Politics and Religion

Was it legal, or illegal?
JohnyComeAlready 716 reads
posted

I wouldn't say that's the only relevant question. Only that it's the only relevant question in regard to the law.  

Which is it Matt, legal or illegal ?

Whether or not you, or I support the techniques carried out by the CIA those techniques were legally approved by the DOJ.  Depending on what your opinion is, that fact only makes it better or worse.

What am I saying? Of course you didn't know that. You know only what socialists disguised as journalists want you to know. You are a string puppet to them.

Posted By: mattradd
"Terd Blossom," was all in for rectal feedings!  Kinda poetic, don't ya think!  ;)

you would have had a ball during the McCarthy era. You could have pointed your finger and screamed 'communist' to your heart's desire.  ;)

Timbow633 reads

Posted By: mattradd
I guess even John Yoo and the Justice Department do not support it.   ;)

...for attorneys to approve torture and they found them in Yoo, Addington, et.al. after being turned down by attorneys with backbone.  Here's what Yoo's fellow attorneys and members of the Bush Administration said about Yoo's legal work on the torture memos:

"Bush’s Attorney General Michael Mukasey called it “slovenly.” Jack Goldsmith, another Republican who headed the Office of Legal Counsel from 2003 to 2004, said that Yoo’s August 2002 memo justifying torture by the CIA was “riddled with error” and a “one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law.”

Daniel Levin, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel after Goldsmith left and, like Yoo, was a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, described his reaction upon reading Yoo’s memo as “This is insane, who wrote this?” And Stephen Bradbury, who became acting head of the OLC after Levin’s departure, also under President Bush, and who wrote several memos authorizing torture himself, said of Yoo’s arguments about presidential power, “Somebody should have exercised some adult leadership” and deleted his arguments altogether. These are the assessments not of human rights advocates or left-wing critics but of Yoo’s Republican colleagues at the Justice Department."

John Yoo?!  Seriously, Timbow, John Yoo?!



-- Modified on 12/14/2014 4:18:37 PM

Timbow829 reads

Posted By: BigPapasan
...for attorneys to approve torture and they found them in Yoo, Addington, et.al. after being turned down by attorneys with backbone.  Here's what Yoo's fellow attorneys and members of the Bush Administration said about Yoo's legal work on the torture memos:

"Bush’s Attorney General Michael Mukasey called it “slovenly.” Jack Goldsmith, another Republican who headed the Office of Legal Counsel from 2003 to 2004, said that Yoo’s August 2002 memo justifying torture by the CIA was “riddled with error” and a “one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law.”

Daniel Levin, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel after Goldsmith left and, like Yoo, was a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, described his reaction upon reading Yoo’s memo as “This is insane, who wrote this?” And Stephen Bradbury, who became acting head of the OLC after Levin’s departure, also under President Bush, and who wrote several memos authorizing torture himself, said of Yoo’s arguments about presidential power, “Somebody should have exercised some adult leadership” and deleted his arguments altogether. These are the assessments not of human rights advocates or left-wing critics but of Yoo’s Republican colleagues at the Justice Department."

John Yoo?!  Seriously, Timbow, John Yoo?!

 

-- Modified on 12/14/2014 4:18:37 PM

...by writing a BS legal opinion that torture wasn't torture.  He bent over and complied like the little bitch that he is.

The question is not whether waterboarding and rectal intrusions are per se torture but whether the number and frequency of times these methods were applied qualify as statutory torture. One of the bad guys was waterboarded 170 plus times in a month- no one forced to face that specific question would say “no torture.”

         And whether Yoo recognized this on CNN where they always ask the clueless question –is waterboarding torture – which always allow the no torture “expert” to say we waterboard our own troops – Yoo did recognize the proper standard in his C-span interview and acknowledged that “too much” of these techniques would qualify as torture:

"Looking at it now, I think of course you can do these things cumulatively or too much that it would cross the line of the anti-torture statute," Yoo said on the C-SPAN television network

Timbow732 reads

Posted By: marikod
        The question is not whether waterboarding and rectal intrusions are per se torture but whether the number and frequency of times these methods were applied qualify as statutory torture. One of the bad guys was waterboarded 170 plus times in a month- no one forced to face that specific question would say “no torture.”  
   
