# Torture battle escalating, Pelosi vs. Boehner



## NOBama (Apr 24, 2009)

> President Obama opened a big can of worms by releasing the torture memos last week that the administration today sought to close with little success.
> 
> Instead, a full-blown battle has opened between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and her GOP counterpart, Ohio's John Boehner about how much top Congressional leaders knew about water boarding in 2002. It is being fueled in part by a timeline released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by another California Democrat, Dianne Feinstein.
> 
> ...


 
Pelosi may be digging a hole next to Dodd's hole on this.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm sick of talking about this. We keep going round and round with the same stuff. Nothing will change for the next few days so everybody needs to take a deep breath and enjoy the weekend.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 24, 2009)

being born and rasied not far from san francisco.....the rest of the country is going to find out just how "stupid" san fran nan really is......


----------



## NOBama (Apr 24, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> I'm sick of talking about this. We keep going round and round with the same stuff. Nothing will change for the next few days so everybody needs to take a deep breath and enjoy the weekend.


 WHAT? Another Dem caught in a lie and you want everybody to overlook it?

Say it ain't so!


----------



## Valerie (Apr 24, 2009)

> *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> 
> Olbermann: You'll do it for charity? For the troops families? I'll take you up on that Sean. For every second you last, $1000. Live or on tape provided other networks cameras are there. $1000 a second Sean because this is no game. This is serious stuff. Put your money where your mouth is, and your nose. And I'll double it when you admit you feared for your life. When you admit the horrible truth. Waterboarding, a symbol of the last administration, is torture.
> 
> [....]



Keith Olbermann Offers Sean Hannity $1000 For Every Second He Can Endure Waterboarding | Video Cafe


----------



## Sinatra (Apr 24, 2009)

NOBama said:


> > President Obama opened a big can of worms by releasing the torture memos last week that the administration today sought to close with little success.
> >
> > Instead, a full-blown battle has opened between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and her GOP counterpart, Ohio's John Boehner about how much top Congressional leaders knew about water boarding in 2002. It is being fueled in part by a timeline released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by another California Democrat, Dianne Feinstein.
> >
> ...



 I was thinking the same exact thing yesterday after she gave us her, " I did not have torturing knowledge with Ms Lewinski - not ever..."

Well, basically that is what she was saying...


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 24, 2009)

Valerie said:


> > *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> >
> > Olbermann: You'll do it for charity? For the troops families? I'll take you up on that Sean. For every second you last, $1000. Live or on tape provided other networks cameras are there. $1000 a second Sean because this is no game. This is serious stuff. Put your money where your mouth is, and your nose. And I'll double it when you admit you feared for your life. When you admit the horrible truth. Waterboarding, a symbol of the last administration, is torture.
> >
> ...



Cool--I feel a new teenage fad coming on. How long can YOU stand being waterboarded?


----------



## oreo (Apr 24, 2009)

Valerie said:


> > *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> >
> > Olbermann: You'll do it for charity? For the troops families? I'll take you up on that Sean. For every second you last, $1000. Live or on tape provided other networks cameras are there. $1000 a second Sean because this is no game. This is serious stuff. Put your money where your mouth is, and your nose. And I'll double it when you admit you feared for your life. When you admit the horrible truth. Waterboarding, a symbol of the last administration, is torture.
> >
> ...




*And that's EXACTLY the point.*  WATERBOARDING WORKS!  It only takes a couple of seconds before they're spilling the "beans" on everything they know.

Would Keith Obermann prefer that is takes months & months before we get information out of a terrorist?  THE PROBLEM:  We may only have hours before we have to react to a terrorist threat.

This nation is so *STUPID!*--for electing morons that would rather protect the rights of terrorists than protecting the lives of Americans citizens.  Who in the hell is sorry about waterboarding the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks?  Who on this board actually feels sorry for this monster?
Keith Olbermann & who else?


----------



## Valerie (Apr 24, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > > *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> ...




 Those darn teenagers will try anything, won't they?



As for me?


----------



## Care4all (Apr 24, 2009)

NOBama said:


> > President Obama opened a big can of worms by releasing the torture memos last week that the administration today sought to close with little success.
> >
> > Instead, a full-blown battle has opened between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and her GOP counterpart, Ohio's John Boehner about how much top Congressional leaders knew about water boarding in 2002. It is being fueled in part by a timeline released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by another California Democrat, Dianne Feinstein.
> >
> ...



how so?  did you read the full article?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 24, 2009)

NOBama said:


> > President Obama opened a big can of worms by releasing the torture memos last week that the administration today sought to close with little success.
> >
> > Instead, a full-blown battle has opened between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and her GOP counterpart, Ohio's John Boehner about how much top Congressional leaders knew about water boarding in 2002. It is being fueled in part by a timeline released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by another California Democrat, Dianne Feinstein.
> >
> ...



Boehner is so ignorant, Pelosi will kick his behind.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 24, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> I'm sick of talking about this. We keep going round and round with the same stuff. Nothing will change for the next few days so everybody needs to take a deep breath and enjoy the weekend.





oh sure,, now that the precious democwats are gonna be as guilty as the republicans you suddenly don't want to discuss it.. how convenient.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 24, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > > *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> ...





teens do it now only they use beer!


----------



## Valerie (Apr 24, 2009)

oreo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > > *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> ...




I don't think it's that simple, oreo.  The American people aren't as stupid as you think.  After 9/11 everyone recognized the very real threat.  People wanted to be protected and were willing to accept that the CIA needed to use coercive tactics in order to protect us from being attacked again.  We have rules and legal guidelines for good reason. 

What happened is they kept getting orders to continue waterboarding a few of the top terrorists, despite the FACT that it wasn't working.  It was no longer coercive at that point.  There was no actionable intelligence being obtained.   

I posted an article yesterday, I forget which thread, but I'll find it and post it here.  Rumsfeld and Cheney were pushing and pushing and pushing at that point, at the critical time in question, in order to justify taking over the oil fields in Iraq and toppling Saddam, despite all of the Intel that failed to find a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

The American people are rightfully troubled by this information.


----------



## Lycurgus (Apr 24, 2009)

As the left and Obama plays politics and revenge for Gores failures years ago, they are weakening our world position and placing American's at risk. He might want to pay a little more attention to Pakistan, it could be his war of shame!


