Tillerson out.
BCC said:
Well bully for you and when did I start speaking for the nation.
You said it looked like a good idea. That's an opinion which was held by some finite number of people. You can list them if you want, but you should know that there were many who disagreed. I would contend that most didn't feel that way. If you want to assert otherwise, go ahead, but back your claim up.
nothing funny about torture, bub.
BCC said:
Funny. The experts on MOL condemn and reject Haspel and the Intel community which should be the best source of information strongly support her
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/13/gina-haspel-trump-nominee-first-woman-leader-cia/419547002/
John Brennan, a former CIA director, told MSNBC the "very controversial" interrogation program Haspel was connected with was approved by President George W. Bush and deemed lawful by the Justice Department.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clapper-trumps-pick-for-cia-director-is-a-tremendous-intelligence-officer/http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clapper-trumps-pick-for-cia-director-is-a-tremendous-intelligence-officer/
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/politics/gina-haspel-leon-panetta-new-day-cnntv/index.html
I read through the last page of posts, and I'm a bit sickened.
There is nothing to debate about torture.
The question was long ago decided.
It's wrong, so don't do it.
(To say nothing about the fact that it's extremely counter-productive. Like most of our terrorist fighting methods. So not only is it morally wrong, it's effing stupid.)
If you think otherwise, you are severely morally challenged. And if you argue with these people, you're merely justifying their stance.
oops. double post.
So rather than waste this space, I'll just point out that BCC is quite wrong, yet again.
That this topic is even on the table for discussion is highly disturbing.
drummerboy said:
oops. double post.
So rather than waste this space, I'll just point out that BCC is quite wrong, yet again.
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture That was changed some years later.It was why Holder could not bring charges. It was why Democrats and Republicans could join together to authorize it – for the safety of our nation.
I'm sorry. I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.
You may continue with your usual nonsense but don't expect me to try to enlighten you.
BCC said:
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture That was changed some years later.It was why Holder could not bring charges. It was why Democrats and Republicans could join together to authorize it – for the safety of our nation.
I'm sorry. I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.
You may continue with your usual nonsense but don't expect me to try to enlighten you.
Can you let us know the specific authorization passed by Congress authorizing water boarding along with dates on which this topic was debated?
BCC said:
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture That was changed some years later.It was why Holder could not bring charges. It was why Democrats and Republicans could join together to authorize it – for the safety of our nation.
I'm sorry. I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.
You may continue with your usual nonsense but don't expect me to try to enlighten you.
A lot of the above is not correct, including but not limited to the "not considered torture" claim (there was a dispute, which is why the Yoo torture memos, etc., were prepared in the first place).
See, e.g., https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html
Civilized people don't debate torture. They stop it from happening.
It's creepy that you get into such detail regarding torture. Very creepy.
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
oops. double post.
So rather than waste this space, I'll just point out that BCC is quite wrong, yet again.
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture That was changed some years later.It was why Holder could not bring charges. It was why Democrats and Republicans could join together to authorize it – for the safety of our nation.
I'm sorry. I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.
You may continue with your usual nonsense but don't expect me to try to enlighten you.
BCC said:
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture
I’ve been taught to beware sentences written in the passive voice, which can be both narrowly accurate and misleadingly sweeping.
My betters’ old grammar advice aside, it’s a fact that many, many Americans believed waterboarding was torture, even back in 2002, regardless of what the administrations decided. Assessing the morality of past individual actions can be made more complicated, if one wants it to be, when there was a prevailing consensus at the time. This was not one of those cases.
BCC said:
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture That was changed some years later.It was why Holder could not bring charges. It was why Democrats and Republicans could join together to authorize it – for the safety of our nation.
It was not "considered" torture in order to justify it. The same Republicans and Democrats joined together to support the invasion of Iraq "for the safety of our nation". The difference is that they believed Iraq had WMD aimed at us. No one who thought about it for more than ten minutes would have concluded that waterboarding was torture, that torture is always wrong and ineffective. Since the perpetrators of 9-11 were all killed who would definitely have information that could have been extracted through waterboarding.
