PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Conservative Talk Show Host Waterboarding Lasts 6 seconds!


Pages : [1] 2

VAChief
05-22-2009, 06:16 PM
Mancow lasted 6 seconds...to his credit he reversed his view. Link below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/22/mancow-muller-conservativ_n_206919.html

googlegoogle
05-22-2009, 06:20 PM
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/22/conservative-radio-host-mancow-vs-waterboard-h2-oh-lord-pleas/

MANCOW! LOL. He was a morning zoo radio guy! He's no conservative. Another fake getting on the bandwagon.

VAChief
05-22-2009, 06:27 PM
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/22/conservative-radio-host-mancow-vs-waterboard-h2-oh-lord-pleas/

MANCOW! LOL. He was a morning zoo radio guy! He's no conservative. Another fake getting on the bandwagon.

Neither is Hannity or any of the idiots leading the opposition. The point is those claiming it isn't torture change their tune as soon as they try it. Hannity just happens to be a pussy.

Pay for view idea...Rush, Hannity, OReilly, Olbermann...Waterboarding tournament...like Urban Cowboy...last 10 seconds to advance!

We'll give Cheney a deferrment due to health concerns.

googlegoogle
05-22-2009, 06:40 PM
Neither is Hannity or any of the idiots leading the opposition. The point is those claiming it isn't torture change their tune as soon as they try it. Hannity just happens to be a pussy.

Pay for view idea...Rush, Hannity, OReilly, Olbermann...Waterboarding tournament...like Urban Cowboy...last 10 seconds to advance!

We'll give Cheney a deferrment due to health concerns.


i like torture as a means to get information.(if you call waterboarding torture which i still don't) Especially if my family were held hostage.

I'd like to see how you libs would feel if your family's lives were in danger. I'd love to see how you would react.

Our enemy was 'Beheading and executing prisoners'. But ohhh no. We need to give our prisoners bed,breakfast and a lawyer while they laugh their asses off.

Carry on with your bulls__t.

Reaper16
05-22-2009, 06:43 PM
i like torture as a means to get information.(if you call waterboarding torture which i still don't) Especially if my family were held hostage.

I'd like to see how you libs would feel if your family's lives were in danger. I'd love to see how you would react.

Our enemy was 'Beheading and executing prisoners'. But ohhh no. We need to give our prisoners bed,breakfast and a lawyer while they laugh their asses off.

Carry on with your bulls__t.
Warning! Evil monster not fit to be called human in the thread!

Mojo Jojo
05-22-2009, 06:45 PM
One...Mancow is NO conservative. He is just a shock jock wannabe. He has been fired from so many stations. Just a couple of years ago he was doing a web only show.

Two...They should keep him and torture him. It would be better for the few listeners he has.

jAZ
05-22-2009, 06:51 PM
It doesn't matter whether you call Mancow a Con or not. He was a defender of waterboarding until today.

Buzzsaw
05-22-2009, 06:57 PM
How come he couldn't just hold his breath? You'd think he could at least make it 30 seconds just doing that, no?

jAZ
05-22-2009, 07:02 PM
How come he couldn't just hold his breath? You'd think he could at least make it 30 seconds just doing that, no?

That's what he thought too.

This is a seperate clip that explains what happens...

The issue is that they are pouring water up your nose. Basically drowning you. If you do it wrong it will kill you by drowning.

<embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1579920046" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=20047560001&playerId=1579920046&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

mikey23545
05-22-2009, 07:04 PM
Next I'll be reading about "conservative talk show host Howard Stern"....

jAZ
05-22-2009, 07:06 PM
Next I'll be reading about "conservative talk show host Howard Stern"....

Mancow defended waterboarding until today. That's what matters here.

VAChief
05-22-2009, 07:17 PM
i like torture as a means to get information.(if you call waterboarding torture which i still don't) Especially if my family were held hostage.

I'd like to see how you libs would feel if your family's lives were in danger. I'd love to see how you would react.

Our enemy was 'Beheading and executing prisoners'. But ohhh no. We need to give our prisoners bed,breakfast and a lawyer while they laugh their asses off.

Carry on with your bulls__t.

Who said anything about a bed and breakfast. Try them and execute the guilty just like we did with the Nazi criminals. You want us to behave like terrorists? Then you have given them exactly what they want. They know they can never, ever, ever defeat us with force. They can only attempt to spread irrational fear that turns us against what makes us great.

googlegoogle
05-22-2009, 07:19 PM
Mancow defended waterboarding until today. That's what matters here.

You don't get it. Nobody cares what Mancow thinks.

And waterboarding is not this.


http://www.hawaiilogue.com/files/2008/03/bogie_boarding.jpg

VAChief
05-22-2009, 07:21 PM
Next I'll be reading about "conservative talk show host Howard Stern"....

I don't really care whether he is a conservative or not, he was on record saying it wasn't torture as others like him Hannity, etc. He is the only one that at least was man enough to try it.

If you truly believe it isn't torture, basically just discomfort, why wouldn't you try it to prove it like this guy? And when I say you, I don't mean you personally just those usual tough talking pussies like Hannity. It just isn't credible.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 07:42 PM
I believe Mancow *is* a conservative and I believe he's entitled to his opinion about what constitutes torture. I don't believe that his opinion decides the issue though. There are quite a few conservatives who believe it's torture, but to their credit, most of them aren't calling George W. Bush a war criminal. That's how it should be when the subject is an arguable one on which reasonable people can differ.

How's he doing tonight? Any lingering effects or is he pretty much back to normal after a brief period of relatively intense discomfort?

Mr. Flopnuts
05-22-2009, 07:44 PM
That's what he thought too.

This is a seperate clip that explains what happens...

The issue is that they are pouring water up your nose. Basically drowning you. If you do it wrong it will kill you by drowning.

<embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1579920046" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=20047560001&playerId=1579920046&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

That's fucking disgusting. I can't imagine anyone supporting that except for the fear inspired folks the Republicans so desperately plea to.