----------



## NOBama (Apr 24, 2009)

Lycurgus said:


> As the left and Obama plays politics and revenge for Gores failures years ago, they are weakening our world position and placing American's at risk. He might want to pay a little more attention to Pakistan, it could be his war of shame!


I just heard on the news that this mess is about to get a lot worse because the military is going to release a bunch of pictures showing detainees being mistreated.


----------



## Valerie (Apr 24, 2009)

Lycurgus said:


> As the left and Obama plays politics and revenge for Gores failures years ago, they are weakening our world position and placing American's at risk. He might want to pay a little more attention to Pakistan, it could be his war of shame!




Honestly, I share your concerns about revealing too much information and possibly compromising our national security.  McCain said it will become a recruiting tool for the terrorists.  I find it hard to believe they're having any trouble recruiting already though, and I think it's important that we don't politicize our national security.  McCain himself acknowledged those men were tortured and who among us knows better than he does?

The USA will ultimately once again prove itself to be most honorable because we have the courage to face the truth for the precise reason of maintaining the strength of our world position as the beacon of righteous freedom.


----------



## Annie (Apr 24, 2009)

washingtonpost.com



> Obama Rejects Truth Panel
> Commission Would Have Investigated Abuses in Terrorism Fight
> By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> ...


----------



## ItsFairmont (Apr 24, 2009)

Wait until the pictures come out next week.

The CIA is releasing photos next week (probably late Friday or early Saturday to keep it as quiet as possible).

I'm not making it up.  The CIA announced it would release photos next week.  Waterboarding photos are going to make the evening news in about eight days.  It'll be everywhere.  Newspapers, TV, magazines, internet.

It'll make Abu Graib look like Disney Land.


We are going to see some seriousl photos and video of guys screaming and begging for their lives while having water poured over their faces all day for hours at a time, along with being tied up, nude, in a small box, standing, while screaming and begging for their lives.


Good entertainment.  Much better than the circus.


I think they should not only arrest those who gave approval to this crap, but they should also arrest (and place in a Taliban prison) those who engaged in this kind of behavior.

Those who torture deserve justice.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 24, 2009)

Care4all said:


> how so? did you read the full article?


 
I read it. 

The transcript in and of itself isn't the whole story though, Pelosi is vacillating about what she knew and when she knew it (or didnt know as she's claiming).


> House Speaker Nancy *Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other "enhanced" interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects*.
> 
> *But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.*
> 
> ...


 
Pelosi and 3 other members of Congress were given this tour, which was a virtual tour from what I understand, and briefed by the lawyers who wrote the opinion that the advanced interrogation techniques were legal.

Is she implying that she thought CIA field operators were not going to implement the techniques that were approved by the legislative counsel that wrote the opinion? That seems to be the position shes taking, and its BS. Also, shes talking in past tenths about events that hadnt occurred yet isnt she?


----------



## NOBama (Apr 24, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> Wait until the pictures come out next week.
> 
> The CIA is releasing photos next week (probably late Friday or early Saturday to keep it as quiet as possible).
> 
> ...


 
This issue is tearing the country apart, and a pathetic idiot like you wants to throw Americans in a Taliban prison? If anybody should be thrown in one of their jails it would be you.


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 24, 2009)

Nan is trying to pull a Hillary, bald faced lying even though she is buried by the facts.

Nan knew and approved of everything thatw as done, now she wants to claim otherwise.

Won't wash.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> NOBama said:
> 
> 
> > > President Obama opened a big can of worms by releasing the torture memos last week that the administration today sought to close with little success.
> ...


keep kissing that dems ass, i'm sure they will reward you eventually


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

oreo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > > *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> ...


Olbermann is a fucking idiot
how he is still on the air is amazing
his ratings suck ass


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 25, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> I'm sick of talking about this. We keep going round and round with the same stuff. Nothing will change for the next few days so everybody needs to take a deep breath and enjoy the weekend.



Now that your beloved Democrats are just as "guilty" you suddenly are tired of talking about it?

Wanna bet it quickly becomes a " crime? What crime?" by every Democrat that signed off on waterboarding? Assuming they can not just lie their way out of it. That is always an option, escpecially with the DUMB ASSES that support Obama. I mean how smart can they be? They whined cause Bush spent a trillion and their guy plans to spend TRILLIONS every YEAR he is President.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 25, 2009)

Love double posts, and now I know how they happen, the damn board quits receiving information , you refresh and end up with 2 posts because you couldn't be sure you even had one.


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 25, 2009)

NOBama said:


> > Pelosi may be digging a hole next to Dodd's hole on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing would make me happier than to see both of them go down.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 25, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Love double posts, and now I know how they happen, the damn board quits receiving information , you refresh and end up with 2 posts because you couldn't be sure you even had one.


Only took you two years to figure that one out? Even retards can learn, it appears.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 25, 2009)

Annie said:


> washingtonpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Did BO's latest decision come before or after he learned that the ACLU and Moveon won the lawsuit which requires the military to release 100's of pictures of American soldiers allegedly abusing detainees. Anybody wanna lay odds on it for a small bet?

Can you imagine the horrors of a US Soldier pointing a gun at the head of a suspected enemy combatant in a war zone? I hope the liberals dont further bankrupt us with all the psychiatric counseling their going to need after viewing the pictures.

This is starting to look like much more than a group of ideological liberals going after the previous administration for having allegedly made mistakes during a war. It's starting to look like their true motivation is to dismantle the Republican party, IMHO.

If the liberals win this war they're apparently waging on the republican party, perhaps every parent will eventually be issued a taser to keep their kids in line since so many seem to think the taser is a devise that should be used to keep civil obedience. 

Tell ya what: Zapping our 2 year olds with a taser that generate 50,000 to 500,000 volts of electricity should eliminate the "terrible 2's" BS that very kid goes through. I betcha the Non Custodial Parents that compose the Family Court Reform Movement in this country would raise hell about that. Don't worry though; we've already figured out how to deny them their Constitutional and Civil Rights, so their opinion don't mean squat.

For you libtards reading this: The last paragraph, with the exception of the last sentence, is but a philosophical condemnation of an extreme that is unlikely to occur, but nevertheless has the potential to occur in a Liberal Utopia.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 25, 2009)

Ravi said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Love double posts, and now I know how they happen, the damn board quits receiving information , you refresh and end up with 2 posts because you couldn't be sure you even had one.
> ...



