Spy agency heads: Dem "report" "biased, inaccurate, and destructive".

[Sho Nuff 720]

So it's ok to bomb and kill innocent civilians in the name of war but we can't get information by means necessary of those who declare war on us? Sleep depravation compared to beheadings is comparable?

 

Feinstein approved war after 9/11. She approves drone strikes that kill many innocent people. The fact that you understand that....the fact that she understands that.....makes every single one of you a Fawking hypocrite. Were at war. Water board me every day. If I can live, it's better than the alternative.

 

We don't specifically target innocent civilians and go out of our way to actually minimize those casualties.

 

Who is comparing sleep "depravation" to beheadings?

 

That fact that you continue to equate things that are not equal is hilarious.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Whole lot of fabricated outrage in this thread.

 

You betcha...you righties are all pissed off that people are against torture to the point you are making up ridiculous things to be outraged about.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Sad? Because I believe techniques that help save lives are proven to work? I'm claustrophobic. If you put me in a box and made me believe I was going to be buried alive I would tell you what you need to know. It's human nature to find ones weakness and exploit it.

 

I've got a suggestion for terrorist not wanting to get water boarded or made to listen to bad 80's music: Don't become a terrorist! You want to fight us and kill my fellow Americans with beheadings or road side bombs while not wearing a uniform and obeying laws set by the Geneva convention, don't become a terrorist.

 

It's people like you that give them the power to do what they do. Not the other way around like you believe. Your ilk appease these barbaric ideas and promote them. That's what's sad.

 

And what's sadder is the fact that only a hundred or so of these Fawkers that you weep for were interrogated using these techniques that you deplore while they and their kind killed thousands of soldiers and many more innocent civilians that these motherfawkers hid behind in the name of religion and holy war.

 

You are such a hypocritical SOB. And those like you who sit on their high horse trying to judge those who had one job: protect and uphold the constitution in which live by.

 

I guarantee that if your wife and child were in any kind of danger you'd do everything you could within reason to ensure their safety. Given the choice of their life or deaths.

 

If you say you wouldn't, I feel sorry for your wife and child. I feel sorry for you. And I feel sorry for all of those who are as ignorant and biased as you.

 

War isn't pretty. It never has been.

Very well said.

[HenryHill9323 65]

 

 

That fact that you continue to equate things that are not equal is hilarious.

Sez the guy trying to equate Christianity with support of IETs.

[Mike Honcho 5,435]

In 1988, Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which stated that torture could be used under "no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever."

 

[Frank M 181]

 

 

But that was before we really needed it, so it doesn't count.

[HenryHill9323 65]

LMAO at the bored libs hanging their propeller hats on Reagan and McCain.

 

Funny how some doddering old fart and a guy libs claimed was senile in 1988 are all the sudden their heroes.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

So it's ok to bomb and kill innocent civilians in the name of war but we can't get information by means necessary of those who declare war on us? Sleep depravation compared to beheadings is comparable?

 

Feinstein approved war after 9/11. She approves drone strikes that kill many innocent people. The fact that you understand that....the fact that she understands that.....makes every single one of you a Fawking hypocrite. Were at war. Water board me every day. If I can live, it's better than the alternative.

Collateral damage is an unavoidable consequence of war. That's one of the main reasons I'm against war except where it's truly necessary (hint: Georgie's little foray into Iraq did not qualify as necessary).

 

Torture is not an unavoidable consequence of war.

 

I'm really a little shocked you can't see the distinction. I mean, why do you think the folks who drafted the Geneva convention and other international agreements specifically forbade torture. Just for the fock of it? Just sounded good at the time?

 

There is a long, important history behind the prohibition on torture but you focking cowards think you're so smart you'll just toss all of that out the window because you're terrified some bogeyman in the middle east is going to come bomb your sh!thole little town. Do you even know how remote the odds of that are?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Does the 8th Amendment include cruel and unusual punishment by foreign fighters not Americans?

 

You despise religion but give these fawk heads a break who do what they do because of religion. Why?

The Constitution says treaties we enter into are the supreme law of the land. Ergo violating the Geneva conventions is a violation of the constitution.

 

Of all the focking stupid, cowardly things you have said in this thread (and there are a LOT of them), this idea that somehow torturing people is in DEFENSE of the constitution really take the cake. Seriously, I never thought you were focking retarded until this thread, but here we are

[IGotWorms 4,063]

For the severely uninformed:

 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

[HenryHill9323 65]

If terrorists want to be covered by the Geneva Conventions they should put on a uniform and fight for a specific country. As they operate now, they are not covered.

[Reality 3,121]

Enemy or unlawful combatants weren't given POW status under the Geneva Convention.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Here comes the spin patrol. Nice job parroting the bush administration's line fellas - glad to see you're still up for it six years after the fact. Cute little workaround there - just say they aren't soldiers in an actual declared war and you're good! Brilliant. Nobody focking buys it

 

Face it, you guys looked like cowardly focktards in this thread. Voltaire won it ten times over and a few others did a little cleanup.