Drummerboy is correct that we shouldn't even be having this discussion but as long as anyone is justifying torture there has to be push back.
waterboarding has been defined as torture for centuries
https://www.npr.org/2007/11/03/15886834/waterboarding-a-tortured-history
tjohn said:
BCC said:
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture That was changed some years later.It was why Holder could not bring charges. It was why Democrats and Republicans could join together to authorize it – for the safety of our nation.
I'm sorry. I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.
You may continue with your usual nonsense but don't expect me to try to enlighten you.
Can you let us know the specific authorization passed by Congress authorizing water boarding along with dates on which this topic was debated?
https://www.npr.org/series/100876926/npr-book-notes
BCC said:
From NPR, not exactly a right wing rag.
https://www.npr.org/series/100876926/npr-book-notes
Author Alan Hollinghurst On Secret Affairs, Narrative Gaps And Writing Gay Sex
Very helpful.
BCC said:
From NPR, not exactly a right wing rag.
https://www.npr.org/series/100876926/npr-book-notes
BCC said:
tjohn said:
BCC said:
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture That was changed some years later.It was why Holder could not bring charges. It was why Democrats and Republicans could join together to authorize it – for the safety of our nation.
I'm sorry. I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.
You may continue with your usual nonsense but don't expect me to try to enlighten you.
Can you let us know the specific authorization passed by Congress authorizing water boarding along with dates on which this topic was debated?
https://www.npr.org/series/100876926/npr-book-notes
Unless you are saying that NPR is government-approved torture, there's nothing on the "NPR Book Notes" page which supports the "waterboarding isn't torture" assertion.
BCC said:
tjohn said:
BCC said:
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture That was changed some years later.It was why Holder could not bring charges. It was why Democrats and Republicans could join together to authorize it – for the safety of our nation.
I'm sorry. I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.
You may continue with your usual nonsense but don't expect me to try to enlighten you.
Can you let us know the specific authorization passed by Congress authorizing water boarding along with dates on which this topic was debated?
https://www.npr.org/series/100876926/npr-book-notes
Awesome link. Was hoping you could point me to the historical record of the Congressional debates where it was determined that waterboarding was not torture and was therefore legal.
nohero said:
BCC said:
From NPR, not exactly a right wing rag.
https://www.npr.org/series/100876926/npr-book-notes
BCC said:
tjohn said:
BCC said:
In 2002 water boarding was not considered torture That was changed some years later.It was why Holder could not bring charges. It was why Democrats and Republicans could join together to authorize it – for the safety of our nation.
I'm sorry. I can explain things to you, but I cannot understand them for you.
You may continue with your usual nonsense but don't expect me to try to enlighten you.
Can you let us know the specific authorization passed by Congress authorizing water boarding along with dates on which this topic was debated?
https://www.npr.org/series/100876926/npr-book-notes
Unless you are saying that NPR is government-approved torture, there's nothing on the "NPR Book Notes" page which supports the "waterboarding isn't torture" assertion.
There is a story about Andrew Lloyd Webber which may count.
This was where that link was supposed to take you. I have no idea why it didn't.
CIA Lawyer: Waterboarding Wasn't Torture Then And Isn't Torture Now
Company Man
Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA
by John Rizzo
Hardcover, 320 pages
'In the years following the Sept. 11 attacks, many Americans heard the term "waterboarding" for the first time — a technique aimed to simulate the act of drowning. Waterboarding was at the center of the debate about what the CIA called "enhanced interrogation techniques" — and what critics called "torture."
John Rizzo, acting general counsel of the CIA in the years after Sept. 11, 2001, has written a memoir about his three decades at the agency. He talks with NPR's Renee Montagne about Company Man: Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA.'
'On whether, in retrospect, he believes waterboarding is a form of torture
No. I'm a lawyer, and torture is legally defined in U.S. law. If I had concluded — or, more importantly, if the Justice Department had concluded — that these techniques constitute torture, we would never have done them. So I can't say they were torture. I didn't concede it was torture then, and I don't concede that it's torture now.'
Color me shocked that a CIA lawyer doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture. I don't see how NPR covering the book's publication means they endorse its contents.