Go ahead retard, find my double posts, you can start with this one. Good God you are beyond STUPID.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 25, 2009)

NOBama said:


> ItsFairmont said:
> 
> 
> > Wait until the pictures come out next week.
> ...












I hate to say this but this country has been torn apart since Bush took office.. The left won't rest until it's destroyed. Remember George Soros is the man behind the left and that is his goal..


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 25, 2009)

Happily ol Georgie is 79 and sure to croak very soon.


----------



## oreo (Apr 25, 2009)

After listening to congressmen regarding the OVER 30 meetings held in congress over the enhanced interrogations procedures-in 2002-all have said that *Nancy Pelosi was right there.*

Apparently there was a board of 8 congresspeople--*one of them being Nancy Pelosi * who had over 30 meetings regarding the "enhanced interrogations procedures."

So when our speaker of the house was asked about these meetings that were held in 2002--Pelosi states:  *"Well we were informed about the enhanced interrogations procedures--BUT I didn't know they were actually doing them!" * God don't ya just love it?

In the coming days--we can expect Nancy Pelosi's eyes to get bigger & bigger.  Obama has opened this can of worms.  Patrick Leahy is threatening to prosecute _Condi Rice for authorizing the waterboarding of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks._  Once this is done--FULL DISCLOSURE regarding information obtained from the 3 terrorists that were waterboarded & also who knew what & when.

A huge *blunder* on Barack Obama's plate.

STILL--LOL!


----------



## oreo (Apr 25, 2009)

You know--you have got to love liberals in their ultimate denial.

If just of of these liberals had a family member that was captured by a terrorist organization, & one of the terrorist were captured, that was reluctant to talk, they would have *Barack Obama & Eric Holder's number on speed dial * begging them to authorize the waterboarding of the terrorist--in order to save their family members life.

LOL!


----------



## Maple (Apr 25, 2009)

Sounds like you are getting worn out trying to defend the defenseless. There can be no comfort in attempting to defend a President who has put Americans at risk by releasing TOP SECRET information against the advise of 4 former CIA directors. 

Unfortunely Maggie, his poll numbers are going to go off of the cliff when people realize just what this President did. It is not going to go away,  the move on dot. org people are behind this, Patrick Leahey and Eric Holder are intent on a hearing in which they will be forced to put Pelosi and Condelessa Rice on that stand. The truth will come out and your guy is going to get crushed by his own accord and his unwillingness to stand up to the far left in his own party. He has no backbone and it shows big time. He will demonstrate to all Americans that he can't stand up to the left in his own party so how in the world will he be able to stand up to the terrorists who would murder all of us if they could.

For some reason, I am not feeling safer.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 25, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> I hate to say this but this country has been torn apart since Bush took office.. The left won't rest until it's destroyed. Remember George Soros is the man behind the left and that is his goal..


 
Exactly.

That's (a) reason why BO is backing off the terrorist memos BS. Now he has private organizations like moveon.org, supported by AH's like Soros, not to mention the ACLU, that are doing the bidding.

This isn't about discrediting the Bush administration, this is a power-play to try to dismantle the Republican party which WILL ultimately be the cause of... well, you complete the sentence.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

Valerie said:


> > *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> >
> > Olbermann: You'll do it for charity? For the troops families? I'll take you up on that Sean. For every second you last, $1000. Live or on tape provided other networks cameras are there. $1000 a second Sean because this is no game. This is serious stuff. Put your money where your mouth is, and your nose. And I'll double it when you admit you feared for your life. When you admit the horrible truth. Waterboarding, a symbol of the last administration, is torture.
> >
> ...



What a great idea by Olberman.  That's something I'd like to see, how long Hannity could hold out.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

oreo said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > > *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> ...



Taping electrodes to their balls and drilling teeth down to the root work too.  What is your point, Herr Himmler?



> This nation is so *STUPID!*--



Kudos for proving your own argument.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

NOBama said:


> Lycurgus said:
> 
> 
> > As the left and Obama plays politics and revenge for Gores failures years ago, they are weakening our world position and placing American's at risk. He might want to pay a little more attention to Pakistan, it could be his war of shame!
> ...



We can now see why the Bush administration destroyed the interrogation videos.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > > *Keith Olbermann offers Sean Hannity $1000 for every second he can endure waterboarding.* Lawrence O'Donnell weighs in on why someone like Hannity would offer to be waterboarded in the first place.
> ...






Maybe Hannity can offer Olberman a thousand dollars for his wife to have a late term abortion.. then we can see what torture really is.. like that idea? welldoyahuh?


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> NOBama said:
> 
> 
> > Lycurgus said:
> ...





Wanna see a late term abortion video.. ask Tiller the baby killer,, he's a good friend of Sibeileus,, you know her? she's in charge of our health and human services you big assed *HYPOCRITE*


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Uh, sure.  Maybe he can.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...






okay, you can go back to be DUmmb now.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> We can now see why the Bush administration destroyed the interrogation videos.


 What were you; the test Scarecrow on the Wizard of Oz when they were trying to perfect the brain?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Ignored.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

NOBama said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > We can now see why the Bush administration destroyed the interrogation videos.
> ...



I appreciate that making a glib insult is simpler that putting together a coherent argument.
But do you think they were torturing prisoners authorized from the highest levels, another agent says his memos challenging the practice were ordered destroyed ... you think they destroyed the videos by accident or part of a routine eliminate interrogation results practice?  

Could be.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > NOBama said:
> ...



If you want to rail about abortions, feel free to start and abortion thread.   This thread is about torture by the Bush adminsitration.

Or rant away about irrelevant things.  That is your MO.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> NOBama said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


 So it's okay for you to conclude that "We can now see why the Bush administration destroyed the interrogation videos." before trial one has even been levied, but it's not okay for me to observe that your conclusion is obtuse speculation. Ah, OKAY.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...















I'm rating about your hypocrisy.. get it?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



No.  Sorry. 

I do get that 99% your posts on this board are one sentence insults, flames, name calling, and baiting.

Classic troll behavior.


----------



## oreo (Apr 25, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> NOBama said:
> 
> 
> > > President Obama opened a big can of worms by releasing the torture memos last week that the administration today sought to close with little success.
> ...



*NANCY PELOSI has found herself to be up to her BIG eyeballs in this.*  She was on an 8 member board during 2002--& in attendance on over 30 MEETINGS regarding the "enhanced interrogation technics".