Reaper16
05-22-2009, 08:10 PM
How's he doing tonight? Any lingering effects or is he pretty much back to normal after a brief period of relatively intense discomfort?
Jesus Christ, you're vile. I mean Grade A, 100% despicable.

Chief Henry
05-22-2009, 08:20 PM
If mancow said screwing young girls was not rape, the libs would be hailing him as
a credible source of information.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 08:21 PM
Jesus Christ, you're vile. I mean Grade A, 100% despicable.

Whatever. Do you know the answer or are you just sounding off? How on Earth is what you quoted despicable? It makes me wonder if you understand the meaning of that word.

Reaper16
05-22-2009, 08:29 PM
Whatever. Do you know the answer or are you just sounding off? How on Earth is what you quoted despicable? It makes me wonder if you understand the meaning of that word.
Everyone who supports torture is despicable.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 08:34 PM
Everyone who supports torture is despicable.

OK. I think people who want to coddle anti-American terrorists are despicable so I guess we're even. Not to mention the way you falsely accuse me of supporting torture.

Reaper16
05-22-2009, 08:36 PM
OK. I think people who want to coddle anti-American terrorists are despicable so I guess we're even. Not to mention the way you falsely accuse me of supporting torture.
lol

Cannibal
05-22-2009, 08:38 PM
Neither is Hannity or any of the idiots leading the opposition. The point is those claiming it isn't torture change their tune as soon as they try it. Hannity just happens to be a pussy.

Pay for view idea...Rush, Hannity, OReilly, Olbermann...Waterboarding tournament...like Urban Cowboy...last 10 seconds to advance!

We'll give Cheney a deferrment due to health concerns.

He's already had 5 deferrments. I would say he has used them up.

Cannibal
05-22-2009, 09:39 PM
How come he couldn't just hold his breath? You'd think he could at least make it 30 seconds just doing that, no?

You know ABSOLUTELY nothing about torture. Give me a chance to torture you, seriously. We'll see what's up after that.

BigRedChief
05-22-2009, 09:41 PM
Mancow used to be an intern for Johnny Dare. He's KC born and bred. Thought he was a shock jock for fm rock? How is he a "conservative" now?

Captain Obvious
05-22-2009, 09:48 PM
I think the labels of 'conservative' and 'liberal' have been thrown around so much that people don't understand what either of these words mean anymore.

Buzzsaw
05-22-2009, 09:48 PM
You know ABSOLUTELY nothing about torture.

Guess you missed the question mark(s). I was at work and couldn't turn up the sound. It really didn't even look like he made it 6 seconds, that's why I was asking.


Give me a chance to torture you, seriously. We'll see what's up after that.

I'm shaking in my boots ROFL GFY "Cannibal"

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 09:58 PM
i like torture as a means to get information.(if you call waterboarding torture which i still don't) Especially if my family were held hostage.
Well, then you're kind of an idiot. Even the agencies who were advocating it admitted that it's a pretty unreliable way to get information.

SBK
05-22-2009, 10:06 PM
He's already had 5 deferrments. I would say he has used them up.

You sure do use a lot of terms and implications basically calling people pussies. You name yourself cannibal, and put a pic of Chuck Norris for your avatar.

I'm just guessing here, but I bet you're one tough son of a bitch in real life.

Lzen
05-22-2009, 10:06 PM
Neither is Hannity or any of the idiots leading the opposition. The point is those claiming it isn't torture change their tune as soon as they try it. Hannity just happens to be a pussy.

Pay for view idea...Rush, Hannity, OReilly, Olbermann...Waterboarding tournament...like Urban Cowboy...last 10 seconds to advance!

We'll give Cheney a deferrment due to health concerns.

Of course, Rush or Hannity or O'Reily never were part of a terrorist plot that killed about 3k Americans. Those piles of dog shit (terrorists) can be skinned alive for all I care.

SBK
05-22-2009, 10:07 PM
Of course, Rush or Hannity or O'Reily never were part of a terrorist plot that killed about 3k Americans. Those piles of dog shit (terrorists) can be skinned alive for all I care.

But we're the US of A. We should be jumping rope and baking cookies with these poor, misunderstood gentle people of color.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 10:15 PM
Of course, Rush or Hannity or O'Reily never were part of a terrorist plot that killed about 3k Americans. Those piles of dog shit (terrorists) can be skinned alive for all I care.
The problem with torture is at least two-fold. First, it's terribly unreliable - people under torture will often tell you what you want to hear, whether it is true or not. They'll make up names just to make it stop, so the interrogators never really know how much is true and how much is made up. Then they go hunting down these other people whose names were dropped during torture, and torture them too, not really knowing if the people they are torturing were actually guilty of anything other than being Muslim and having a common Arabic name. So even putting the significant ethics questions aside, it's a piss-poor way to obtain information.

Lzen
05-22-2009, 10:16 PM
Well, then you're kind of an idiot. Even the agencies who were advocating it admitted that it's a pretty unreliable way to get information.

I thought it helped prevent a terrorist attack from info they got from Khalid Sheik Muhammad (sp?). Yeah, I understand that we don't want to become that kind of country. I don't really want to be that, either. But if it helps prevent a terrorist attack, I say use it. If it comes down to either we let people die because we don't want to lower ourselves to that or we do that and save lives, the choice seems pretty simple to me.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 10:20 PM
I thought it helped prevent a terrorist attack from info they got from Khalid Sheik Muhammad (sp?). Yeah, I understand that we don't want to become that kind of country. I don't really want to be that, either. But if it helps prevent a terrorist attack, I say use it. If it comes down to either we let people die because we don't want to lower ourselves to that or we do that and save lives, the choice seems pretty simple to me.
I remember reading something about the Khalid Sheik Muhammad thing. As I recall, they were able to obtain some useful information from him, but they never concluded that the information they obtained through waterboarding or other torture techniques was itself helpful. After all, waterboarding and torture were not the only methods they pursued with him, they also used conventional interrogation techniques, which are generally far more reliable.

googlegoogle
05-22-2009, 10:27 PM
Is the video accurate in how waterboarding is performed.

