[tomder55]

And again... McCain as well as the rest of the critics makes the mistake of equating Abu Ghraib with the protocol for EIT . What happened at Abu Ghraib was indeed a violation ;but it is irrelevant to the debate.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

No.... The debate is whether they were legal.

Here's what YOUR Republican presidential candidate said about it yesterday:

"BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you-- do you agree with the vice president when he says this has kept the country safe all this time since this attack and it is because these interrogations worked and we found out information that helped us keep the country safe.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan. I think that these interrogations once publicized helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq who told-- who told me that.

I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed and so-- and I believe that information, according to the FBI and others, could have been gained through other methods.

BOB SCHIEFFER: When you say an al Qaeda operative told you it helped them. What-- what do you mean?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I was in-- Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in-- in Camp Bucca, the twenty-thousand-prisoner camp. We met with a former high-ranking member of al Qaeda. I said, "How did you succeed so well in Iraq after the initial invasions?" He said two things. One, the chaos that existed after the initial invasion, there was no order of any kind. Two, he said, Abu Ghraib pictures allowed me and helped me to recruit thousands of young men to our cause. Now that's al Qaeda.

And the second thing about it is, if you inflict enough pain on anyone, they'll tell you anything that to make the pain stop. So you not only get, perhaps, right information but you also get a lot of wrong information.

But the damage that it did to America's image in the world is something we're still on the way to repairing. This is an ideological struggle as well as a-- as a physical one, so.

McCain did add that he felt opening an investigation, as Attorney General Eric Holder is doing, into the past misdeeds was the wrong approach, that, as President Barack Obama said, we should move forward. However, as McCain said, "Well, the attorney general has a unique position in the cabinet, obviously. He can't be told what to do by the President of the United States."

Just in case anyone wants to blame Obama, he can't stop it, and has made it clear in the past he would prefer not to have these hearings Holder is planning."

---------------------

excon

1) What McCain said doesn't really matter. He's just plain wrong. The bottom line is that it WASN'T illegal, it wasn't a violation of the GC, and it's been determined that it wasn't a violation of any sort. That's why Holder isn't going after the guys involved with the "torture" of KSM and his ilk. Holder is sticking to the Nashiri case only in his investigation. That's all he's got left.

2) If "there's nothing Obama can do", that would make Obama the WEAKEST President in history, making him the first President to be dictated to by his AG. Do you really believe that if Obama didn't want these investigations he couldn't do something about it, up to and including firing Holder? Holder is a Cabinet Member. All Cabinet Members serve "at the Pleasure of the President" and no further. That means that OBAMA calls the shots, not Holder.

Elliot

[excon]

All Cabinet Members serve "at the Pleasure of the President" and no further. That means that OBAMA calls the shots, not Holder.

Hello again, El:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You have absolutely no understanding of how the laws in our country work. I don't know how you missed it, but you did.

It's OK. That's what I'm here for.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You have absolutely no understanding of how the laws in our country work. I dunno how you missed it, but you did.

It's ok. That's what I'm here for.

excon

Then please explain to me how the President of the United States, whom Holder works for, and at who's pleasure Holder serves, is STUCK with these investigations if he doesn't want them?

Either Obama is WEAK, or he wants these investigations. Take your pick. Either one is a bad political situation for him to be in.

Elliot

[excon]

Then please explain to me how the President of the United States, whom Holder works for, and at who's pleasure Holder serves, is STUCK with these investigations if he doesn't want them

Hello again, El:

Because, in a word - EMPATHY! As a great Attorney General, Holder HAS NONE. He follows the law, no matter what his boss wants. I'd think having a chief lawyer FOLLOWING the law would be something you righty's would applaud. No, huh? I figured.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Because, in a word - EMPATHY! As a great Attorney General, Holder HAS NONE. He follows the law, no matter what his boss wants. I'd think having a chief lawyer FOLLOWING the law would be something you righty's would applaud. No, huh? I figured.

excon

There is no law that requires an investigation into something that isn't illegal.

So you're saying that Obama chose the wrong guy for the job, and should have gotten someone with "empathy"?

Someone with empathy would do what? He'd investigate the claims of torture being made by POWs.

As opposed to Holder, who is... investigating the claims of torture being made by POWs.

That would be a difference without a distinction.

And Obama is still Holder's boss. If Holder is acting in a way that is counter to the policies or wishes of Obama, Obama should either stop him or remove him. If he DOESN'T do so, Obama is at fault. If has the power to act and doesn't, he's guilty.

You can stop blaming everything Obama does on everyone else. Nobody's buying it.

Elliot

[excon]

1) What McCain said doesn't really matter. He's just plain wrong.

Hello again, El:

So, you'd rather listen to FIVE deferment Chickenhawk Cheney, who NEVER served a day in defense of his country, against a real war HERO, who WAS tortured??

Dude! Do you listen to yourself?

excon

[tomder55]

Eric Holder is the guy who arranged the pardon of FALN terrorists so we know where his empathy lies.