When asked about it--Nancy Pelosi stated:  Well, I was informed on the enhanced interrogation technics--"but I didn't know they were actually doing it!"  _What a chunk of horse shit._

*Barack Obama--in his effort to throw a bone to moveon.org & the ACLU has opened up a can of worms the size of Washington D. C itself.*

*Not only did Obama go against the advice of 4 CIA chiefs* by declaring waterboarding torture--he has opened the door for prosecuting Condi Rice who authorized the waterboarding of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.  In this, she stopped the 2nd wave of attacks that were planned for Los Angeles.

Furthermore--Ted Kennedy took waterboarding to court in 2005--to try & get the action declared illegal. * He failed!  Why?* _Because this country did not consider waterboarding torture until Eric Holder, Obama's pick for attorney general declared it so 3 weeks ago._

_To a liberal--terrorism is always someone else's problem, until it happens to them._


----------



## oreo (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Here comes the left with their ABORTION RANT, because they can't stay focused on any other topic.  They are so ignorant they don't absorb FACTS.  They don't know--in year 2007--that 40% of the babies born in the United States were to unwed mothers & out of that group, the majority were teenagers--who could have easily gotten an abortion--BUT CHOSE NOT TOO.   UNBELIEVABLE!


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 26, 2009)

Without discussing again is waterboarding right or wrong, what's bugging me is: If as far as 2002, Pelosi (as member of the House Intelligence Committee) knew that waterboarding as a torture form existed, why didn't she object, yet she encouraged it's use, just as every other member of Committee? I don't get it, why don't we simply ask other members of Committee, what's the truth?


----------



## amrchaos (Apr 26, 2009)

Hold it folks.

Maybe it is time to let the Pro-torture guys off the hook a little.

First--Waterboarding is torture.

Second--Moral nations do not torture.

Third--If you are going to torture, then do not let the public know about it because, as a moral nation, we will have to punish you!!

Capiche?


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 26, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> Hold it folks.
> 
> Maybe it is time to let the Pro-torture guys off the hook a little.
> 
> ...



So, based on what our government and/or committee approved and on what you said, are we a "moral nation"?


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 26, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...





Hypocrisy..


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 26, 2009)

Ame®icano;1181094 said:
			
		

> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Hold it folks.
> ...






we are never gonna be a "moral nation" as long as abortions continue.. so get the hell over it.


----------



## amrchaos (Apr 26, 2009)

Ame®icano;1181094 said:
			
		

> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Hold it folks.
> ...



Do you let government decide what is moral or immoral?

Or do you have your own sense of right and wrong and make judgement on the government from this internal moral compass?

It is easy to deduce that a government, committee/"BLUE RIBBON PANEL"(you really think these things are not political set ups? Don't makes me laugh!!), court, professional body or elected assembly can go wrong.  The question is can you figure out when?


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 26, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> we are never gonna be a "moral nation" as long as abortions continue.. *so get the hell over it*.



I would leave abortion aside of this thread and stay on the topic. The bottom line is, if government lied to us, are we just gonna take it for granted? Did government ever asked us what do we think about torture? Assuming that with our votes they have our approval to do whatever they want, they doing exactly that. If they knew about torture, if they approved it, they should take a blame. Their actions represent all American people. If we just close our eyes and let them get away with it, we are approving their wrongdoing and we are no better then they are.

So tell me, why should I get over anything?


----------



## Maple (Apr 26, 2009)

Poor Nancy, her eyes are getting wider and wider, she is stepping all over herself to distance herself from the waterboarding. Down right lying about her involvement in it, her full knowledge that it was going on. 

I think that maybe we should waterboard Nancy to get to the truth of the matter.


----------



## oreo (Apr 26, 2009)

Maple said:


> Poor Nancy, her eyes are getting wider and wider, she is stepping all over herself to distance herself from the waterboarding. Down right lying about her involvement in it, her full knowledge that it was going on.
> 
> I think that maybe we should waterboard Nancy to get to the truth of the matter.



I think that is a great idea, ha.ha.

Everyone might remember over the last 4-5 years President Bush continually called on congress to "define" torture--as the existing ones were to vague.

Who was speaker of the house & sitting in on over 30+ meetings regarding enhanced technics?  NANCY PELOSI

Who was in charge of bringing bills to the floor?  NANCY PELOSI

Who waited to address waterboarding until Barack Obama was elected?  NANCY PELOSI


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 26, 2009)

Ame®icano;1181148 said:
			
		

> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > we are never gonna be a "moral nation" as long as abortions continue.. *so get the hell over it*.
> ...






I cannot leave abortion out of it. As long as the democwats try to claim "moral high ground" I'm gonna remind them of abortion.. oh  and the Pope had to scold Nan about that too. He wouldn't even allow his picture to be taken with her..


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 26, 2009)

oreo said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Psssst - the topic of this threat torture, not abortion -- just letting you know so you don't embarrass yourself further.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 26, 2009)

*hypocricy baby hypocrisy  *


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 26, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Ame®icano;1181148 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I tried to rep ya for this one Willow but I'm out for the moment... WELL DONE AND WELL SAID!

"DON'T YOU *DARE* MAKE A *MASS MURDERING TERRORIST* UNCOMFORTABLE... BUT GRIND UP AS MANY INNOCENT BABIES AS YA FEEL YA NEED TO to feel better about your 'Right to CHOOSE...'


----------



## Valerie (Apr 26, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Ame®icano;1181148 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So the moral high ground is for the government to impose laws dictating a woman's reproductive choice?  And if you're pro-choice then you're a hypocrite for being against torture?    Your logic is torture!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 26, 2009)

Valerie said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1181148 said:
> ...


it wouldnt be limiting her choices at all

she had tons of choices before she got pregnant
claiming pro-choice is a load of CRAP


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 26, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> I cannot leave abortion out of it. As long as the democwats try to claim "moral high ground" I'm gonna remind them of abortion.. oh  and the Pope had to scold Nan about that too. He wouldn't even allow his picture to be taken with her..



What abortion, Pope and Nan has to do with this thread? 

In regards what I said earlier about the topic, I don't really care about what Dems or Reps said, all I care is who lied to us and who did not.


----------



## Valerie (Apr 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> *claiming pro-choice is a load of CRAP*



Sure, If you say so.   