The video was nothing like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

It showed them holding his nose.

orange
05-22-2009, 10:36 PM
VideoWLS radio host Mancow Muller subjects himself to waterboarding.


Shock jocks shock.

And so it went Friday morning when WLS radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided to subject himself to the controversial practice of waterboarding live on his show.

Mancow decided to tackle the divisive issue head on -- actually it was head down, while restrained and reclining.

"I want to find out if it's torture," Mancow told his listeners Friday morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture.

The debate over whether waterboarding constitutes torture reached a fever pitch this week as re-ignited claims that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) knew as early as 2002 about waterboarding techniques being used, and former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Barack Obama gave "dueling speeches" Thursday.

Listeners had the chance to decide whether Mancow himself or his co-host, Chicago radio personality Pat Cassidy, would undergo the interrogation method during the broadcast. The voters ultimately decided Mancow would be the one donning the soaked towel and shackles, and at about 8:40 a.m., he entered a small storage room next to his studio that was compared to a "dungeon" by Cassidy.

"The average person can take this for 14 seconds," Marine Sergeant Clay South answered, adding, "He's going to wiggle, he's going to scream, he's going to wish he never did this."

With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand, Mancow was placed on a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.

Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

Last year, Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens endured the same experiment -- and came to a similar conclusion. The conservative writer said he found the treatment terrifying, and was haunted by it for months afterward.

"Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture," Hitchens concluded in the article.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.html

Fat Elvis
05-22-2009, 10:36 PM
Well, then you're kind of an idiot. .

With regards to googlegoogle, you could of stopped right there....

orange
05-22-2009, 10:37 PM
Is the video accurate in how waterboarding is performed.

The video was nothing like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

It showed them holding his nose.


Tell the Marine Sergeant he doesn't know what he's talking about. :spock:

BucEyedPea
05-22-2009, 10:48 PM
How long does a beheading last? Or a guillotine? Just curious.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:05 PM
Well, then you're kind of an idiot. Even the agencies who were advocating it admitted that it's a pretty unreliable way to get information.

No they didn't. At least not like you describe it. How about a direct quote?

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:06 PM
The problem with torture is at least two-fold. First, it's terribly unreliable - people under torture will often tell you what you want to hear, whether it is true or not. They'll make up names just to make it stop, so the interrogators never really know how much is true and how much is made up. Then they go hunting down these other people whose names were dropped during torture, and torture them too, not really knowing if the people they are torturing were actually guilty of anything other than being Muslim and having a common Arabic name. So even putting the significant ethics questions aside, it's a piss-poor way to obtain information.

If it was so unreliable Obama would have released the results, as well as the memos. The fact that he's released the memos to score political points, but won't release the results should bring a least a few of his disciples to at least question his motive....or whether they've been lied to about how well it works.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:07 PM
I remember reading something about the Khalid Sheik Muhammad thing. As I recall, they were able to obtain some useful information from him, but they never concluded that the information they obtained through waterboarding or other torture techniques was itself helpful. After all, waterboarding and torture were not the only methods they pursued with him, they also used conventional interrogation techniques, which are generally far more reliable.

Explain why the former VP is publically calling for the information gained from EIT's to be released, which is information he knows afterall, and why the current President will only release what the EIT's were.....

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:11 PM
I remember reading something about the Khalid Sheik Muhammad thing. As I recall, they were able to obtain some useful information from him, but they never concluded that the information they obtained through waterboarding or other torture techniques was itself helpful. After all, waterboarding and torture were not the only methods they pursued with him, they also used conventional interrogation techniques, which are generally far more reliable.

Nightwish, torture expert. LMAO

Whatever leftwing blog you read that on didn't know any more about the KSM interrogation than you do, which is next to nothing.

But that doesn't stop you from posing as an expert on the subject.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:19 PM
Mancow used to be an intern for Johnny Dare. He's KC born and bred. Thought he was a shock jock for fm rock? How is he a "conservative" now?

You can be both a conservative and a shock jock. The two are not incompatible. I wouldn't be that surprised if I found out that Johnny Dare was a conservative, but I don't have any knowledge of his political opinions.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:21 PM
Nobody knows the answer to my questions?

How's he doing tonight? Any lingering effects or is he pretty much back to normal after a brief period of relatively intense discomfort?

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:26 PM
Nightwish, torture expert. LMAO
Patteeu, torture expert. ROFL

Whatever leftwing blog you read that on didn't know any more about the KSM interrogation than you do, which is next to nothing.
I don't remember where I read it, but I can guarantee you it wasn't a left-wing blog, since the one and only time I've ever read a left-wing blog was when I looked up Perez Hilton's while I was arguing on one of Comanche's many threads about Carrie Prejean. After the Prejean incident, I casually glanced at several just to see who was saying what, but other than that, I tend to avoid blogs (left or right-wing) like the plague, because they're worthless. But I can also guarantee you one other thing - you don't know any more about what went on with KSM, the techniques that were used on him, and which techniques resulted in what information than I do.

But that doesn't stop you from posing as an expert on the subject.

penchief
05-22-2009, 11:27 PM
OK. I think people who want to coddle anti-American terrorists are despicable so I guess we're even. Not to mention the way you falsely accuse me of supporting torture.

A few random thoughts:

Torture itself is a terrorist act.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What about someone who is mistakenly identified as a "terrorists" and wrongly tortured?

Waterboarding IS torture.

America has always considered waterboarding torture until the Cheney Doctrine has convinced a few right wing fascists differently.

Torture has defiled America's good name.

Dick Cheney is sadistic egotistical self-serving POS.