BCC said:
This was where that link was supposed to take you. I have no idea why it didn't.
CIA Lawyer: Waterboarding Wasn't Torture Then And Isn't Torture Now
Company Man
Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA
by John Rizzo
Hardcover, 320 pages
purchase
'In the years following the Sept. 11 attacks, many Americans heard the term "waterboarding" for the first time — a technique aimed to simulate the act of drowning. Waterboarding was at the center of the debate about what the CIA called "enhanced interrogation techniques" — and what critics called "torture."
John Rizzo, acting general counsel of the CIA in the years after Sept. 11, 2001, has written a memoir about his three decades at the agency. He talks with NPR's Renee Montagne about Company Man: Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA.'
'On whether, in retrospect, he believes waterboarding is a form of torture
No. I'm a lawyer, and torture is legally defined in U.S. law. If I had concluded — or, more importantly, if the Justice Department had concluded — that these techniques constitute torture, we would never have done them. So I can't say they were torture. I didn't concede it was torture then, and I don't concede that it's torture now.'
I heard that when it was on the radio originally - it didn't convince me then, either.
And not for nothing, but introducing it the way you did ("From NPR, not exactly a right wing rag") is stupid or misleading or both. Just because NPR has someone on the air, interviewed about their position, doesn't mean it's any kind of endorsement.
BCC said:
From NPR, not exactly a right wing rag.
https://www.npr.org/series/100876926/npr-book-notes
[Edited to add] That's a very "Surovellian" technique you used right there.
refusing to admit that a torture method is torture doesn't mean that isn't actually torture
And if there's a lawyer who claims that waterboarding is torture (and there are plenty) does that somehow obliterate waterboarding's existence?
nohero said:
BCC said:
This was where that link was supposed to take you. I have no idea why it didn't.
CIA Lawyer: Waterboarding Wasn't Torture Then And Isn't Torture Now
Company Man
Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA
by John Rizzo
Hardcover, 320 pages
purchase
'In the years following the Sept. 11 attacks, many Americans heard the term "waterboarding" for the first time — a technique aimed to simulate the act of drowning. Waterboarding was at the center of the debate about what the CIA called "enhanced interrogation techniques" — and what critics called "torture."
John Rizzo, acting general counsel of the CIA in the years after Sept. 11, 2001, has written a memoir about his three decades at the agency. He talks with NPR's Renee Montagne about Company Man: Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA.'
'On whether, in retrospect, he believes waterboarding is a form of torture
No. I'm a lawyer, and torture is legally defined in U.S. law. If I had concluded — or, more importantly, if the Justice Department had concluded — that these techniques constitute torture, we would never have done them. So I can't say they were torture. I didn't concede it was torture then, and I don't concede that it's torture now.'
I heard that when it was on the radio originally - it didn't convince me then, either.
And not for nothing, but introducing it the way you did ("From NPR, not exactly a right wing rag") is stupid or misleading or both. Just because NPR has someone on the air, interviewed about their position, doesn't mean it's any kind of endorsement.
BCC said:
From NPR, not exactly a right wing rag.
https://www.npr.org/series/100876926/npr-book-notes
[Edited to add] That's a very "Surovellian" technique you used right there.
What is stupid is your comment. It didn't convince you? Who the hell are you? This was the CIA lawyer explaining why it was used or do I have to understand things for you too?
tjohn said:
As I suspected, it seems like it depends on what the meaning of is is.
No, it depends on what the DOJ and the CIA lawyer say what is is.
BCC said:
tjohn said:
As I suspected, it seems like it depends on what the meaning of is is.
No, it depends on what the DOJ and the CIA lawyer say what is is.
No, it actually doesn't. You are an empty shell of a human being if you can't identify torture on your own. By your argument, the German soldiers who were just following orders should have been acquitted.
In any case, the DOJ and CIA lawyer opinions are about as valuable as the fox's account of what happened at the hen house.
For Sale
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
You really don't think Israel was "afraid for the safety" of their country in 1973?
I think the main lesson is that some people panic--for years, apparently--and lash out, not knowing what else to do, not learning the lessons of history.