As for the President ;it's called plausible deniability . He is letting Holder do the dirty work ;acting like he has no say in it . In truth this is a move to sate the base who have been howling at the moon seeking the blood of Cheney et al .

All they will accomplish is neuter the CIA further ,and take down some patriots who defended the country and prevented attacks on it's citizens .

[excon]

All they will accomplish is neuter the CIA further ,and take down some patriots who defended the country and prevented attacks on it's citizens .

Hello tom:

Finally! An answer to my question. You DO think the guys who tortured in our name ARE hero's and NOT crooks, even if they went beyond the particular limits set out for them in the legal memos...

I thought so... Cheney agrees with you.. He doesn't think the limits meant anything either.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

So, you'd rather listen to FIVE deferment Chickenhawk Cheney, who NEVER served a day in defense of his country, against a real war HERO, who WAS tortured???

Dude! Do you listen to yourself?

excon

Only when Cheney's right.

And frankly, the fact that McCain was tortured by the VietCong makes him biased. Based on his experience, he's OVERLY sensitive to how POWs are treated. Even well-treated POWs are, from his perspective, being poorly treated. It's understandable for him to have that position, but that doesn't make him right. There's a whole world of difference between what McCain suffered in the Hannoi Hilton and what the POWs at Gitmo have to deal with. But he can't recognize that difference... perhaps because he's flashing back to his own experiences, perhaps because he's too sensitized, whatever. The point is, he's TOO CLOSE TO THE SITUATION to make an unbiased, clear-headed, ANALYTICAL decision on the issue.

So yes, in this case I choose Cheney over McCain. Because Cheney is right and McCain isn't.

Do you usually choose your positions based on personalities rather than facts? I don't.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello tom:

Finally! An answer to my question. You DO think the guys who tortured in our name ARE hero's and NOT crooks, even if they went beyond the particular limits set out for them in the legal memos...

I thought so... Cheney agrees with you.. He doesn't think the limits meant anything either.

excon

But excon, the limits don't mean anything to you either. The very existence of such "limits" was a crime, according to you. The memos setting those limits were themselves a war crime that should have been prosecuted. That's why you wanted Yoo and Bybee to be prosecuted, and if possible to have them turn on Cheney and Bush.

You have no respect for "the limits". Who are you trying to kid here?

This is all politics. It has nothing to do with breaking any laws, and you know it.

Elliot

[excon]

But excon, the limits don't mean anything to you either. The very existence of such "limits" was a crime, according to you. The memos setting those limits were themselves a war crime that should have been prosecuted.

This is all politics. It has nothing to do with breaking any laws, and you know it.

Hello again, El:

You're actually RIGHT!

But, it has nothing to do with "care". It has to do with reality... I never could grasp the concept of enhanced interrogation... I never could get how you could parse the word torture... I never could get how anyone could determine that 30 seconds of waterboarding was torture, but 29 seconds isn't... I never could grasp the concept that the government could hurt someone a little bit, as long as you don't produce major organ failure, and it's fine. To me, it's all bizarre. It's the law turned upside down.

You might convince SOME people that you can redefine the word torture to include the stuff you want to do, but you'll NEVER convince me. I don't think I'm alone either. And, I don't care if I am. I know the law. I can read.

Given that these "limits", make absolutely no sense in terms of the law, no matter WHO attempted to redefine the law, the limits themselves are clearly illegal. The only way to right the ship is to prosecute the lawbreakers... Otherwise, it remains an option. Of course, to civilized people, torture NEVER is an option.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

You're actually RIGHT!

But, it has nothing to do with "care". It has to do with reality... I never could grasp the concept of enhanced interrogation... I never could get how you could parse the word torture... I never could get how anyone could determine that 30 seconds of waterboarding was torture, but 29 seconds isn't... I never could grasp the concept that the government could hurt someone a little bit, as long as you don't produce major organ failure, and it's fine. To me, it's all bizarre. It's the law turned upside down.

Luckily, what you think doesn't really matter. Neither does what McCain thinks. The law is the law. Cheney is right, and you're not.

You might convince SOME people that you can redefine the word torture to include the stuff you want to do, but you'll NEVER convince me. I don't think I'm alone either. And, I don't care if I am. I know the law. I can read.

Apparently not. You are STILL insisting that someone broke the law when they clearly didn't. Ergo, either you can't read or you don't know the law.

Given that these "limits", make absolutely no sense in terms of the law, no matter WHO attempted to redefine the law, the limits themselves are clearly illegal. The only way to right the ship is to prosecute the lawbreakers... Otherwise, it remains an option. Of course, to civilized people, torture NEVER is an option.

Excon

That being your argument, there's no reason to even bring up the limits set in the memo. It's a non issue being used by you for a political point. It doesn't matter what Yoo, Bybee or the Tooth Fairy wrote in a memo, because, according to your argument, the memo has no legal bearing. ANY EITs, according to you, are illegal, regardless of what the memo says. That said, Yoo, Bybee, Bush and Cheney are off the hook for writing any memos. And any mention of prosecuting Yoo and Bybee is purely political, not an action of right and wrong.