Claiming it has anything to do with the current torture discussion is CRAP,_ that's what I say._


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 26, 2009)

Valerie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > *claiming pro-choice is a load of CRAP*
> ...


so, you had nothing to say about the REST of that post?
just the one little thing that was against your fucking talking point?


and btw, the claim was that if you think so called torture(NONE HAPPENED) is immaoral
what the FUCK do you think killing 1.4 MILLION babies a year is?


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 26, 2009)

@ amrchaos, sorry for not replying earlier.



amrchaos said:


> Do you let government decide what is moral or immoral?



Do I need government to tell me what's moral or immoral.



amrchaos said:


> Or do you have your own sense of right and wrong and make judgement on the government from this internal moral compass?



It all depends who and how you were raised. I sure have my own sense of right and wrong, living by it whole my adult life. Now, you are free to beleive that milk is black or pink, just as I beleive that is not.



amrchaos said:


> It is easy to deduce that a government, committee/"BLUE RIBBON PANEL"(you really think these things are not political set ups? Don't makes me laugh!!), court, professional body or elected assembly can go wrong.  The question is can you figure out when?



I relly don't care if is a setup. I told WillowTree, all I care is who lied and what are we gonna do about it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 26, 2009)

Ame®icano;1181515 said:
			
		

> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot leave abortion out of it. As long as the democwats try to claim "moral high ground" I'm gonna remind them of abortion.. oh  and the Pope had to scold Nan about that too. He wouldn't even allow his picture to be taken with her..
> ...



No one lied to us prior to the Democrats gaining power and making shit up about supposed Torture THEY APPROVED.


----------



## Valerie (Apr 26, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




  It's not _my_ {fucking} talking point, slowpoke, it's yours.  

My reaction to your assertion with Iriemon is that your CRAP logic is torture, follow?


Now, you go right ahead with your "save a baby torture a Muslim" campaign!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 26, 2009)

Valerie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


STRAWMAN
you are just another fucking moron i see


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 26, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Ame®icano;1181148 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't really see th econnection between the two. Both are immoral. I  am against both. I am a pro-life anti-torture Republican, so I don't really understand what you are getting at. Because if the Christian right wants to rail against anybody on the hypocrisy of positions on torture and abortion, then they can explain their position on Jesus Christ is the son of God, but we are still gonna executed people by lethal injection. The right( of which I am a part) is not without its own heaping pile of hypocrisy.


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 26, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No one lied to us prior to the Democrats gaining power and making shit up about supposed Torture THEY APPROVED.



They approved. Whoever they are, should take responsibility for it. That would be "moral thing" to do, right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 26, 2009)

Ame®icano;1181554 said:
			
		

> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > No one lied to us prior to the Democrats gaining power and making shit up about supposed Torture THEY APPROVED.
> ...



Once again, what they approved was NOT torture per the laws of the US or the Treaties we are a party to. No crime occurred. Unfortunately for the Democrats , in their drive to blame Bush for anything and everything, they have now put themselves right in the cross hairs.

The Democrats and the left thought they could get away with making false claims that Bush broke the law, and in the process forgot THEY were just as supposedly guilty as any Republican.


----------



## oreo (Apr 26, 2009)

These torture files are all just a "dog & pony" show to keep Americans distracted from what is really going on.  A 3.7 TRILLION dollar budget that has already passed the house, & is sitting in the senate.

*To PROVE THE POINT:*

1.  Nancy Pelosi (on the board of 8 on the intelligence committee) attended over 30 meetings during 2002--regarding the enhanced interrogation technics--which include waterboarding.  When asked on Friday about it -- she stated:  "Yes she was informed about these technics--but did not know they were using them."

2.  Ted Kennedy in 2005 tried to get waterboarding--which was acceptable under authorization stopped because he believe it to be torture.  He didn't get anywhere because the congress did not consider waterboarding torture.

3.  Around the same time--*2005-- President Bush asked congress to "define" torture as the law in place was vague.  He wanted congress--" to give strict guidelines-"-for intelligence agencies to avoid the threat of prosecution.  *_"There is video on this statement"._

4.  Congress lead by NANCY PELOSI--"never" gave the Bush administration a new "torture" definition--which would have concluded that waterboarding was torture.

_Approximately 3 weeks ago, under the Obama administration, Eric Holder declared that waterboarding was torture._

Now--the whole country is up in arms over these torture files.  The Obama administration may be releasing 47 pictures to the ACLU who will then plaster these pictures all over the news.  Remember 6 soldiers at Abu Graibe.  That made 24/7 news coverage for two months!

This tactic is simply being used again--to distract the American public from what is really going on within the Obama administration.

*They, in essense have politicised National Security for a smoke screen.*  Now--whether it works is a different thing. 

First of all, you won't find many that object to waterboarding the master mind of the 9/11 attacks.  Second--this may have played out in democrat popularity with Abu Graide--so will it work again.  Third--by doing this, American public opinion may look at Obama as a President who is weak on terror, & is wiling to sacrifice the safety of their kids, for his "moral clarity"--while the enemy who seeks to kill Americans in mass--has no morality what-so-ever.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 27, 2009)

oreo said:


> 2.  Ted Kennedy in 2005 tried to get waterboarding--which was acceptable under authorization stopped because he believe it to be torture.  He didn't get anywhere because the congress did not consider waterboarding torture.


I want to see a credible link to this.

As far as I can tell, a few people on this thread are trying to make the point that Bush/Cheney authorized torture because abortion is legal?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 27, 2009)

Ravi said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > 2.  Ted Kennedy in 2005 tried to get waterboarding--which was acceptable under authorization stopped because he believe it to be torture.  He didn't get anywhere because the congress did not consider waterboarding torture.
> ...



I take it back, you do NOT even have 2 brain cells. Careful around open flame that Methane that keeps your head inflated may leak out and explode.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 27, 2009)

oreo said:


> These torture files are all just a "dog & pony" show to keep Americans distracted from what is really going on.  A 3.7 TRILLION dollar budget that has already passed the house, & is sitting in the senate.
> 
> *To PROVE THE POINT:*
> 
> ...




One of the best posts I've read anywhere on the issue...

Congrats OREO on this concise and incontestable explanation of EXACTLY what the issue is and PRECISELY how it should be framed.



(Tried to rep ya, but I'm out for the moment)


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 27, 2009)

We kill 3 pirates to save the life of one captain but the left is against the US using waterboarding to save the lives of many. Explain that logic!


