Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Nov 23, 2009, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by excon

You too want to make light... I guess if the president I voted for did this, I'd try to make light too...

Of course, we all know Sarah Palin is much more dangerous, she's the one that should be waterboarded and taken to a black site.

President Obama's political operation took a shot at Sarah Palin today, accusing her of lying on her media blitz.

"It's dangerous," Organizing for America Director Mitch Stewart said of Palin's book tour.

He continued:

"Remember, this is the person who coined the term 'Death Panels' -- and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists.

"Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform."

Stewart asks supporters to help raise $500,000 to "push back against Sarah Palin and her allies."

excon · Nov 23, 2009, 06:29 AM

Hello again,

Well, at least it's becoming clear HOW we abandoned our long held values.. Clearly, you Righty's WRONGLY believe:

(1) The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact - meaning you'd be willing to throw it overboard for something else, and

(2) The president doesn't have to follow ANY law in his role as commander in chief...

I'm just wondering where your allegiance lies if NOT with the Constitution.

excon

excon · Nov 23, 2009, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

she's the one that should be waterboarded and taken to a black site.

Hello again, Steve:

So, now instead of making light, you change the subject... It's OK, Steve. If I did what your side did, I'd change the subject too.

excon

ETWolverine · Nov 23, 2009, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, now instead of making light, you change the subject.... It's ok, Steve. If I did what your side did, I'd change the subject too.

excon

You mean as opposed to all the other times you change the subject when it suits you...

What, pray tell, have we done that you believe is
A) against the law
B) terrible and heinous
c) against the Constitution?

Elliot

tomder55 · Nov 23, 2009, 07:32 AM

ABC leaked the existence of CIA prisons in former Eastern Block nations in 2005. Why is this even news ? Why does ABC keep on recycling this ? Does anyone wonder why it is met with a collective yawn ?

This attempt at moral equivalence is not working because Americans recognize the difference between real torture and making a prisoner uncomfortable during interrogation. Further we recognize that the bigger problem here is that CIA activities to keep us safe were revealed in the 1st place.

excon · Nov 23, 2009, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You mean as opposed to all the other times you change the subject when it suits you...

What, pray tell, have we done that you believe is
A) against the law
B) terrible and heinous
c) against the Constitution?

Hello again, Elliot:

Uhhhhh, torture?? Which you, being politically correct, call enhanced interrogation, and tom calls uncomfortable...

But, you're the only ones in the world who don't know that we tortured people. Oh yeah, Obama don't know it either.

excon

speechlesstx · Nov 23, 2009, 07:42 AM

Ex, may I remind you yet again that it ain't just "my side." According to Richard Clarke during the Clinton administration:

The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his .'"

Under Clinton we just sent them to the Egyptian Mukhabarat. I'm sure that was like a day at the beach.

ETWolverine · Nov 23, 2009, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Uhhhhh, torture?? Which you, being politically correct, call enhanced interrogation, and tom calls uncomfortable...

What torture? Was any torture performed in any of these prisons in Eastern Block countries?

Please be sure of your LEGAL DEFINITION OF TORTURE. If it doesn't meet the legal definition of torture, it isn't illegal, WHETHER YOU THINK IT SHOULD OR NOT.

But, you're the only ones in the world who don't know that we tortured people. Oh yeah, Obama don't know it either.

Excon

Apparently you are the only one who does... so either prove your case or move on.

Elliot

excon · Nov 23, 2009, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

What, pray tell, have we done that you believe is
A) against the law
B) terrible and heinous
c) against the Constitution?

Hello again, Elliot:

Before any credible discussion on the above can occur, I want to know where your allegiance lies? If, like tom, you believe that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, then your positions are based on something OTHER than the Constitution.

I want to know what that something else IS.

excon

ETWolverine · Nov 23, 2009, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Before any credible discussion on the above can occur, I want to know where your allegiance lies? If, like tom, you believe that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, then your positions are based on something OTHER than the Constitution.

I want to know what that something else IS.

excon

My allegiance isn't the topic here. The LAW is the topic. And you have yet to prove that any action taken by any interrogator violated any laws. You also have yet to prove that any interrogations took place in any prisons in Eastern Bloc countries.

As for my allegiance, it is to the Constitution... AS IT WAS WRITTEN, not as you would prefer it to be understood according to your political biases.

Please keep in mind that Constitutional rights do not apply to POWs, and never have in our history. We have Supremem Court Precedent to prove that fact, with regard to German POWs captured during WWII when trying to sabotage NY with their U-Boats. The Supreme Court ruled that they are not subject to Constitutional rights of accused criminals. There is strong legal precedent for this position.

So please, show us where the Constitution was violated. Show us where torture was used... using the LEGAL DEFINITION of torture, not just your opinion of what torture is.

Elliot

excon · Nov 23, 2009, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So please, show us where the Constitution was violated. Show us where torture was used... using the LEGAL DEFINITION of torture, not just your personal opinion of what torture is.

