Politics and Religion

The question was “have we tortured the detainees”?
marikod 1 Reviews 385 reads
posted

And, no, I don’t believe that waterboarding is torture per se under either our war crimes statute, or international law.  

           I believe that waterboarding KSM 183 times IN A ONE MONTH PERIOD, under circumstances where he did not know if he would live or die from the procedure (very different from our training exercises where there is a one time application with a doctor present) ,  is torture per se under both our war crimes statute, and international law, and certainly as the average American citizen would understand torture.

        Let me break that down for you since you seem ready to hide in the "well, we water boar our own troops" ploy.  There are 30 days in a month. If we average it out, that means at a minimum he was waterboarded 6 times every 24 hours, or every 4 hours.

So the President was asked if we had tortured the detainees. And he answered:

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people and the world: The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it."

Let's remove your erroneous statement from the discussion:

“I do know that he would be far from alone if he felt different than you, thus making his statement truthful. “

 
      No, you are incorrect about that –no legitimate observer has said waterboarding KSM 183 times in a month is NOT torture.  They only say generically that “waterboarding is not torture” –they turn away from the actual facts for obvious reasons. So the statement is NOT truthful as applied to KSM.

        So again I ask you- was this a “dishonest answer” or a “dishonest nonanswer”

JackDunphy2450 reads

Even though he went awol, had his fellow brothers in arms go look for him that cost some of them their lives and traded him for 5 Taliban higher ups which may go on the battlefield and kill Americans again.

So, then Barry says today, we can't get back 3 American hostages, that he himself believes are being held on "trumped up charges", as part of a deal that many feel greatly benefits Iran.

Does anyone think Iran would have walked away from that table or the US would have had to make any more significant concessions, to get those 3 hostages back?

Like I said. Obama is the worst negotiator I have ever seen. When the greatest power on the planet can't get 3 people released when they are about to restore the Iranian economy and and allow hundreds of billions to flow back into that shit hole, you know we have lost our balls, grit and determination as a nation.

And look how pissed Obama is at the mere questioning of his dubious negotiating skills.

What a petty, petty, man.

Let the Obama sycophant defense begin...

Give them what they want so then they will like him/us more down the road.

BTW, his answer to Major Garret used the same tactic seen right here so often. Obama distorted the question so his outrage was about being content with the Americans still in prison when that was not the question asked

Did you catch him yesterday, (paraphrasing) asking "what is the alternative to this deal?  Status quo/War."

Like they were the only two options. There were many possible options, as I have stated here recently, as any honest person knows.

It's just easier to get things past the Lib media and the low info voter if he says "it had to be this deal, or many people would die" regardless of the lack of truth behind that statement

The media has changed from being Watch Dogs to Lap Dogs. And that is the biggest threat to continued freedom and democracy.

"There were many possible options, as I have stated here recently, as any honest person knows."

Would you mind reviewing what they were?   ;)

Resume sanctions, increase sanctions, naval blockade, taking out their refinery, attacking their sites, etc.

Will our allies do the same. Not likely. How much stick will this be? Enough to get them to capitulate? I doubt it. And, your other opinions; you don't think those will lead to war? Given the accuracy of of intelligence we've received from the intelligence community, how much faith do you place on them to give us an accurate account; number, location and vulnerability of "their sites." I have very little.

Iran is going to declare war on the US? With Israel? Because there nuke sites were attacked? Doubtful.

Israel knocked out the Syrian reactor. Did war break out? nope!

Israel knocked out the Iraqi reactor. Did war break out? nope!

You said: "naval blockade, taking out their refinery, attacking their sites." Most countries would declare war with that degree of assault against their country. Your proposing is a significant escalation in attacking a sovereign country, compare to an attack on one site.

Jack fkin squat, thats what. They would have bitched, Moaned and screamed to the UN. Maybe they do their terrorist thing, which they would have done anyway.

But you are delusional if you think they would seek war with the U.S. or Israel. They would get crushed. You are confusing "acts of war" with " going to war." Two very different things. Many acts of war do not lead  to war.

And the point, from the beginning, was that there were many other options, when the liar in chief said there was only two.

And no Matt, MOST countries would NOT start a war over the actions I describe, against the U.S. and Israel. In fact, very, very few would actually do so.

-- Modified on 7/15/2015 7:04:20 PM

Only you would think attacking Iran's sites would mean a third world war, when in fact the odds of that scenario go up exactly because Iran will get the bomb now.

Looks like you didn't buy Barry's bullshit when he said all options were on the table.

As it turned out the ONLY thing ever on the table was Obummers capitulation to a terrorist state.

followme309 reads

That obama did not apologize to iran for having the sanctions put on then in the first place.

Thank yo

Question 1: In your view, what was the question Major Garret asked?

Question 2: On what opinion or assumption was his question asked?  ;)

There's no way I would know his unstated assumptions or opinions.