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 27, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> We kill 3 pirates to save the life of one captain but the left is against the US using waterboarding to save the lives of many. Explain that logic!



The golden rule -- do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

I wouldn't want our guys getting legitimately waterboarded.


----------



## Maple (Apr 27, 2009)

I think that we should waterboard Pelosi to find out what she knew in all those secret intelligence meetings that she was at when this was all going on.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > We kill 3 pirates to save the life of one captain but the left is against the US using waterboarding to save the lives of many. Explain that logic!
> ...


when our guys get captured, waterboarding is the least of their worries


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 27, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > We kill 3 pirates to save the life of one captain but the left is against the US using waterboarding to save the lives of many. Explain that logic!
> ...


Beheading is just so much better.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 27, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Keith Olbermann Offers Sean Hannity $1000 For Every Second He Can Endure Waterboarding | Video Cafe
> 
> What a great idea by Olberman. That's something I'd like to see, how long Hannity could hold out.


 
What I'd like to see is how long you could hold out being tasered before you come to the conclusion that it's a form of torture.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 27, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


 Between what this administration has already done and still pictures that are to be released on the 29th, I fear that this is going to be a disaster for our guys that get caught over there.

I'm glad our last kid in the military just retired after 24 years in the USAF.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > We kill 3 pirates to save the life of one captain but the left is against the US using waterboarding to save the lives of many. Explain that logic!
> ...



But you would have them legitimately killed?


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

If we killed the people we needed to kill in the first place torture wouldn't be necessary.  After all the democrats have supported the war in Iraq for years.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Who, Americans who for example are in the act of committing piracy with armed and holding hostage?  Yeah in that situation they could be legitimately killed.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

So we can kill American terrorists but not waterboard them.  The holes in your logic are growing.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> So we can kill American terrorists but not waterboard them.  The holes in your logic are growing.



LOL - it's not my logic that has holes.  You said nothing about us killing Americans.  

But yeah, you can kill terrorists legitimately.  Try them convict them and then hang them.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

So in war you must try every person before killing them.  After all this is a war on terror.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> So in war you must try every person before killing them.  After all this is a war on terror.



No.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> So in war you must try every person before killing them.  After all this is a war on terror.


yup and every prisoner must be mirandized and the arresting soldiers MUST preserve all evidence at the crime scene


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > So in war you must try every person before killing them.  After all this is a war on terror.
> ...



Then why is using an effective tool for the gathering of information that protects American lives so immoral?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. President said:
> ...



It's a good question with a complex answer.  We spent hours discussing it the other day.  My comments and answers are here, if you are interested:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-info-that-aborted-9-11-style-attac-20.html

Posts 47 75 82 88 90 92 101 106 116 125 134 176 157 239 246 254 259 261 265 271 273 275

Also this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74682-torture-poll.html


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

But you just told me that their death was justified but momentary uncomfort was not.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> But you just told me that their death was justified but momentary uncomfort was not.


you can kill em, just dont waterboard em

liberal logic at it's finest


----------



## Ravi (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> But you just told me that their death was justified but momentary uncomfort was not.


She didn't say that. Nice spin on your part.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Then what does legitimate death mean ravi?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > But you just told me that their death was justified but momentary uncomfort was not.
> ...



He -- Irie "mon" = man

But exactly right.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > But you just told me that their death was justified but momentary uncomfort was not.
> ...


that is exactly what that moron said
figures you wouldnt get it since you are just as much of a moron


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. President said:
> ...


 @ Ravi


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

NOBama said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Keith Olbermann Offers Sean Hannity $1000 For Every Second He Can Endure Waterboarding | Video Cafe
> ...



If it is done to coerce information, any amount would be.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

So Irie. Then what does legitimate death mean?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Then what does legitimate death mean ravi?


This is what she said.


> But yeah, you can kill terrorists legitimately.  Try them convict them and then hang them.


Seems clear to me.

If you are asking my opinion, a legitimately excusable death is catching someone in the act of harming others and putting a bullet in their head to stop them. I can't think of many other legitimate reasons to kill someone.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 28, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. President said:
> ...


 Sorry.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > Then what does legitimate death mean ravi?
> ...



So its the timing of the bullet?  You are sill justifying the death of terrorists but you just don't want to see them hurt.............


----------



## Ravi (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. President said:
> ...


Where did I ever say that?

IMO, torture should remain illegal. If torture is used to prevent a clear and present danger it is legitimately excusable. Whomever chooses to torture someone in this manner will have to live up to the consequences of his or her actions and take any punishment meted out in a non-cowardly fashion. If the action was legitimately excusable the person has nothing to fear.

But that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about torturing people that we actually have no way of knowing are terrorists or not for reasons to gather information on who knows what...the only thing I've seen come from it is one detainee eventually confessed to being the world's foremost terrorist master mind. For all we know the guy has delusions of grandeur or made false confessions to stop being tortured. The information gotten amounts to a big fat zero gain.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

You are talking in circles.  Torture is excusable but should not be legal. We can use it but only on certain people.  Get a backbone.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> You are talking in circles.  Torture is excusable but should not be legal. We can use it but only on certain people.  Get a backbone.


You are just choosing to misunderstand what I've said.

I'm not surprised...you did the same thing with Iriemon. 

Either that or you are stupid, I'm not sure which.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Im taking what you are saying and showing you that it doesn't make sense.  You have no real opinion rather you side with whoever boosts your self confidence by adding to your rep bar.  Your statement contradicts itself.  It is not that I am misunderstanding your opinion or that I am stupid It is that I see your words for what they are a well rehearsed speach allowing loopholes in the case that you contradict yourself again.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 28, 2009)

You've shown me nothing but a failure to make a valid point.


----------



## oreo (Apr 28, 2009)

*THE HYPOCRISY OF THIS ADMINISTRATION:*

Obama*--against the advice of 4 former CIA chiefs,* including the present one released *top-secret classified CIA documents to the world*--via the internet.

Obama's stated reason for doing it?  To show the world that the United States "will no longer" torture or use waterboarding aka enhanced interrogation technics.  WHY?  Because President Obama believes that his action will *DECREASE* terrorism in the world, especially toward the United States.  This is what he has said.

On the other Hand--Obama is going to deliver to the ACLU--47 pictures regarding the enhanced interrogation technics--which the ACLU will put them out in every magazine & the entire main stream media will flood their networks with these pictures to be broadcast AROUND THE WORLD.  Therefore, enraging Muslims through-out the WORLD with anti-sentiment & hate directed toward the United States.