Hello again, Elliot:

Would that be in the old days BEFORE Bybee and Yoo CHANGED the definition of torture to fit the dufus's agenda? Because if it is, waterboarding was torture back then. We even prosecuted people for waterboarding our soldiers.

But, we've had this conversation before... You abhor political correctness, unless it means calling torture enhanced interrogation... But, you ain't fooling anybody.

excon

ETWolverine · Nov 23, 2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Would that be in the old days BEFORE Bybee and Yoo CHANGED the definition of torture to fit the dufus's agenda? Because if it is, waterboarding was torture back then. We even prosecuted people for waterboarding our soldiers.

But, we've had this conversation before... You abhor political correctness, unless it means calling torture enhanced interrogation... But, you ain't fooling anybody.

excon

In actuality excon, they didn't change the definition of anything. They gave an opinion that was based on LEGAL PRECEDENT. That's the part you can't seem to handle... that this is and always has been the law. The Bybee and Yoo memos just made the Bush administration aware of what the law was.

So what you're saying is that you CAN'T prove that the law was ever broken or that the constitution was violated. You might feel morally outraged over it, but you can't prove that any laws were violated.

That's what I thought.

'Nuff said.

Elliot

ETWolverine · Nov 23, 2009, 09:14 AM

In point of fact, excon, the Bybee memo specifically discusses Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the United States Code, including its ratification history, the history of its application, and the history of defining torture under the law. In other words, it specifically ADDRESSES LEGAL PRECEDENT. At no time does it redefine anything.

Elliot

excon · Nov 23, 2009, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So what you're saying is that you CAN'T prove that the law was ever broken or that the constitution was violated.

Hello again, Elliot:

I can prove it violated the law just like you can prove it doesn't. This isn't a court of law. This is two Jews arguing... It PROVES nothing.

I argue, that writing a memo that meets your boss's requirements, rather than the Constitutions requirements, is against the law. I suggest that's what they did. You'll suggest otherwise. The fact of the matter is, neither of us know what was in their heads when they wrote them. Maybe an investigation would reveal it.

I further suggest that the last chapter on this sordid period in our history has YET to be written.

Now, I COULD, like you, start yelling about proof and stupid crap like that... But, I ain't.

excon

ETWolverine · Nov 23, 2009, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

I can prove it violated the law just like you can prove it doesn't. This isn't a court of law. This is two Jews arguing... It PROVES nothing.

I argue, that writing a memo that meets your boss's requirements, rather than the Constitutions requirements, is against the law. I suggest that's what they did. You'll suggest otherwise. The fact of the matter is, neither of us know what was in their heads when they wrote them. Maybe an investigation would reveal it.

I further suggest that the last chapter on this sordid period in our history has YET to be written.

Now, I COULD, like you, start yelling about proof and stupid crap like that... But, I ain't.

excon

On the other hand, when the Constitution and your boss' requirements are not only not mutually exclusive but are actually one and the same, there would be no problem with righting such a memo would there.

And that, in fact, is what happened.

So for all your calling it torture, even you now admit that you can't prove that it was torture.

That would be checkmate.

Elliot

phlanx · Nov 24, 2009, 02:35 AM

Having read this thread I find with interest nobody has every question why Lithuania?

Why not on home soil?

Surely if someone was of such importance, it would be better to question him in the comfort of your own living room?

There cannot be an argument of economics - it is cheaper to build in Lithuania than home, as it just doesn't stack up in the long haul

So why build an interview room in a country that does have lower standards of human rights than we do?

So I am afraid gentlemen, any argument on the leagl definition of torture is erroneous, the CIA's actions are one of concealment and that has to get you to ask one question - why?

As regards the comments made that in war we hope our side will act with integrity, I am afraid is missing the point of war

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bast**d die for his."

tomder55 · Nov 24, 2009, 04:06 AM

Ex . Saying the Constitution is not a suicide pact is a completely legitimate ,historical and Constitutionally correct argument to make.

I give you the words of the author of the Declaration of Independence ;founding father and 3rd President Thomas Jefferson's as evidence .

"strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
Article 2, Section 3: Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin

excon · Nov 24, 2009, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.

Hello again, tom:

You make sure to point out that my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" stuff is NOT in the Constitution. I guess you do it to show me that it's not LAW and therefore, we are NOT obligated to follow it...

This letter is the same. It's an escape clause, and it ISN'T law or part of the Constitution any more than the Declaration of Independence is. IF they wanted it to be part, they could have made it part... They didn't.

The Constitution IS the law of the land, or it is NOT. I suggest it IS, and there is NO escape clause.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 24, 2009, 05:26 AM

You make sure to point out that my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" stuff is NOT in the Constitution. I guess you do it to show me that it's not LAW and therefore, we are NOT obligated to follow it...

Again not true . You argue that these are universal rights that we should apply outside while I argue that the Constitution is designed for the United States only.

For the record;those rights for Americans are covered in the 5th amendment "due process" clause (property being what the founders really meant when "persuit of happiness"was penned.)