It's not about being right. It's never been about being right. It's been about the truth.

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 05:08 PM

Oooh.... I get it now.

I'm lying when I say that I'm okay with torture. Oh.... thanks. I can't believe I'm lying!!!!!

I must be lying because I posted that I'd give you the last word, and here I'm posting again!

and like a champ... you had to take it!!!!

GO WILLRAVEL!

see you had to be right!

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 06:43 PM

Alright, let's do this again, then. Your main point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I find that acceptable as part of the range that humans can and will become given conditions and circumstances. Murder and torture happened before I was on the planet, and will continue to happen when I'm no longer walking the planet.

All you were saying here is that "torture happens and will continue to happen", but that didn't extend to "fine", which is where this clusterfuck started. You continued on later:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I will not allow someone to guilt me or make me feel bad because of someone else's actions. I'm not responsible for their actions, thus I am not responsible for the guilt and other feelings a third party is trying to foist upon me. The path your logic and will's is to try and express a manner in which I should feel bad for someone else's actions. I say, "No thank you. I'm fine with the way that it is." Traveling around the world to hear someone say, “That George Bush...” You know, I'm not responsible for his actions. I wasn't then and am still not.

The gist here is that you don't take direct responsibility for torture. Okay, that makes sense, you were probably in New York the whole time this has been happening, several thousand miles away. You, Cynthetiq, didn't torture anyone. BUT, and this is what I said back on that first page (or second or third page if you have 40 posts per page), you're not just an island. We're not in an anarchistic social or governmental construct at all. You, Cynthetiq, are a part of a civilization. You are a citizen, you vote for representatives and measures, you pay taxes, and you contribute in your own way. Because you are a member of our democratic republic, you are a part of a whole. Or do you not vote? Do you not pay taxes? Do you not contribute to the country and also enjoy the fruits of our collective efforts? Of course you do. And just as we stand and succeed together, we also must police ourselves. This is not even at the level of ethics or morality yet, simply a matter of functionality. In order to function as a society, as a country, we must have a set of rules and principles by which we all agree to live. Torture is against our laws and principles, therefore it must be prosecuted under the law. Those who do not seek to prosecute do themselves an indirect but very much real disservice. You have likely personally paid in some way for our collective inability to stop the war in Iraq or Afghanistan and yes, even torture. Torture means, according to experts I'm glad to cite, the resistance against us in Iraq and Afghanistan grows. The consequence of remaining in those places should be obvious, but let me spell this out for you:
• we have less military at home to do their jobs. During Katrina there was a serious shortage of National Guard personnel. What happens if there is a natural or man-made disaster in New York?
• we have a less stable source of our most important natural resource, oil
• we are seeing family and friends victimized by injuries and death (perhaps you're lucky enough that no one you know has been victimized yet, but the longer this goes on the more likely you are personally to experience serious injury or death of a friend or family member)
•omgyou have to put up with people like me. Don't pretend I don't irritate you.

As a member of a society where self-policing is necessary for functionality, you have a very small share of a very large responsibility. If you don't buy that, you don't buy a serious part of your role as a member of our society.

You are a part of the whole people that torture. You have, along with others, the collective means to correct torture. You are, indirectly, negatively effected by torture.

Cynthetiq · 05-18-2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

blah blah blah blah blah

OMFG You're right Will!!!!!

you try it again by yourself. you don't irritate me, you make me laugh.

Willravel · 05-18-2009, 08:04 PM

Getting back to the subject at hand....

It seems that Earl Ofari Hutchinson came to a similar conclusion about Obama's seeming flip flop, mainly that he doesn't want to appear soft on terror.

Quote:

Obama Really Had No Choice on Torture Pictures

The most telling thing about President Obama's response to Army General Ray Odierno's impassioned plea to him not to release the eye popping photos showing torture of Iraqi prisoners was not that he gave in to the general. It was what he said to the general when he made the decision. Said the general, "It must have been a hard decision," Obama "No, it wasn't at all."
This was not hyperbole to appease a fawning, jittery, military hard nosed general. Nor was it a chronic case of backsliding, flip-flopping, or betrayal of principle. It was simply President Obama recognizing that he's a young, untested, and perceived liberal Democrat, and therefore widely suspect that he'll be a namby pamby on national security and military toughness. These aren't simply politically volatile issues. They're the political Achilles Heel of Democrats.

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates starting with Clinton have done everything they could to wrap a protective guard around that heel. To do that they had to snatch a page from the GOP playbook that requires them to talk tough on national security and military preparedness. In countless speeches and private talks during the 2000 presidential campaign, Clinton sternly warned the Democrats that if they want to grab the White House they must seize the national security and defense issues from the Republicans. That meant doing and saying nothing that stirs public sensibilities and fears on the war on terrorism and about Democratic military softness. At times, it meant trying to out Bush Bush on the GOP's stock issue of the war on terrorism and national security.