_Now do these recent actions & statements make any sense to LIBERALS what-so-ever?_  How do you claim to defend these actions?  Go ahead & try--I am extremely interested.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> So Irie. Then what does legitimate death mean?



I think you brought it up first?  It means lots of things.  You asked if a terrorist can be legitimately killed.  Yes.  I mentioned on example.  Another is when necessary to stop the act the terrorist is trying to accomplish.  

The fact that they can legitimately be killed does not imply they can be legitimately tortured.  Though some might argue that point to argue that it is never legitimate to put someone to death.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 28, 2009)

oreo said:


> *THE HYPOCRISY OF THIS ADMINISTRATION:*
> 
> Obama*--against the advice of 4 former CIA chiefs,* including the present one released *top-secret classified CIA documents to the world*--via the internet.
> 
> ...


 
Dont fret, as soon as the Loons are done drooling over Specter-Defector, they'll will be here to reply with their holier than thou gibberish, which they would undoubtedly deny if it actually came down to preventing their holier than thou asses from being blown into oblivion.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 28, 2009)

oreo said:


> *THE HYPOCRISY OF THIS ADMINISTRATION:*
> 
> Obama*--against the advice of 4 former CIA chiefs,* including the present one released *top-secret classified CIA documents to the world*--via the internet.
> 
> ...






Ass kissing idiots is all I can come up with..


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > So Irie. Then what does legitimate death mean?
> ...



How can you be pro death and anti torture?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. President said:
> ...



Yeah, that is what the anti-death folks say.

The answer given is that death can be done in a "humane" way.  Plus, permissible torture would affect a far broader range of persons than the death penalty does.


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> How can you be pro death and anti torture?



Because some people need to be culled from the herd.  That doesn't mean that we should embrace barbarism.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

So persmissable torture is used to find out who else needs to be culled from the heard.  Or would we allow wolves in sheeps clothing to remain among the sheep in the name of humanity?


----------



## MalibuMan (Apr 28, 2009)

Against torture but support abortions!!!!!!!


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> So persmissable torture is used to find out who else needs to be culled from the heard.  Or would we allow wolves in sheeps clothing to remain among the sheep in the name of humanity?



What acts do you consider permissible, Mr. President?

Are you okay with cutting off body parts in the name of uncovering the wolves?  How about flaying someone's skin from his body?  Burning a suspect?  Repeatedly electrocuting a suspect?  How about genital mutilation?

Can you excuse those deeds if they turn up information that stops a terror attack?


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Yup


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Yup



Then, that's where our two roads diverge in a  bloody wood.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

So be it.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Yup



Do you support a rule that permits that kind of torture even if it doesn't turn up information that stops a terror attack?


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 28, 2009)

It doesn't mean I don't like and respect you, Pres.  I just think you're wrong, wrong, wrong.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > Yup
> ...



Was the torture in attempt to stop a terror attack?


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> It doesn't mean I don't like and respect you, Pres.  I just think you're wrong, wrong, wrong.



If everyone I liked agreed with everything I said I wouldn't like anybody.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. President said:
> ...



Whatever the reason was for doing it.  The interrogator thought that the victim might have information about an attack.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Yup


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Yup



So, you would support torturing a potentially innocent person in the off-chance that it might prevent some other atrocity.

Do you get the moral ambiguity of your position here?

Is it that middle easterners are just somehow less human than the average American, and thus, expendable?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > Yup
> ...



There is no logical reason why the same rational doesn't apply to Americans.

If the rational for torture is that it might save an innocent life, then the only logical conclusion is that we should torture Americans if it might save a life.

And then its a small jump to saying we should do away with a trial if it might save a life.

The "might save a life" justification (close cousin to the "national security" argument) can be used to justify a police state.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Yup



Now that we've adopted the rule that allows governments to torture people if they say they thought it might save lives, does our rule apply to civilian interrogations as well?  If someone is believed to be a member of a gang and the interrogator thinks that torturing the gang member might save lifes, is that OK under the rule too?


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 28, 2009)

Evil gang members also don't need access to legal counsel or a trial.  Let's also say that we can hold them, on suspicion of criminal activity, indefinitely.

That seems democratic.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Evil gang members also don't need access to legal counsel or a trial.  Let's also say that we can hold them, on suspicion of criminal activity, indefinitely.
> 
> That seems democratic.



That is the logical conclusion if your rule system is based on whether it can save lives.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > Yup
> ...



Enemies of the United States are expendable.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Now you are comparing American criminals to international terrorists.  See where my logic takes over?


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Enemies of the United States are expendable.



Do you consider Crip/Blood/Folks/People/Sureno/Norteno gang members who wage war in urban areas all over the United States to be enemies of the U.S.?  You realize that gang members kill more people annually in the U.S. than are killed around the world by terrorists, right?

Gang members are bad people who do harm to innocent people.  Thus, even if they are American citizens, we are justified in torturing them.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. President said:
> ...



That makes them inhuman and therefore not deserving of human rights, eh?  

How about drug dealers, child molesters, mafia types, gang members and other members of society.  Why aren't they expendable?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Now you are comparing American criminals to international terrorists.  See where my logic takes over?



Because your logic, which is premised upon saving lives, applies equally to American terrorists or criminals as it does to non-American criminals or terrorists.

Furthermore, you rule _does _apply to Americans.  If the rule is that a government can torture if it says it thinks it might save lives, which is your rule, then the Govt of Turkey can legitimately torture Americans by simply saying this.  And our Govt would not have standing to utter a word in protest.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

I never said they weren't expendable.


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> I never said they weren't expendable.



Do you believe the government should exterminate known gang members?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> I never said they weren't expendable.



I know that.  That is why I asked.  Because you seemed to demark whether its OK to torture someone based on whether they are deemed "expendable."  You've identified "enemies of the US" as expendible and therefore not entitled to human rights.  So I'm curious as to how you define expendible and who else is expendible.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 28, 2009)

Terrorists are expendable.


----------



## catzmeow (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Terrorists are expendable.



I've heard many law enforcement professionals, including the FBI, refer to street gang members as "urban terrorists."

Are you thus in favor of exterminating known gang members before they have the opportunity to do harm?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 28, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Terrorists are expendable.



Are you saying it doesn't make a difference if they are American or not?