 

Thread ovah

[HenryHill9323 65]

Were terrorists covered by the Geneva Conventions when we were using EITs?

 

Simple yes or no question.

[Reality 3,121]

Here comes the spin patrol.

 

Face it, you guys looked like cowardly focktards in this thread. Voltaire won it ten times over and a few others did a little cleanup.

 

Thread ovah

Just stating fact. Carry on.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

"EITs"

 

"Enemy combatants"

 

You're sure working awful hard to call things by a different name. Wonder why that is

 

But oops, like I said, this thread was over a while ago. Have fun with your desperate little spin job

[Sho Nuff 720]

Here comes the spin patrol. Nice job parroting the bush administration's line fellas - glad to see you're still up for it six years after the fact. Cute little workaround there - just say they aren't soldiers in an actual declared war and you're good! Brilliant. Nobody focking buys it

 

Face it, you guys looked like cowardly focktards in this thread. Voltaire won it ten times over and a few others did a little cleanup.

 

Thread ovah

 

 

But...but...but...CIA guys, Leon Panetta all said things are good with it.

[Sho Nuff 720]

"EITs"

 

"Enemy combatants"

 

You're sure working awful hard to call things by a different name. Wonder why that is

 

But oops, like I said, this thread was over a while ago. Have fun with your desperate little spin job

 

Its the same type of people who gave us "freedom" fries after 9/11. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer we are talking about.

[HenryHill9323 65]

"EITs"

 

"Enemy combatants"

 

You're sure working awful hard to call things by a different name. Wonder why that is

 

But oops, like I said, this thread was over a while ago. Have fun with your desperate little spin job

I don't let DiFi tell me how to define things, unlike you.

 

You are dodging a simple question. Why is that?

[HenryHill9323 65]

 

 

But...but...but...CIA guys, Leon Panetta all said things are good with it.

DiFi didn't interview A SINGLE CIA operative involved in all this.

 

Some "investigation".

[Reality 3,121]

"EITs"

 

"Enemy combatants"

 

You're sure working awful hard to call things by a different name. Wonder why that is

 

But oops, like I said, this thread was over a while ago. Have fun with your desperate little spin job

Worms, I've got to give it to you brother. It doesn't matter how many times you come off looking like a complete fkn retard you always come back for more. The threads dealing with matters of law are usually my favorite.

 

Well hey, look on the brightside, you'll always have that mental powerhouse Sho following you around letting you know how awesome you are doing. So, you got that.

 

[drobeski 3,061]

Worms, I've got to give it to you brother. It doesn't matter how many times you come off looking like a complete fkn retard you always come back for more. The threads dealing with matters of law are usually my favorite.

 

Well hey, look on the brightside, you'll always have that mental powerhouse Sho following you around letting you know how awesome you are doing. So, you got that.

 

nailed it

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I don't let DiFi tell me how to define things, unlike you.

 

You are dodging a simple question. Why is that?

I didn't dodge it - I told you that I reject that stupid focking "enemy combatant" distinction the bush administration came up with. It was an obvious attempt to pull an end around the law back then and it's only become more ridiculous with age.

 

For example: when was the last formally declared war between nations? Has there even been one since WW2? So by your logic, the Geneva conventions and other treaties on torture are just quaint little outmoded documents that don't apply in the modern world, ever. That's beyond ridiculous

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Sad group of the usual focktards sticking this one out:

 

- RP? Check.

- "Reality"? Check.

- drobeski? Check.

 

Quit the triumvirate there!

[HenryHill9323 65]

I didn't dodge it - I told you that I reject that stupid focking "enemy combatant" distinction the bush administration came up with. It was an obvious attempt to pull an end around the law back then and it's only become more ridiculous with age.

 

For example: when was the last formally declared war between nations? Has there even been one since WW2? So by your logic, the Geneva conventions and other treaties on torture are just quaint little outmoded documents that don't apply in the modern world, ever. That's beyond ridiculous

No. I said terrorists don't qualify for coverage under the Geneva Conventions. You having trouble reading simple sentences?

 

Do they wear uniforms? Do they fight for the Govt of a particular country? The answers are no, and no.

 

So that eliminates them from consideration for GC protections.

 

Dammit Boy, you get more legal education on this lil board than you ever did in your pretend law school.

[MDC 7,888]

My opposition to torture / EITs is primarily because it doesn't work. Whatever valuable intel we get from torture is more than offset by the time and resources we waste tracking down false info gathered via torture. Like I said before, a big part of the reason for the war in Iraq was evidence of an al Qaida / Saddam link that we gathered through EITs. I've noticed those who like to credit EITs with gathering info we used to get bin Laden don't like to fault those tactics for giving us the intel used to invade Iraq.

 

In an actual ticking timebomb scenario I'd trust our troops / law enforcement etc. to weigh the seriousness and scale of the threat and decide whether it warrants tactics that are outside the law. Once you start calling torture "EITs" though and make it legal, torture is going to be the first means of gathering intelligence and eventually you get situations like Abu Ghraib where torture becomes the norm and captors start resorting to humiliation and abuse just for fun.