Democratic presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry took Clinton's advice to heart with disastrous results. They both tried to strike the tough guy pose. Kerry even said at one point that he'd launch preemptive strikes against terrorists wherever they were and that he would launch search and destroy missions to ferret out Osama and Al-Qaeda. That fooled absolutely no one. Endless polls showed that the voters repeatedly gave Bush huge percentage margins over Kerry when asked who they thought would do a better job in the anti-terror war.

Kerry didn't get it. He kept slamming Bush as being, weak and ineffective in fighting terrorism. He touted his military credentials as a Vietnam combat vet to supposedly prove that he would and could be every bit if not more the hardliner on terrorism than Bush.

During the campaign, Obama with only slight stylistic tweaks pretty much followed the same script as Kerry. He really had no choice. He was viciously baited on the sound of his name, slandered and lied about as a Muslim, and pounded for allegedly not wearing an American flag in his lapel and not hoisting his hand to his heart when the national anthem was played. In the minds of many suspicious Americans, that typed him as inherently questionable on being a stalwart tough guy on terrorism and national defense, and worse unpatriotic. These were all attack points during the campaign for variously McCain, Sarah Palin, the Republican National Committee, and legions of GOP hit bloggers.

McCain waved his credentials as Bush did as the man who you'd want to be in the driver's seat to safeguard national security. The not so subtle message was that Obama wasn't that man.

The polls backed up McCain on that claim. Most found that nearly half of Americans said that Obama was not hard nosed enough on national security and McCain was. That of course, raised hackles among Team Obama and they took great pains to assert their military preparedness credentials. Once in office, liberals grumbled that Obama backpedaled on his promises to totally dismantle the most odious of Bush's torture policies and that included hauling Bush officials accused of condoning torture and illegal wiretapping into a court docket.

The failure to fully reverse Bush torture policies had nothing to do with Obama's merely putting pragmatism over principle, especially since a federal judge had already ordered the photos released. The photos have been widely circulated on the web. More importantly, America's enemies are certainly well aware of and have experienced first hand the full brunt of CIA and military dirty tactics.

Obama's refusal to release the photos was simply another instance of a moderate Democratic president under the intense glare of the military and GOP looking glass doing the politically expedient and necessary thing and that's to kiss the obligatory ring of national security and military toughness. It's also reconfirmation of the time tested political truism in American presidential politics that moderate Democrats always run to the political left in the early stages of a campaign. They then move quickly to the center or even rightward once in the White House.

Obama can't be branded a backslider, betrayer, or flip flopper for trying to do what all moderate Democrats have done and will continue to do. And that's to damp down suspicions that they can't be military tough guys too.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Obama Really Had No Choice on Torture Pictures

It seems the most sensible solution to all of this is to no longer speak to the simpler people. I know it's only natural for politicians to assume that their message is too complicated so they have to dumb it down to ten word phrases, but that only reinforces that same dumb populace. It's like self-fulfilling prophecy. I've got to give Obama credit, he spoke to a higher intellect than McCain, but he still very often boiled down his thoughts and opinions to very easy to digest buzz phrases and such. And I suspect several of his positions—homosexual marriage, Afghanistan, corporate crime, and torture—had to be moderated down because in order to deliver the liberal take on those, you need to have an actual debate with many different opinions and facts. They're more complicated than "Ima gonna get them", but "Ima gonna get them" is much more simple to sell.

It's fear of intellectual discourse. It's a fear that the populace wouldn't be able to follow in a serious debate about economic theory. It's a fear that the populace wouldn't be able to follow in a serious debate about the historical effectiveness of torture. It's a fear that the populace wouldn't be able to follow in a serious debate about successful methodology for extracting intelligence from captured enemies of our country. Worse still, it's a fear that the populace is so obsessed with vengeance they're unwilling to consider justice.

If things are going to change, we need to ditch buzz phrases and oversimplified reality. If Obama is worried that he's going to look weak on terror, he should come out and explain his position as if he's presenting a paper in one of his Harvard law classes. Sure, some people aren't going to understand, but those of us that do can help to explain it to them. Better we're lead by honesty, ability, and intellect than half-truths, parsing of words, and the lowest common denominator.