You are a Dick Cheney disciple.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:27 PM
Nobody knows the answer to my questions?
Wrong verb. The correct verb would be "cares."

penchief
05-22-2009, 11:29 PM
Nobody knows the answer to my questions?

Haven't people died from that shit before?

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:32 PM
Explain why the former VP is publically calling for the information gained from EIT's to be released, which is information he knows afterall, and why the current President will only release what the EIT's were.....
They both called for the release of information from certain memos for the same reason - to support their side of the story. Obama released the ones that didn't turn up useful information in an attempt to show that the techniques aren't worth pursuing. Cheney called for the release of *two* memos that he believes will show some useful information was culled, in an attempt to show the techniques are worth pursuing. Obama is shading the fact that sometimes useful information can be obtained, and Cheney is shading the fact that the frequency with which useful information is obtained, versus unreliable information, is not as good as he wants us to believe.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:33 PM
A few random thoughts:

Torture itself is a terrorist act.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What about someone who is mistakenly identified as a "terrorists" and wrongly tortured?

Waterboarding IS torture.

America has always considered waterboarding torture until the Cheney Doctrine has convinced a few right wing fascists differently.

Torture has defiled America's good name.

Dick Cheney is sadistic egotistical self-serving POS.

You are a Dick Cheney disciple.

Why won't Obama release the information gained from such a worthless tactic. He could end this debate, and smash to pieces what Cheney is saying by simply releasing the information.

penchief
05-22-2009, 11:34 PM
He's already had 5 deferrments. I would say he has used them up.

Dick Cheney = Papa Chickenhawk

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:35 PM
No they didn't. At least not like you describe it.
Yes, they did. And the fact that you had to offer up a caveat, despite the fact that I didn't actually describe anything specific (in fact, I left it pretty open), tells me that you know it too.

penchief
05-22-2009, 11:36 PM
I think the labels of 'conservative' and 'liberal' have been thrown around so much that people don't understand what either of these words mean anymore.

Agreed. I get called a communist more than anybody around here but I'm fundamentally more conservative than a large portion of righties on this board. There is nothing "conservative" about torture.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:36 PM
They both called for the release of information from certain memos for the same reason - to support their side of the story. Obama released the ones that didn't turn up useful information in an attempt to show that the techniques aren't worth pursuing. Cheney called for the release of *two* memos that he believes will show some useful information was culled, in an attempt to show the techniques are worth pursuing. Obama is shading the fact that sometimes useful information can be obtained, and Cheney is shading the fact that the frequency with which useful information is obtained, versus unreliable information, is not as good as he wants us to believe.

I would say the information gained is a much more important memo, wouldn't you?

If these techniques have in fact saved thousands of lives, as Cheney has has said, maybe that's something the American people should be able to see as a fact or a lie.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:37 PM
Agreed. I get called a communist more than anybody around here but I'm fundamentally more conservative than a large portion of righties on this board. There is nothing "conservative" about torture.

You're not right of hardly anyone here dude. You're a nice guy though.

penchief
05-22-2009, 11:40 PM
You sure do use a lot of terms and implications basically calling people pussies. You name yourself cannibal, and put a pic of Chuck Norris for your avatar.

I'm just guessing here, but I bet you're one tough son of a bitch in real life.

You don't have to be very tough to be tougher than Dick Cheney. Cheney is a classic example of someone who is overcompensating. Dude has John Wayne syndrome to the max. He's too much of a pussy to defend his own country but has assumed the role of his country's foremost advocate of aggressive war and torture.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:43 PM
You don't have to be very tough to be tougher than Dick Cheney. Cheney is a classic example of someone who is overcompensating. Dude has John Wayne syndrome to the max. He's too much of a pussy to defend his own country but has assumed the role of his country's foremost advocate of aggressive war and torture.

You've met him? You play golf with him or something?

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:44 PM
A few random thoughts:

Torture itself is a terrorist act.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What about someone who is mistakenly identified as a "terrorists" and wrongly tortured?

Waterboarding IS torture.

America has always considered waterboarding torture until the Cheney Doctrine has convinced a few right wing fascists differently.

Torture has defiled America's good name.

Dick Cheney is sadistic egotistical self-serving POS.

You are a Dick Cheney disciple.

I'm going to give you credit for two correct statements.

penchief
05-22-2009, 11:46 PM
But we're the US of A. We should be jumping rope and baking cookies with these poor, misunderstood gentle people of color.

No, we should be going after them. But we will never beat them by lowering ourselves to their level. That is a very fundamental truth that should be obvious to everyone. But unfortunatley, the right wing mentality doesn't allow for that kind of thinking. The right wing mentality is reactionary instead of logical.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:47 PM
Yes, they did. And the fact that you had to offer up a caveat, despite the fact that I didn't actually describe anything specific (in fact, I left it pretty open), tells me that you know it too.

Your intuition is wrong as usual. If you aren't willing to show us what you're talking about, I guess my caveat was unnecessary. I think you're blowing smoke.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:47 PM
I would say the information gained is a much more important memo, wouldn't you?
No, I wouldn't. It goes to patterns and frequency, reliability overall. Torturing dozens of people who may or may not be guilty of anything (the interrogators don't know) is not suddenly made okay just because one guy said something useful.

If these techniques have in fact saved thousands of lives, as Cheney has has said, maybe that's something the American people should be able to see as a fact or a lie.
Here's what Politico's fact-finding team had to say about Cheney's dubious claims about saving "thousands of lives":

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090521/pl_politico/22831


CHENEY: “The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people.”

The reality: This assertion can’t be verified based on the current record. And it may ultimately be unknowable.

Cheney didn’t cite any specific plots that were disrupted by aggressive interrogations. Bush did describe some in a speech in 2005. However, critics immediately seized on that address for portraying some fantastical plots as realistic. Also at least one major plot Bush claimed was “disrupted,” a plan to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles, only came to the U.S.’s attention after plotters had been picked up abroad.
Cheney is seeking the release of CIA reports that purport to show information gained from the so-called enhanced interrogations. But the fact that suspects gave up information after harsh questioning doesn’t definitively preclude the possibility that they might have given up information through less physical forms of interrogation – which is one of Obama’s central points.