 

Finally, I don't think we're doing our men and women in uniform a good service by telling them to go ahead and torture prisoners. Not because al Qaida will pay them back. Terrorists are going to use torture anyway. Because I worry about what it does to the torturer psychologically and because even if our own government says EITs are okay that won't protect our solders from international law.

 

My two cents.

[HenryHill9323 65]

My opposition to torture / EITs is primarily because it doesn't work. Whatever valuable intel we get from torture is more than offset by the time and resources we waste tracking down false info gathered via torture. Like I said before, a big part of the reason for the war in Iraq was evidence of an al Qaida / Saddam link that we gathered through EITs. I've noticed those who like to credit EITs with gathering info we used to get bin Laden don't like to fault those tactics for giving us the intel used to invade Iraq.

 

In an actual ticking timebomb scenario I'd trust our troops / law enforcement etc. to weigh the seriousness and scale of the threat and decide whether it warrants tactics that are outside the law. Once you start calling torture "EITs" though and make it legal, torture is going to be the first means of gathering intelligence and eventually you get situations like Abu Ghraib where torture becomes the norm and captors start resorting to humiliation and abuse just for fun.

 

Finally, I don't think we're doing our men and women in uniform a good service by telling them to go ahead and torture prisoners. Not because al Qaida will pay them back. Terrorists are going to use torture anyway. Because I worry about what it does to the torturer psychologically and because even if our own government says EITs are okay that won't protect our solders from international law.

 

My two cents.

who were these EITs used on that led us into the Iraq war?

 

Going into Iraq was based on Saddam not adhering to the Cease Fire Agreement and 17 UN resolutions. I don't recall anything about us using EITs to gather intel for the Iraq war.

 

What do you have to back this up?

[Frank M 181]

LMAO at the bored libs hanging their propeller hats on Reagan and McCain.

 

Funny how some doddering old fart and a guy libs claimed was senile in 1988 are all the sudden their heroes.

 

Funny how the board Repubes don't trust the government to do anything right, but when it comes to torturing people, suddenly the government is a-ok!

 

[Frank M 181]

Collateral damage is an unavoidable consequence of war. That's one of the main reasons I'm against war except where it's truly necessary (hint: Georgie's little foray into Iraq did not qualify as necessary).

 

Torture is not an unavoidable consequence of war.

 

I'm really a little shocked you can't see the distinction. I mean, why do you think the folks who drafted the Geneva convention and other international agreements specifically forbade torture. Just for the fock of it? Just sounded good at the time?

 

There is a long, important history behind the prohibition on torture but you focking cowards think you're so smart you'll just toss all of that out the window because you're terrified some bogeyman in the middle east is going to come bomb your sh!thole little town. Do you even know how remote the odds of that are?

 

Why are you shocked? This type of retardation is par for the course.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

Why are you shocked? This type of retardation is par for the course.

I expected a little more from bunny. Not sure why.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,602]

I expected a little more from bunny. Not sure why.

 

 

I have no problem with the way we use torture. I don't believe we use it for anything other than to gain intelligence from our enemies. I don't believe we use it to inflict physical/emotional pain as a form of punishment or revenge. If we did, I would be 100% against it. But since we don't use it in those ways, I'm a supporter.

[Frank M 181]

 

 

I have no problem with the way we use torture. I don't believe we use it for anything other than to gain intelligence from our enemies. I don't believe we use it to inflict physical/emotional pain as a form of punishment or revenge. If we did, I would be 100% against it. But since we don't use it in those ways, I'm a supporter.

 

You have officially renounced your right to call another person a sheep.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,602]

 

You have officially renounced your right to call another person a sheep.

 

 

I've never called someone a sheep. Poosay quite a few times. But never a sheep.

[Frank M 181]

 

 

I've never called someone a sheep. Poosay quite a few times. But never a sheep.

 

That's good, because you are one. Actually, you're both.

 

[drobeski 3,061]

 

That's good, because you are one. Actually, you're both.

 

he's not the one buying the bogus opinion piece or bowing down to Allah.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

 

I've never called someone a sheep. Poosay quite a few times. But never a sheep.

Funny since you're apparently a coward

[Frank M 181]

he's not the one buying the bogus opinion piece or bowing down to Allah.

 

No, he and you are just buying the CIA line that they need to hang guys up until they sh1t themselves so that Rahim won't come over here and blow up Grandma on her way to Sunday bingo.

[Frank M 181]

Funny since you're apparently a coward

 

I'm not afraid that I'll get blown up unless someone gets waterboarded. That's drobs and bunny.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,602]

 

That's good, because you are one. Actually, you're both.

 

 

I appreciate the compliment.

[Frank M 181]

 

I appreciate the compliment.

 

You appreciate the compliment that you're a sheep and a pvssy?

 

 

You're welcome, I guess.