But again, why are "terrorists" expendable, and not serial murderers, child molesters, gang members, herion dealers, and the like?  

And once we clarify that, if only "terrorists" are expendable and therefore not entitled to human rights, how do you know if they are terrorists?  Who decides that, Governments?  If an American is capture in Iran, and Iran says hes a terrorist, its OK for Iran to torture him and we have no right to complain?


----------



## raceright (Apr 29, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > Terrorists are expendable.
> ...



Hey asshole thats already what they do,might even cut the American's head off.  So if dunking a terroist will help find out were the terroist is going to plant a bomb at your daughters home or maybe you mothers kitchen your going to say hey thats not moral and let my daughter or mother die because Im for human rights ..Bulshit you would dunk the muther real quick.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 29, 2009)

raceright said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. President said:
> ...



Ignored.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 29, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> raceright said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


 
Psst... By replying to people you wish to ignore, you are not ignoring them.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 29, 2009)

NOBama said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > raceright said:
> ...



I don't wish to ignore the person.  Just the post.  I suppose I could put "not responding" or something like that.  "Ignored" is easier and works fine.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 29, 2009)

I am for the strict enforcement of the death penalty and I believe it should be used a lot more than what it is.  Child molesters should also face the death penalty as well as murderers as well as convicts with 3 or more drug dealing convictions.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 29, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> NOBama said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


Just an FYI: This software has an ignore feature that works well. You can find it in your User CP. Using it conserves band width and disk space by preventing you from viewing that posts by those who think you're an asshole. Odds are, if somebody thinks you're an asshole they're never going to have anything to say that's appealing to you anyway. 

Replying with "ignored" does nothing but throw the thread into the new post category. In turn, people think someone has posted something that's worth reading and, if they have an interest in the thread, they want to read it. If we all wrote posts that say only "ignored", this place would suck and people would eventually go away.

Personally, I rather enjoy watching you play word semantics in 99% of your posts but, if you keep this shit up, I'm going to have to exercise my privilege to ignore you, because I find clicking on a thread with new a post only to find "ignored" stupid. Not only because it only says "ignored" but, because it's anything BUT ignoring the post you SAY you're ignoring.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 29, 2009)

NOBama said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > NOBama said:
> ...



Thanks for your concern.  But as I said in the previous post, and so I'll repeat, my intent is not to put people on ignore.  

On the other hand, I'm not going to engage in infantile flaming.  Many think its fun engaging in flame wars and that calling people names is persuasive debate or makes them look sharp.  That's fine.  To me its utterly boring.  

I'm not going to engage in it.  I'm happy to engage in discussion with anyone who can do it like an adult.  I also don't just not respond at all because then it looks like I don't have a response.

You raise a good point about being sidetracked to see a new post in a thread and it is just an "ignore" post.   So I'll think about that.  I can understand the feeling, I have the same reaction you describe when I click on new posts only to find its just another round of "you're a fucking moron" type posts.  If we all wrote "you're a fucking moron" back and forth ad infinitum all the time, I'm not sure it would be an improvement over reading an "ignore" post in response to someone who does that and it usually puts an end to it.


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 29, 2009)

Can we get back to the topic of torturing and killing please


----------



## NOBama (Apr 29, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> I'm not going to engage in it.


 Bullshit. You engauge in it everytime you reply "ignored". That was the point of my post.

Look the word up for crying out loud.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 29, 2009)

NOBama said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to engage in it.
> ...



That's flaming?


----------



## Mr. President (Apr 29, 2009)

Both of you shut already.  We were having a delightful conversation about torture and killing and now you all are ruining it. Can we stay on track please? Thank You


----------



## NOBama (Apr 29, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Both of you shut already. We were having a delightful conversation about torture and killing and now you all are ruining it. Can we stay on track please? Thank You


 I've said all I have to say about torture for today, here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/1186706-post269.html

But, I understand your desire to get back on topic. Have at it! I guess I should have just wrote whatshername a PM asking her to fuck-off with the "ignored" bullshit. My bad.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> NOBama said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


uh, no, if you dont wish to respond, NORMAL people just DONT REPLY
LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2009)

NOBama said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> > Both of you shut already. We were having a delightful conversation about torture and killing and now you all are ruining it. Can we stay on track please? Thank You
> ...


it doesnt work to be direct with morons
LOL


----------



## raceright (Apr 29, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> raceright said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Ok  maybe Asshole is a term that Bothers you sorry about that.
(no really)  But what about the rest would you not want to do what you have to to save your family (poles show 26% would let there family die scary) I for one would hurt anyone to protect my mother and wife and sister and daughter  just the way I am.


----------



## Shadow (Apr 29, 2009)

NOBama said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > raceright said:
> ...




She just likes the faux "drama".


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 29, 2009)

Shadow said:


> NOBama said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...





she's the *word nazi*


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 30, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > We kill 3 pirates to save the life of one captain but the left is against the US using waterboarding to save the lives of many. Explain that logic!
> ...



Didn't see the pirates kill anyone so I guess we broke the rule there by killing them.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 30, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Not in my opinion.


----------



## Yurt (Apr 30, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



then EXPLAIN your opinion


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 30, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Since you asked nicely -- heh heh -- in my opinion it is completely legitimate to shoot pirates who are holding hostages at gun point.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 1, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Liberal logic: It's OK to kill someone who may murder someone but it's not Ok to waterboard (which doesn't kill) someone who may be part of a mass murder. Got it.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 2, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



That is not liberal logic, that is the Geneva Conventions. So you like to torture. How then are you any differant than the terrorists.


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


wrong, the GC says these guiys can be shot on the battle field


----------



## Meister (May 2, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



It's my understanding that terorists aren't even covered under the Geneva Convention.


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2009)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


they are covered under the same thing as spies


----------



## Care4all (May 3, 2009)

Water Torture/Boarding is against FEDERAL LAW...we have precedence with the case of the Sheriff...so, even if the Geneva Convention were not enough for some, our own federal law prohibits it and punishes it which has to be taken in to consideration in my opinion.

True this torture took place over seas, and maybe in retrospect, this is why the bush administration kept insisting that those on the grounds of Gitmo, were not covered by USA law....?  I dunno???  This doesn't make total sense though, because that is like saying any representative of our government can be overseas and commit murder, and we could not prosecute them for such, because they were not on USA ground????  Again, I dunno?


----------