There are several more examples of where both Cheney and Obama shaded the truth in their dualing speeches, though the final analysis appears to show that Cheney took a bit more creative license with the truth than Obama did.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:50 PM
Your intuition is wrong as usual.
Nope, in fact, I'm pretty sure it is spot on. You exposed yourself for already knowing what I was talking about, now you'll have to live with it. You can't now say that you knew it was true and didn't know it was true at the same time, which is what you're basically trying to say.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:50 PM
You don't have to be very tough to be tougher than Dick Cheney. Cheney is a classic example of someone who is overcompensating. Dude has John Wayne syndrome to the max. He's too much of a pussy to defend his own country but has assumed the role of his country's foremost advocate of aggressive war and torture.

Cheney considered a guy a friend in the morning and shot him in the face in the afternoon just because the guy stepped out of line. He doesn't take shit from anyone. Of course, he's quick to forgive too and he and the guy were friends again shortly thereafter.

penchief
05-22-2009, 11:51 PM
I'm going to give you credit for two correct statements.

And I'll give you credit for being persistent in your defense of the indefensible. I used to think it was a show but I am convinced that you actually believe the Cheneycons are the best thing to ever happen to this country. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Are you related to Dick Cheney? Seriously.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:51 PM
No, we should be going after them. But we will never beat them by lowering ourselves to their level. That is a very fundamental truth that should be obvious to everyone. But unfortunatley, the right wing mentality doesn't allow for that kind of thinking. The right wing mentality is reactionary instead of logical.

Um, the right wing thinker uses logic, the left wing thinker uses emotion. This isn't something new, or something that hasn't been discussed before.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:52 PM
And I'll give you credit for being persistent in your defense of the indefensible. I used to think it was a show but I am convinced that you actually believe the Cheneycons are the best thing to ever happen to this country. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Are you related to Dick Cheney? Seriously.

You're the one that knows Cheney. You told us all what the man is really like.

orange
05-22-2009, 11:52 PM
And I'll give you credit for being persistent in your defense of the indefensible. I used to think it was a show but I am convinced that you actually believe the Cheneycons are the best thing to ever happen to this country. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Are you related to Dick Cheney? Seriously.

If you are, then you're related to Obama, too.
Maybe you swing some perks out of this.

SBK
05-22-2009, 11:53 PM
There are several more examples of where both Cheney and Obama shaded the truth in their dualing speeches, though the final analysis appears to show that Cheney took a bit more creative license with the truth than Obama did.

There is one way to end this debate. Slam dunk, over, winner declared. The man with the power to end it won't. Why?

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:54 PM
No, we should be going after them. But we will never beat them by lowering ourselves to their level. That is a very fundamental truth that should be obvious to everyone. But unfortunatley, the right wing mentality doesn't allow for that kind of thinking. The right wing mentality is reactionary instead of logical.

Lowering ourselves to their level? It's when people say things like this that I know they are too far gone for rational discussion. But I agree with SBK that your a nice guy.

orange
05-22-2009, 11:55 PM
There is one way to end this debate. Slam dunk, over, winner declared. The man with the power to end it won't. Why?

You can't believe it will end the debate. There will always be the question of "what's in the unrevealed documents."

Maybe Cheney's denied request includes Obama's original birth certificate.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:56 PM
Nope, in fact, I'm pretty sure it is spot on. You exposed yourself for already knowing what I was talking about, now you'll have to live with it. You can't now say that you knew it was true and didn't know it was true at the same time, which is what you're basically trying to say.

I don't know what you're talking about and since you apparently aren't interested in explaining it, I doubt that anyone else does either. But everyone knows that I'm calling you a liar. It sounds a lot like I was right when I guessed that "they" didn't say what you said "they" said (whoever "they" are).

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:57 PM
I'm going to give you credit for two correct statements.
Now let's look at the rest of them and see what your refusal to consider them correct statements tells us about you.

Torture itself is a terrorist act.
It's rhetoric, so I'm not going to argue that one either way.

What about someone who is mistakenly identified as a "terrorists" and wrongly tortured?
If you don't view this likelihood as worthy of consideration, it tells me you have some serious ethical issues and twisted priorities.

Waterboarding IS torture.
If you don't feel this is true, it tells us what we already knew - that your priorities are seriously out of whack, and that there are no evils that you won't condone as long as your Lord and Savior Dick Cheney approves them.

America has always considered waterboarding torture until the Cheney Doctrine has convinced a few right wing fascists differently.
I don't know if this is true or not.

Torture has defiled America's good name.
Bush's own hand-picked SecDef Robert Gates made this very comment himself.

You are a Dick Cheney disciple.
This one proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're a moronic twit.

penchief
05-22-2009, 11:58 PM
Why won't Obama release the information gained from such a worthless tactic. He could end this debate, and smash to pieces what Cheney is saying by simply releasing the information.

Haven't people who've actually administered waterboarding said they believe it doesn't render useful intelligence? Dickless Cheney is the only person trying to sell his tripe. And it's quite obvious that he's doing it for posterity's sake. He's on the wrong side of history and he knows it. He's trying to justify the horrible actions of the Bush/Cheney administration.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:59 PM
I don't know what you're talking about and since you apparently aren't interested in explaining it, I doubt that anyone else does either. But everyone knows that I'm calling you a liar.
A known liar calling someone else a liar doesn't carry a lot of weight, I'm sorry. You can lie and squirm and claim that your caveat didn't provide acknowledgement that you knew that what I had broadly claimed was true in at least some sense, but the only one who is going to believe your squirming is you.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:00 AM
And I'll give you credit for being persistent in your defense of the indefensible. I used to think it was a show but I am convinced that you actually believe the Cheneycons are the best thing to ever happen to this country. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Are you related to Dick Cheney? Seriously.