          And whether Yoo recognized this on CNN where they always ask the clueless question –is waterboarding torture – which always allow the no torture “expert” to say we waterboard our own troops – Yoo did recognize the proper standard in his C-span interview and acknowledged that “too much” of these techniques would qualify as torture:  
   
 "Looking at it now, I think of course you can do these things cumulatively or too much that it would cross the line of the anti-torture statute," Yoo said on the C-SPAN television network.  
 

Timbow815 reads

Mitchell said the waterboarding of Mohammed, which the report said occurred 183 times, was actually "83 pours (of water) that lasted between one to 10 seconds” each.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/15/us-usa-cia-torture-psychologist-idUSKBN0JT2DB20141215
Also, Red Cross has on record KSM says it was 5 sessions.
 

Posted By: marikod
        The question is not whether waterboarding and rectal intrusions are per se torture but whether the number and frequency of times these methods were applied qualify as statutory torture. One of the bad guys was waterboarded 170 plus times in a month- no one forced to face that specific question would say “no torture.”  
   
          And whether Yoo recognized this on CNN where they always ask the clueless question –is waterboarding torture – which always allow the no torture “expert” to say we waterboard our own troops – Yoo did recognize the proper standard in his C-span interview and acknowledged that “too much” of these techniques would qualify as torture:  
   
 "Looking at it now, I think of course you can do these things cumulatively or too much that it would cross the line of the anti-torture statute," Yoo said on the C-SPAN television network.  
 

A bi-partisan group of CIA directors and deputy directors has stated they received actionable intel that saved American lives form EIT's.

Please, lets all put this in perspective. If pouring water on KSM's head saved even one American it was well worth it.

Lets stop wringing our heads of this tireless debate. The enemy doesn't play by our rules or the rules of war of the rest of the world so we cant treat them by those rules.

It was their choice to involve innocent civilians, not ours. The American people have now spoken, the majority are fine with what we did and the proof is in the pudding: no major attacks against the home land in 13 years. End of story.

Jail Bush and Cheney? Send them to the Hague? Jail only the people that carried out "torture"? What should be done at this point?

The torture problem must be dealt with both prospectively and retrospectively.

         If terrorists smuggle an atomic bomb into NY City next week but we have in custody a bad guy who knows where the bomb is hidden, what can we do? We can’t legally torture him now.

 
           The solution is clear – Congress needs to pass a law authorizing the FISA court to issue a warrant to torture. The government would have to meet a very high standard to obtain the warrant and the procedure would have to be videotaped and carried out under medical supervision. No more of the shameful Bush administration practice of torturing in secret 187 times with no meaningful standards, losing the video tape, and then lying about it.

       As to what should be done prospectively, a crime is a crime Jack. It is not justified by the results. The Senate report shows that more than 3 suspected bad guys were water boarded and that some of the torturers exceeded even Yoo's crabbed standards. Let’s send it to the grand jury and ask them if they will return an indictment.  

        As for Bush and Cheney, they should be publicly shamed and treated as heirs to the legacy of Nixon

Few questions:

1) I can assume you are disappointed in the Obama admin for not vigorously prosecuting this issue?

2) And can I also assume, had FDR lived, you would have publically shamed him for his war crimes?

3) Lastly, where is your evidence that the Bush admin lied about the tapes? CIA deputy director Mike Morrell said on Charlie Rose's show last night that Bush WH counsel Harriet Myers specifically told Jose Rodriguez not to destroy the tapes

I wouldn't say that's the only relevant question. Only that it's the only relevant question in regard to the law.  

Which is it Matt, legal or illegal ?

The DOJ only has jurisdiction over legal matters. The techniques used by the CIA were deemed legal by the DOJ. The issue carries no political merit.  

Posted By: CallNumber9
but goes straight to morality.
There is no branch of government that handles morality cases.