Willravel · 06-11-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Major new accountability campaign from the ACLU
Glenn Greenwald Thursday June 11, 2009 17:12 EDT
The ACLU today launched a major new campaign to impose accountability for torture and related Bush-era crimes. The campaign -- Accountability for Torture -- is devoted principally to a restoration of the rule of law and the appointment by the DOJ of a Special Prosecutor. The website to coordinate these efforts is here, and that site is also now probably the single best resource for all documents and other information relating to torture and accountability efforts. The ACLU has clearly led the way in battling for disclosure of Bush-era war crimes secrets -- so much of what we know is due to their litigation efforts and those of other civil liberties groups (rather than, say, the efforts of the "watchdog" media or the "oversight" Congress). But what has been missing up until now is a coordinated, centralized effort to galvanize public demands for accountability, and this project is intended to provide that.

To launch the campaign, I hosted a podcast discussion on issues of accountability and transparency with international human rights lawyer Phillipe Sands (author of Torture Team) and ACLU litigator Amrit Singh (co-author of Administration of Torture), which can be heard here. It is roughly 25 minutes long. One of the critical themes that emerged was that, both in general and specifically for Bush crimes, a prerequisite to accountability is transparency and disclosure. Only once citizens know what their Government did will they be able to hold the wrongdoers accountable. Along those lines, The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin today noted some very important observations from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse in a Senate floor speech he gave about the ongoing suppression of information relating to Bush crimes of torture:

Quote:

[T]here has been a campaign of falsehood about this whole sorry episode. It has disserved the American public.... [F]acing up to the questions of our use of torture is hard enough. It is worse when people are misled and don't know the whole truth and so can't form an informed opinion and instead quarrel over irrelevancies and false premises. Much debunking of falsehood remains to be done but cannot be done now because the accurate and complete information is classified...

It is intensely frustrating to have access to classified information that proves a lie and not be able to prove that lie. It does not serve America well for Senators to be in that position.

Disclosure and transparency are the linchpin of meaningful, informed debates. By contrast, suppressing information is what uniquely enables a government to lie and deceive. Dick Cheney can run around making claims about the legality of the torture and rendition programs only because the current administration continues to engage in such extreme measures to block any judicial review or disclosure. Identically, Cheney is free to claim that the abuses of Abu Ghraib were isolated aberrations because the current administration continues to suppress the photographs of detainee abuse that prove the opposite: the abuse seen at Abu Ghraib was anything but isolated, asthe tactics used at there were used at virtually every American "War on Terror" detention facility because they were the by-product of policies approved at the highest levels of government. That is why principles of transparency generally and FOIA specifically are so vital: as Sen. Whitehouse said, they are the only checks against the sort of rank deceit that has dominated debates over Bush-era policies and accountability for them.

In a separate column today, Froomkin -- one the favorite media writers of progressives during the Bush era -- noted the numerous steps the Obama administration has taken to bring greater transparency to domestic policy-making, but then observed:

Quote:

Obama's approach to disclosure issues is turning out to be profoundly schizophrenic. On national security issues, Obama has been intensely disappointing. Most notably, I now consider him a willing and active partner in the cover-up of the Bush torture legacy.

One can debate the relative merits of Obama's positions, but Froomkin's factual statement about Obama's transparency policies seems very difficult to dispute. Disclosure is the pre-requisite for accountability. Covering-up evidence of crimes, at some point, does indeed make one complicit. The podcast discussion I hosted on these matters today can be heard here, and the new ACLU website for its accountability project is here.

Major new accountability campaign from the ACLU - Glen Greenwald - Salon.com

Well this is interesting. Maybe I was premature in thinking that it was too late to really start going after those responsible for torture. If anyone can do this, it's the ACLU. Thoughts?

dippin · 08-25-2009, 11:17 PM

Apparently, the "not torture" that the US did actually cause the death of many subjected to it, and several more are missing:

Deaths, Missing Detainees Still Blacked Out in New CIA Report - ABC News

If the policy of "no charges" continues, it will be a disgrace (but not unprecedented, as scumbag Kissinger can attest).

filtherton · 08-26-2009, 05:49 AM

The fucked up thing about Holder's current plan is that it legally legitimizes the "I was just following orders" defense.

Willravel · 08-26-2009, 06:26 AM

Did everyone read the IG Torture report? Here it is. It is A LOT worse than what has been reported (btw, that's a pdf link).

filtherton · 08-26-2009, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Did everyone read the IG Torture report? Here it is. It is A LOT worse than what has been reported (btw, that's a pdf link).

One can only imagine the contents of the redacted portions.

This is one area where Obama can seriously eat a dick.