Not that I know of.

penchief
05-23-2009, 12:01 AM
You're not right of hardly anyone here dude. You're a nice guy though.

I never said I was to the right of anyone. I said I'm more conservative than a lot of people on the right who call themselves conservative. I don't necessarily believe that being on the right equates to being conservative. The neo righties in this country have proven to be more radical and extreme than conservative.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:03 AM
There is one way to end this debate. Slam dunk, over, winner declared. The man with the power to end it won't. Why?
I don't know, you'll have to ask him. He also blocked photos of some of the interrogations from being released. Photos don't show the results of the interrogations, so that tells me there is some reasoning for barring those memos and photos that goes beyond the simple reasons you're arguing.

penchief
05-23-2009, 12:03 AM
Um, the right wing thinker uses logic, the left wing thinker uses emotion. This isn't something new, or something that hasn't been discussed before.

It's not logical to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us. Aggressive war is not logical. Torture is not logical.

Following the rule of law IS logical.

Being idealistic doesn't mean being illogical. Being reactionary leads to overreacting to a situation. Shooting first and asking questions later is a classic example of the reactionary tendencies of the right wing. So is the illogical resistance to change that the right wing is famously know for.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:05 AM
A known liar calling someone else a liar doesn't carry a lot of weight, I'm sorry. You can lie and squirm and claim that your caveat didn't provide acknowledgement that you knew that what I had broadly claimed was true in at least some sense, but the only one who is going to believe your squirming is you.

It's idiotic to say that my caveat proves anything. Your refusal to explain what you had in mind doesn't prove you're a liar either, but I think it looks a lot worse for you than it does for me. I guess we can leave it there if you want to because the ball's completely in your court.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:06 AM
I never said I was to the right of anyone. I said I'm more conservative than a lot of people on the right who call themselves conservative. I don't necessarily believe that being on the right equates to being conservative. The neo righties in this country have proven to be more radical and extreme than conservative.
I've pointed that out before a number of times. Some of these guys that are all gung-ho for waging war to spread democracy, ideology and free people from oppression don't realize what a liberal concept that is. In many ways, patteeu is one of the most liberal posters on this board (in fact, he worships the neocons, who are a radical liberal organization). Of course, he'll pull out his hair if you ever tell him to his face that he's a liberal. He's kind of an idiot that way.

penchief
05-23-2009, 12:09 AM
You're the one that knows Cheney. You told us all what the man is really like.

I'm giving you my opinion based on observing his conduct on the public stage for the past decade. Clearly, there is a large enough body of work to form a well-informed opinion.

Anyone who would idolize Papa Chickenhawk to the degree that patteeu does has to be related.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:10 AM
It's idiotic to say that my caveat proves anything.
Hardly, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to make it.

Your refusal to explain what you had in mind doesn't prove you're a liar either, but I think it looks a lot worse for you than it does for me.
You can think that if you like. In fact, the more you think that, the better it looks for me, because we all know that your thinking and reality don't often mix.

I guess we can leave it there if you want to because the ball's completely in your court.
I may look it up when I'm less tired. For now, I'm content just knowing that you know and that you're afraid to admit it. Mostly, nobody else cares.

penchief
05-23-2009, 12:10 AM
If you are, then you're related to Obama, too.
Maybe you swing some perks out of this.

I don't idolize Obama the way patteeu idolizes Cheney.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:13 AM
Um, the right wing thinker uses logic, the left wing thinker uses emotion.
Although some folks like to spout this bumper sticker philosophy (mostly right-wingers, it seems), there isn't much truth to it. One look at these boards, or one quick listen to Hannity or Limbaugh will tell you that the right wing is just as prone to emotion and just as devoid of logic as their opposites.

penchief
05-23-2009, 12:13 AM
Lowering ourselves to their level? It's when people say things like this that I know they are too far gone for rational discussion. But I agree with SBK that your a nice guy.

How is torture and illegal detention not lowering ourselves to the level of that which this country has always opposed.

There is nothing "far gone" about wanting America to stand on her principles and not succumb to behavior that we have historically stood against.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:14 AM
Anyone who would idolize Papa Chickenhawk to the degree that patteeu does has to be related.
Or a cultist.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:16 AM
I've pointed that out before a number of times. Some of these guys that are all gung-ho for waging war to spread democracy, ideology and free people from oppression don't realize what a liberal concept that is. In many ways, patteeu is one of the most liberal posters on this board (in fact, he worships the neocons, who are a radical liberal organization). Of course, he'll pull out his hair if you ever tell him to his face that he's a liberal. He's kind of an idiot that way.

It never surprises me when you are misinformed. One of the Bush foreign policy agenda items I've been most skeptical about was his emphasis on spreading democracy. And I've never claimed that freeing people from oppression should be a major factor in our foreign policy efforts. It's a nice byproduct sometimes, but national self interest is my sole focus. Call me a liberal if you want though. You get so many things wrong that one more isn't going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:20 AM
Hardly, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to make it.


You can think that if you like. In fact, the more you think that, the better it looks for me, because we all know that your thinking and reality don't often mix.


I may look it up when I'm less tired. For now, I'm content just knowing that you know and that you're afraid to admit it. Mostly, nobody else cares.

OK, I'll be holding my breath waiting for you to post your vindication. LOL

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:20 AM
It never surprises me when you are misinformed. One of the Bush foreign policy agenda items I've been most skeptical about was his emphasis on spreading democracy. And I've never claimed that freeing people from oppression should be a major factor in our foreign policy efforts. It's a nice byproduct sometimes, but national self interest is my sole focus. Call me a liberal if you want though. You get so many things wrong that one more isn't going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
I told you he'd pull his hair out. And I'm calling BS on the whole "skeptical about his emphasis on spreading democracy" bit. Not once have I ever seen you express the slightest criticism of that agenda, but I have seen you express support of it numerous times.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:21 AM
I don't idolize Obama the way patteeu idolizes Cheney.