Yes, I can read and watch a video. Just wondered how you read or heard the question. There's a good chance different people will read or hear it differently.  ;)

Posted By: mattradd
Yes, I can read and watch a video.
Apparently you can’t since you’ve yet to voice your thoughts. I’ve clearly stated mine. If it’s not clear enough for you I am sorry, but I am certain of the opinion and assumption on which you based your questions.

guise of a question, and so did Obama, thus bitch-slapping the reporter for doing so.  But, you're OK with what the reporter did, because you support his opinion.   ;)

And now you can read my mind as well.

Maybe you should do a little more research if you intend to continue

what you how you hear the question, and from which it originated. Garrett said he meant his question to be provocative, so I guess one could expect a provocative answer.

So, since you won't man up, Garrett explains he the motivation behind his question!  ;)

Maybe if you whine about it to some of your friends here they can help brow beat me into submitting to your demands. Or better yet, try whining to TER Admin, “ed2000 won’t answer my questions, waaaa waaaa”. My guess is their response would be, “Maybe you should first address his original point.”  

Actually I did address your 2nd question, even so you disparage my intellect then my manhood, all to get me to respond to your questions when in fact you’ve yet to address my OP in any relevant way. Is this the way you treat people in your real life? If so I sincerely doubt you’ve achieved much respect or success. I was going to provide you link to teach you how to diagram a sentence but you need this one more desperately:

http://images.kw.com/docs/2/1/2/212345/1285134779158_htwfaip.pdf

I will give you this hint. My post had absolutely nothing to do with the obviously provocative nature of Major Garrett’s question. Provocative or not, the sentence structure of the question is obvious. The object of the contentment was not the prisoners. The object or contentment clearly was  “to leave the conscious of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for”. It is clear that Obama distorted the reality of the question so that the provocative word could hopefully be turned back against Garrett and with the help of the media and you, Obama’s been fairly successful, except with Garrett who is sticking by the question.  So now the media thinks the question was too provocative. I guess they’ve grown amnesia regarding Sam Donaldson who was heralded and applauded for all of his wacky questions directed towards Reagan.  

 
I suspected it was too soon to take you off “time out” but I thought you'd appreciate someone pointing out that Obama was using one of your tactics. Alas, now you’ve reassured me it should become permanent

Thanks for the lesson great master!  ;)

Well, actually I understood what the "object of the comment," was, which is exactly my point. It wasn't a clear clean question. It was a political comment in the guise of a question, which is what I've been saying all along. So, thanks for admitting that my point was valid along. And, why is Obama obligated to play fair when it's quite obvious that Garrett was disingenuous in his question? Is that playing fair? " While you strain at gnats, I'd bet most people see the exchange in the light of the saying: "Turn about is fair play."  ;)

Or you were afraid everyone else was not as smart as you. So now to continue your game you switch from provocative to unclear and unfair. I admit nothing since you only asked questions and never made a point. And again with the straw dogs regarding playing fair. All I ever pointed out was that Obama was the dishonest one in his answer, something you never even attempted to refute.

Back on time out for you.

He was applauded by the Left.

While Donaldson's questions were provocative and sometimes just plain wacky, they sometimes served a useful purpose. Sometimes they are required if an administration is not "transparent" enough. And we know Obama has struck out in that regard. The more important thing is how a President handles such questions. Being dishonest in a non-answer hurts him more than helps him, at least with those that aren't already lap dogs; lap dogs when they're supposed to be watch dogs. Obama would rather crush the questioner rather than present an honest or even deflecting answer. That's his MO and when he loses his temper while doing so makes him look especially bad.

In 2003, KSM was waterboarded 183 times in about a month. In 2006 President Bush told us:

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people and the world: The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it."

       Was Mr. Bush “absolutely clear?” Any chance he meant “we don’t torture at least as John Yoo defines ’torture’” in his famous then classified memo that virtually all legal scholars agree was totally wrong?

         Bush would later admit he knew KSM had been waterboarded and he would “do it again.”

       Unlike your tortured deconstruction of the “non- answer” to Garrett’s question (whew, damn that Matt for questioning you about it-I still can’t tell what the hell you are talking about) , this dishonest answer is pretty clear. But maybe I’m wrong – is this just a “dishonest non-answer”?

      You are the authority on presidential dishonest answers and non-answers- which is it

What question was Bush answering? That is highly germane to the analysis. Was he asked “Did we torture?” or “Did we water board?”. From your link it appears he wasn’t asked any question at all. That changes things but for the sake of brevity let’s move on.

I know you make no distinction between water boarding and torture and I don’t know what’s in Bush’s heart so analyzing the honesty factor is impossible. I do know that he would be far from alone if he felt different than you, thus making his statement truthful. As far as any “non-answer” analysis is concerned, I believe that would be non-sequitor.

On the other hand, since Obama answered a different question than the one asked, it constituted a non-answer. In the answer he gave, he distorted what Major Garrett asked, making it seem as if Garrett was accusing Obama of being content that the hostages were still imprisoned. That was dishonest.

Too bad Matt can learn from you

And, no, I don’t believe that waterboarding is torture per se under either our war crimes statute, or international law.  