05-18-2009, 11:25 AM	#201 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Okay.. just call Olly Olly Oxen Free so that all those guys come out of the caves... Hide and Seek is over! Okay, then it's not torture it's enhanced interrogation. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-18-2009, 11:35 AM	#203 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	you're right now that it's cleared up and it's not war. I'm fine with enhanced interrogation. You will not get me to bend on my belief on this subject. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-18-2009, 11:48 AM	#205 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	No. You didn't. You may want to think that you did, but that's only in your head. Ferdinand Marcos did what he did under the auspices of saving democracy. Uncles who were statesmen had their senate seats revoked. The family newspaper editor was arrested and the press shut down. It was all just Martial Law. He wasn't a dictator. He was elected. Many times, ever time. You can decide for yourself what the words may be so that it's palatable to yourself, but it's actions that determine what and who you are. We may be intending it to not be war, but it is. Call it whatever you like to call it, soldiers come home dead, traumatized, tortured, etc. And here I thought you thought for yourself, not what the government nor the media told you... __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-18-2009, 12:25 PM	#207 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	nothing. again, you can parse it out as you'd like to to be.... remember it's all under the Global War on Terrorism, just like the Cold War, only shinier! Or the Vietnam War, but that wasn't a war either, but yet it's called that, same with Gulf War. Just like you said, we're not at war! Or let's not forget the Forgotten War, you know the Korean War? I'm acting like those tortured for information were dealt with based on the assumption that 2 planes slammed into two towers not more than 1 mile from where I'm sitting now. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-18-2009, 12:28 PM	#209 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR... see the war word in there? I already did. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-18-2009, 11:34 AM	#202 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	We're not at war, we have an authorization to use military force, therefore, since I've established that we're not at war and thus the war context no longer applies, you're no longer fine with torture. I'm glad we cleared that up. It only took 200 posts.

05-18-2009, 11:42 AM	#204 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I already did.

05-18-2009, 12:34 PM	#210 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	WAR ON POVERTY... see the war word in there? Let's go torture some homeless people because you're too stubborn to admit that you're wrong.

05-18-2009, 01:58 PM	#212 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You were using the use of the word "war on" as evidence that it was a war. I used the same exact example with the war on poverty. You can cry about it all you want, but your point was demonstrated to be incorrect. You said that the context of war excuses torture, but I explained that the torture started even before the AUMF on Iraq. What other points would you like me to successfully refute?

05-18-2009, 02:01 PM	#213 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	because you won't take the idea that people with guns shooting at each other has some bearing to my opinions and belief. You'd rather it be a battle of semantics, which is absurd when people are shooting each other, trying to blow up each other, and shooting missles and bombs from planes. all the trappings of war...but you'd like to pussyfoot around with words. I'm fine with toture. You, you're not so fine with it. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-18-2009, 02:08 PM	#214 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You're changing your case. You said, very clearly, that because the term "war on" is in the label, it's a war. But fine, let's pretend that you included combat in your definition. The war on drugs includes guns and bombs and fatalities. Are we at war with drugs? No. No, we're not. The drug war cannot be used to suggest "context of war", so we can't torture drug dealers or drug users. Would you like to change what you said again?

05-18-2009, 02:57 PM	#215 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	No, because you're looking to parse and lawyer this into some semantic debate. I've said it time again and again and it hasn't changed. You just want to be right, and hey, I don't care but you seem to. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-18-2009, 03:15 PM	#216 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You can throw "lawyering" and "parse" around all you want, but they don't change the fact that you've had to change positions several times and you're still putting fourth a position that you are having serious trouble defending. Eventually you'll be back at "torture is a part of life" (paraphrasing), which is where you started, but even that position is weak. You don't actually believe that torture is fine, you just were trying to make yourself feel unattached to what your and my government is doing. I can't say I blame you, it's shameful what we've done.

05-18-2009, 05:01 PM	#218 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's not about being right. It's never been about being right. It's been about the truth.

05-18-2009, 05:08 PM	#219 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Oooh.... I get it now. I'm lying when I say that I'm okay with torture. Oh.... thanks. I can't believe I'm lying!!!!! I must be lying because I posted that I'd give you the last word, and here I'm posting again! and like a champ... you had to take it!!!! GO WILLRAVEL! see you had to be right! __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

08-25-2009, 11:17 PM	#224 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Apparently, the "not torture" that the US did actually cause the death of many subjected to it, and several more are missing: Deaths, Missing Detainees Still Blacked Out in New CIA Report - ABC News If the policy of "no charges" continues, it will be a disgrace (but not unprecedented, as scumbag Kissinger can attest).

08-26-2009, 05:49 AM	#225 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The fucked up thing about Holder's current plan is that it legally legitimizes the "I was just following orders" defense.

08-26-2009, 06:26 AM	#226 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Did everyone read the IG Torture report? Here it is. It is A LOT worse than what has been reported (btw, that's a pdf link).