I think he was saying that if I'm related to Cheney then I'd be related to Obama too since the two are distant relatives of each other.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:22 AM
OK, I'll be holding my breath waiting for you to post your vindication. LOL
I don't need to. You already know, despite all your backspinning to try to squirm out of having acknowledged it. Nobody else cares enough. But the exact quotes have been posted on these boards before in conversations that you've been a party to, so if it bothers you that much, I'm sure you can dig it up pretty easily on your own.

penchief
05-23-2009, 12:30 AM
I've pointed that out before a number of times. Some of these guys that are all gung-ho for waging war to spread democracy, ideology and free people from oppression don't realize what a liberal concept that is. In many ways, patteeu is one of the most liberal posters on this board (in fact, he worships the neocons, who are a radical liberal organization). Of course, he'll pull out his hair if you ever tell him to his face that he's a liberal. He's kind of an idiot that way.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. The neocons of today are not liberal in any way, shape, or form. Aggressive war is not a liberal ideal. Torture is not a liberal ideal. The consolidation of wealth and power via corporate supremacy is not a liberal ideal. Democracy may be a liberal ideal but not when it is forced at the end of a gun barrel.

This whole thingy dingy about the birth of the neocon movement is ancient history and irrelevant to the modern day neocons. It's just a way for the right wing to disown its own failure. Their actions are much more right wing than anything. War, torture, erosion of civil liberties, governmental secrecy, invasion of privacy, corporate supremacy, illegal detention, etc. are all antithetical to liberal ideals and have historically been products of right wing regimes.

The easiest way to rebut anyone who says they are liberal is to point to the support they had and the resistance they had. Liberals in this country hated everything the neocons stood for and correctly argued against their agenda. Those who call themselves conservatives voted for them, supported their agenda, and defended their failures until the bitter end.

There is nothing liberal at all about the neocons. I would also argue there is not much conservative about them, either.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:31 AM
How is torture and illegal detention not lowering ourselves to the level of that which this country has always opposed.

There is nothing "far gone" about wanting America to stand on her principles and not succumb to behavior that we have historically stood against.

Of course, I reject your "torture" and "illegal detention" characterizations, but I'll go so far as to agree that the point is arguable. The treatment an infidel prisoner (and even some muslim victims) of al Qaeda can expect is well beyond arguable. That itself shows that we haven't descended to their level. Add to that the fact that we take great care to avoid collateral damage where possible while they go out of their way to target innocents and it even more clearly distinguishes us from them. We are far from lowering ourselves to their level. However, we have "lowered" ourselves below the level of the high minded "red coats" (from our Revolutionary War) who thought it honorable to line up in neat little lines for battle instead of hiding behind cover and we have "lowered" ourselves by using standoff weapons that our opponents don't possess. I think "lowering" ourselves to become a more effective fighting force has been a splendid idea. If "lowering" ourselves to the level of harsh interrogations that don't break our anti-torture laws makes us more effective then I'm all for that too.

penchief
05-23-2009, 12:32 AM
I think he was saying that if I'm related to Cheney then I'd be related to Obama too since the two are distant relatives of each other.

Well that went right over my head.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:33 AM
I don't need to. You already know, despite all your backspinning to try to squirm out of having acknowledged it. Nobody else cares enough. But the exact quotes have been posted on these boards before in conversations that you've been a party to, so if it bothers you that much, I'm sure you can dig it up pretty easily on your own.

That's not going to be enough to vindicate you. Not even close. I still have no idea what you're talking about and my suspicion grows.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:35 AM
I told you he'd pull his hair out. And I'm calling BS on the whole "skeptical about his emphasis on spreading democracy" bit. Not once have I ever seen you express the slightest criticism of that agenda, but I have seen you express support of it numerous times.

I don't care what you think you remember. It's just another case of Nightwish=wrong.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:45 AM
I don't care what you think you remember. It's just another case of Nightwish=wrong.
No, it's another case of patteeu=lie.

stevieray
05-23-2009, 12:53 AM
That's not going to be enough to vindicate you. Not even close. I still have no idea what you're talking about and my suspicion grows.


they aren't really talking about anything, they frame their opinion as fact, catipulting your postion as defensive, therefore validating themselves in a no lose scenario they created.

See Liz Cheney eating the same technique for a snack..It's been the same MO for years.

penchief
05-23-2009, 01:01 AM
Of course, I reject your "torture" and "illegal detention" characterizations, but I'll go so far as to agree that the point is arguable. The treatment an infidel prisoner (and even some muslim victims) of al Qaeda can expect is well beyond arguable. That itself shows that we haven't descended to their level. Add to that the fact that we take great care to avoid collateral damage where possible while they go out of their way to target innocents and it even more clearly distinguishes us from them. We are far from lowering ourselves to their level. However, we have "lowered" ourselves below the level of the high minded "red coats" (from our Revolutionary War) who thought it honorable to line up in neat little lines for battle instead of hiding behind cover and we have "lowered" ourselves by using standoff weapons that our opponents don't possess. I think "lowering" ourselves to become a more effective fighting force has been a splendid idea. If "lowering" ourselves to the level of harsh interrogations that don't break our anti-torture laws makes us more effective then I'm all for that too.

Obviously, we have not resorted to chopping off heads or targeting innocent civilians. However, the slippery slope scenario that conservatives like to invoke could be applied here, as well.

The secrecy by which the Bush/Cheney administration operated indicates that we probably don't know the full extent of their conduct. Considering some of the hair-brained behavior that we do know about, is it illogical to wonder if they may have gone farther with some of their covert actions?

The slippery slope scenario is exactly why it is important not to compromise one's principles when it comes to matters as important as aggressive war or human rights. There is a point of no return that would ultimately merit our own infamous chapter in history.