           I believe that waterboarding KSM 183 times IN A ONE MONTH PERIOD, under circumstances where he did not know if he would live or die from the procedure (very different from our training exercises where there is a one time application with a doctor present) ,  is torture per se under both our war crimes statute, and international law, and certainly as the average American citizen would understand torture.

        Let me break that down for you since you seem ready to hide in the "well, we water boar our own troops" ploy.  There are 30 days in a month. If we average it out, that means at a minimum he was waterboarded 6 times every 24 hours, or every 4 hours.

So the President was asked if we had tortured the detainees. And he answered:

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people and the world: The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it."

Let's remove your erroneous statement from the discussion:

“I do know that he would be far from alone if he felt different than you, thus making his statement truthful. “

 
      No, you are incorrect about that –no legitimate observer has said waterboarding KSM 183 times in a month is NOT torture.  They only say generically that “waterboarding is not torture” –they turn away from the actual facts for obvious reasons. So the statement is NOT truthful as applied to KSM.

        So again I ask you- was this a “dishonest answer” or a “dishonest nonanswer”

No open debate forum here.

Of course the proper choice is "honest answer". We'll have to disagree, agreeable to you or not.

BTW, you're incorrect regarding the statistics. They itemized each pour of water during each session

GaGambler442 reads

Do those sophomoric debating techniques really work any where in the real world?

Next time I ask you a question, just pretend I'm your old buddy Gag. It will make it easier to answer the questions, and I won't pester you so much.  ;)

Though your explanation does bring a couple of other questions to mind:

A. Did you applaud Sam Donaldson's attempts?

B. What exactly was Garrett trying to make transparent that Obama was not making transparent?

C. What were your thoughts as Bush and Cheney smirked and sneered their way through press conferences and TV interviews?  ;)

Point out for all to see where I "applauded when a shoe was thrown at GW Bush."

Don't bother, you won't find it, because I never did.

P.S. Apples and oranges. Was that an American journalist who threw the shoe?  ;)

bigguy30439 reads

The questions were all base on lies and false information.
I give the President a lot of credit for standing up their and making them look stupid.
When a person lies and spreads false information.
It nothing wrong with showing they are full of shit. Lol

Posted By: ed2000
Give them what they want so then they will like him/us more down the road.  
   
 BTW, his answer to Major Garret used the same tactic seen right here so often. Obama distorted the question so his outrage was about being content with the Americans still in prison when that was not the question asked.  
 

And, that's also why Ed won't answer my question. He knows it wasn't even a question to gain information, but rather the reporters opinion.

Question one: What are the differences in the circumstances between Bergdahl and the hostages held by Iran?

Question two: What are the two main reasons for "No man left behind?" This of course is a hint at one of the differences.  ;)

Question three: Do you really open to discourse when you end you OP with: "Let the Obama sycophant defense begin"?   ;)

There was no way to do so? Do you believe that Matt? I am on record saying I dont believe it.

What is your opinion?

Of course to do so would show how bogus your comparison is!   ;)

The comparison to be made is that when Obama wants to do something, he will make fkin crazy lopsided deal to get it done.

But in this case he has rescued the Iranian economy and apparently didn't even have the balls to bring up getting 3 hostages back that he himself agrees got railroaded.

Now...can you answer my question?

So, I'll point it out to you.

1. Bergedahl was a member of our armed services. As such, he's considered property of the U.S. And, the tradition of leaving no man left behind, is a long standing military tradition. There are two reasons for the tradition. First, for the soldier lost on the battlefield or captured by the enemy, s/he can gain comfort and encouragement that all means will be exercised to get him or her back to safety. Second, for the soldier who AWOL's, s/he will know that s/he will pay the price when s/he is found and returned. Another difference is that no sovereign country was having to be negotiated with regarding Bergendahl. So, there you have it; apples vs. oranges.  ;)

Now, if you are saying that there should not be any agreement with Iran, on limiting their nuclear program without the release of the hostages, that's bogus, because you don't really believe there should be a deal to begin with.

P.S. You have no idea what's going on behind the scenes regarding the release of the hostages.

But not THIS deal. This one is horrible. I would have demanded that they dismantled their entire nuke infrastructure and give UNSCOM unfettered access and then, and only then, would I remove the sanctions, after the hostages were on US soil.

The disaster witht this deal is that not only does it suck and will end with Iran getting a bomb, but we DONT get the hostages back to boot!

If you (Obama) are going to sign a shitty deal, at the very least get the hostages back!

Obama is a pussy Matt. The world knows it. Iran certainly does.

followme324 reads

Questions. I suggest you read up on the topics and get more informed then get back to us.

You're welcome
2016 = GOP WH, Senate and house

I already know the answers to them. And, for Jack to answer them, he will have to admit, or at least it will be obvious to most anyone else, that his comparison is bogus!

-- Modified on 7/15/2015 3:48:38 PM

followme310 reads

Sometimes  it is just so easy.

Just like the iranians played obama like a fiddle.

 
You're Welcome
2016 = GOP All The Way

followme442 reads

I use to mock you.

As for I've got nothing, I do not need anything you do it for me.

However I've got more than you are smart enough to realize.

 
You're Welcome
2016 = GOP All The Way

Register Now!