By definition, and common sense, it is not. And everyone knows this whole "torture" business is all political, and nakedly so.  It is so obviously designed to damage the Republican Party despite any cost to our country.  

How come not one of these Leftists pushing this has made any attempt to stop the systematic "torture" of our troops? The Left is perfectly fine with that, apparently.

Posted By: mattradd
I guess even John Yoo and the Justice Department do not support it.   ;)

Along with McCain!   ;)

"'Every flag JAG lodged complaints," said one senior Pentagon official involved in the process, referring to the judge advocate generals who are military lawyers of each service.'"

Oooooh! Complaints! That could be about anything.

Posted By: mattradd
Along with McCain!   ;)  
   
 "'Every flag JAG lodged complaints," said one senior Pentagon official involved in the process, referring to the judge advocate generals who are military lawyers of each service.'"

Play dumb, ignorant or reading challenged. If you had been paying attention, at the time, or had read the article, you'd know the complaints were not "about anything."

And, I think McCain has a lot more spine than what you give him credit for.

There is too much of it but as the saying goes: you don't have to sniff every turd to know they stink.

The undeniable truth is that you and yours are attempting to extend the definition of torture to include anything and everything in an obvious attempt to inflict harm on your opposition at great cost to our national security and possibly our reputation.

The country has real problems that are not going to go away and soon they will not be ignorable. It is then when all but the most brainwashed Leftist will realize the insanity of today's Media narratives and their hidden agenda. Your ideology is collapsing upon itself and historians will one day marvel at this moment in time as the era that Marxism drove the world literally insane.

Posted By: mattradd
Play dumb, ignorant or reading challenged. If you had been paying attention, at the time, or had read the article, you'd know the complaints were not "about anything."  
   
 And, I think McCain has a lot more spine than what you give him credit for.

Since when is the Washington Post a piece of left wing propaganda? You just don't want to admit that there are people on both sides of the isle and in the military, who have a problem with "enhanced interrogation."

Too bad there's no Joe McCarthy for you. But, chin up old chap, you have Cruz.   ;)

If I didn't  lose my memory, the Washington Post  engineered with  perfection, left wing propaganda, long before The Washington Times was founded to preach the other side.  
   
  In  years gone by, I subscribed to  both  Washington Post and  Washington Times.  
  These days I prefer to read online .  
   
  I have no doubt, Washington Post is big lean left wing.
Fair and balanced the guy I am, I'll add with the same certainty, Washington Times is right wing.  
     
 Most informed adults on the East Coast , except extreme partisans, should realize  that.  
  Your Left Coast excuse is valid.  
   
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/  
   
     The link I posted only mentioned the readers preference, not the papers politics.    
  Some partisans honestly believe a paper that prints an occasional truth  exposing their political favorite as a fraud on any particular issue, are no longer on their side.  
   In summary, your partisan nature has blinded you.  
   
  In defense of your  analysis, perhaps your comparison references  were skewed.  
  I'll admit, when  COMPARED  to the loony bin  left wing LA Times and casually crafty left wing NY Times, The Washington Post is middle of the road.  :-D  
   
  Matt, there are people on one or the others side of the aisle, on  every  issue/scenario/way of life,  who have a problem with.......................... whatever.      ROFLMAO  
   
   If I'm ever so unfortunate to be captured and tortured, I  hope my interrogator is a water board aficionado holding me hostage,  not a sadistic lunatic with a lead pipe, drill and pliers.  
   
   If the CIA had paid me to devise methods  to extract information from the terrorists in question,  I would have suggested they use female interrogators with gloves  used  to slap the tough  guys around.    
   A detainee  tough guy moaning about a woman slapping him with a glove, would be  more amusing than hearing  whining about a little water.  
   

     
 Quote:
Posted By: mattradd
Since when is the Washington Post a piece of left wing propaganda? You just don't want to admit that there are people on both sides of the isle and in the military, who have a problem with "enhanced interrogation."  
     
  Too bad there's no Joe McCarthy for you. But, chin up old chap, you have Cruz.   ;)

 
 Related Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-libe..

Register Now!