Face it, excon, you've argued yourself into another corner.

If the memos have legal bearing, then they are legal, and you aren't going to get anyone in the Bush administration based on those memos.

If the memos have no legal bearing, then they are meaningless, and their existence isn't a crime either, and you aren't get anyone in the Bush administration based on those memos.

Either way, your quest to get Bush and Cheney is dead.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again:

tomorrow.png (image)

excon

[ETWolverine]

I've got a better story for you.

Once upon a time, 19 terrorists flew airplains into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pa.

3000 people died that day.

MOST people in the country woke up that day and realized that a bunch of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists had been fighting a war against them for decades for no reason, and they had missed the whole thing. And they decided that they needed to do something about it.

But a few believed that the terrorists were in the right... that the USA were the bad guys.

And a few others felt that fighting against the terrorists would MAKE us the bad guys.

But despite those few people who couldn't wake up to the fact that terrorists wanted THEM dead as much as everyone else, the President took action to protect the country... including the fools who couldn't seem to wake up to reality. That action included military incursions into foreign lands to kill the terrorists and eliminate those who supported the terrorists. It also included actions taken on the domestic front designed to both protect civillians and find terrorists.

And from that day forward, there were no more terrorist attack against the USA. We have been terrorism-free for 2,914 days.

The end.

Elliot

[excon]

And from that day forward, there were no more terrorist attack against the USA. We have been terrorism-free for 2,914 days.

Hello again, El:

Right wing logic always slays me... We've done lots of things to fight terrorism. I could pick one of them too, and say that's the reason we weren't attacked. Whose to say I'm wrong?

Ok, I pick invading Afghanistan - and we have been terrorism free since then. Or, how about if I pick killing Saddam and rooting out all those WMD's. Since we did that, we've been terrorism free.

Why is it that TORTURE is the only thing that kept us free? You guys are silly.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Right wing logic always slays me.... We've done lots of things to fight terrorism. I could pick one of them too, and say that's the reason we weren't attacked. Whose to say I'm wrong?

Ok, I pick invading Afghanistan - and we have been terrorism free since then. Or, how about if I pick killing Saddam and rooting out all those WMD's. Since we did that, we've been terrorism free.

Why is it that TORTURE is the only thing that kept us free? You guys are silly.

excon

Actually, if you will read what I wrote instead of what you THINK I wrote, you will notice that I said:

the President took action to protect the country... including the fools who couldn't seem to wake up to reality. That action included military incursions into foreign lands to kill the terrorists and eliminate those who supported the terrorists. It also included actions taken on the domestic front designed to both protect civillians and find terrorists.

That's ACTIONS... as in MULTIPLE. And I used the word "included" meaning that there were many more actions taken than the ones I listed.

But you are STUCK in your own preconceptions... so much so that you can't even read clearly... and nobody is going to break you out of that except you. And you don't want to be broken out of it.

My post wasn't for your benefit. You are clearly not ready to derive any benefit from it. It was for the benefit of everyone else who reads your post and wants to see the other side of the story.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again, El:

Don't you worry. My posts aren't for your benefit either. I know a stone wall when I see one.

Look. I don't know what you're yelling at. You said actions, as in multiple... I did too. You picked one and said that's why we weren't attacked... I picked another one and said that's why we weren't attacked. What's the difference?

Wassa matter? You don't think invading Afghanistan had anything to do with keeping us attack free?? Really?? Only torture did that, huh? Silly, silly fellow.

Let's keep it up. I'm loving it.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Don't you worry. My posts aren't for your benefit either. I know a stone wall when I see one.

Look. I dunno what you're yelling at. You said actions, as in multiple... I did too. You picked one and said that's why we weren't attacked... I picked another one and said that's why we weren't attacked. What's the difference?

Wassa matter? You don't think invading Afghanistan had anything to do with keeping us attack free???? Really??? Only torture did that, huh? Silly, silly fellow.

Let's keep it up. I'm loving it.

excon

Actually, I DO think that Afghanistan was a huge part of what has kept us from being attacked.

So is the Iraq war... but you won't accept that one.

EITs played a part too.
So did the USA Patriot Act.
And GITMO.
And wire-tapping.
And Special Renditions.
And so did the "If You See Something, Say Something" campaigns.

ALL of it worked.

But YOU picked Afghanistan... and did so snidely... while at the same time saying that it's unwinable... Just like the Iraq war was supposedly unwinable...

Why?

You are the one with logic that is faulty here. My position is clear across the board.

Where did you get the idea that I was only picking one thing?

Elliot

[excon]

Where did you get the idea that I was only picking one thing?

Hello again, El:

I don't know. Somewhere a long the way... So, your saying that we COULD be just as safe if we DIDN'T torture anybody, is that what you're saying??

Cause that's all I'M saying.

excon