HonestChieffan
05-23-2009, 05:19 AM
Mancow proved its not fun to be waterboarded. This should have not been news.

Ultra Peanut
05-23-2009, 05:24 AM
All waterboarding supporters should be waterboarded until they change their minds.

HonestChieffan
05-23-2009, 05:35 AM
All waterboarding supporters should be waterboarded until they change their minds.

Change mind from what to what?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-23-2009, 07:36 AM
Waterboarding is torture but isn't the worst that was/is still going on over there. Cutting a guys genitals with a scalpel every 2 weeks until he talks? Sodomizing children in front of their mothers? You had better believe i'm more than concerned about our tactics, I don't even want these bastards coming back to this country that would do this.

BigRedChief
05-23-2009, 08:18 AM
Mancow proved its not fun to be waterboarded. This should have not been news.
Liz Cheney said yesterday that waterboarding wasn't torture. So it still looks like there are some that need to be educated.

Dave Lane
05-23-2009, 08:49 AM
Who said anything about a bed and breakfast. Try them and execute the guilty just like we did with the Nazi criminals. You want us to behave like terrorists? Then you have given them exactly what they want. They know they can never, ever, ever defeat us with force. They can only attempt to spread irrational fear that turns us against what makes us great.

Rep for you sir! Very well spoken!

whatsmynameagain
05-23-2009, 10:23 AM
If mancow said screwing young girls was not rape, the libs would be hailing him as
a credible source of information.

rhetorical, but you are one dumb fuck. you righties just keep missing the point over and over and over and over....
Posted via Mobile Device

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 10:31 AM
they aren't really talking about anything, they frame their opinion as fact, catipulting your postion as defensive, therefore validating themselves in a no lose scenario they created.

See Liz Cheney eating the same technique for a snack..It's been the same MO for years.
Wrong. I didn't look up the supporting information last night for two reasons - 1) it's already been posted on these boards, and 2) I was quite tired. Now that I've had a full night's sleep and have the energy to go searching around the internet, it appears that I needn't have worried in the first place, as it took all of about ten seconds to find what patteeu was so hoping I wouldn't find.

Here ya go, patsy. Feel free to try as you may to spin it as if they weren't saying what they were saying.

In 2002, Military Agency Warned Against 'Torture' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009042403231)

"The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture," the document said. "In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption."

The JPRA attachment said the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained. " A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," it said.

In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information." The word "extreme" is underlined.

And as to the question of whether waterboarding is torture, I found this part of the article very interesting:

There was no consideration within the National Security Council that the planned techniques stemmed from Chinese communist practices and had been deemed torture when employed against American personnel, the former administration official said. The U.S. military prosecuted its own troops for using waterboarding in the Philippines and tried Japanese officers on war crimes charges for its use against Americans and other allied nationals during World War II.

whatsmynameagain
05-23-2009, 11:03 AM
if we truly are the greatest country, if we really think we are the best, if we think we can meddle in any situation and try to force our will, than we sure as hell need to keep the higher ground and show the world that we are in fact the best country. in no way shape or form should we ever lower our standards, for anything. what kind of message does that send? we tell other countries what to do and we lead by example(at least we used to.) dont be surprised to hear that some of our allies/enemies will behave the same way with no remorse. afterall, if you want to be the best and cant, you emulate it the best you can. we cant expect others to behave "this" way when we set an example of going "that" way. that my friends is the slippery slope.

im pretty certain that every single one of you loves this country and want whats best. i dont think any of you like seeing fellow americans being murdered by anyone, anytime, anywhere. im pretty sure that when we project a bad image, we are only putting ourselves at risk for future attacks. we know why they hate us and we refuse to acknowledge it. nobody wants to talk about it ever. it all starts and ends in isreal and its all about religion. for those of you who think its our freedom they hate, you're dead wrong.
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:06 PM
Liz Cheney said yesterday that waterboarding wasn't torture. So it still looks like there are some that need to be educated.

I'm sure that Liz Cheney would agree that it's not fun to be waterboarded. BTW, for anyone who isn't aware of it already, Liz Cheney is awesome.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:08 PM
I'm sure that Liz Cheney would agree that it's not fun to be waterboarded. BTW, for anyone who isn't aware of it already, Liz Cheney is awesome.
Maybe Liz Cheney doesn't have a very "awesome" grasp of history? I wonder what she would say to this:

There was no consideration within the National Security Council that the planned techniques stemmed from Chinese communist practices and had been deemed torture when employed against American personnel, the former administration official said. The U.S. military prosecuted its own troops for using waterboarding in the Philippines and tried Japanese officers on war crimes charges for its use against Americans and other allied nationals during World War II.

BWillie
05-23-2009, 12:20 PM
Uh........ why do people give a shit if we are torturing terrorists and trying to get information out of them? The pussification of America is reaching an all new high every single day.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:30 PM
Well, then you're kind of an idiot. Even the agencies who were advocating it admitted that it's a pretty unreliable way to get information.

No they didn't. At least not like you describe it. How about a direct quote?

Wrong. I didn't look up the supporting information last night for two reasons - 1) it's already been posted on these boards, and 2) I was quite tired. Now that I've had a full night's sleep and have the energy to go searching around the internet, it appears that I needn't have worried in the first place, as it took all of about ten seconds to find what patteeu was so hoping I wouldn't find.

Here ya go, patsy. Feel free to try as you may to spin it as if they weren't saying what they were saying.

In 2002, Military Agency Warned Against 'Torture' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009042403231)



And as to the question of whether waterboarding is torture, I found this part of the article very interesting:

ROFL Wow. If this is what you were talking about, I shouldn't have even bothered with the caveat. Far from being an advocating agency, the JPRA appears to have been quite the opposite, a detracting agency. And you compound your deceit by exaggerating this single agency into "agencies". Your spin game is even weaker than I realized.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 12:35 PM
Maybe Liz Cheney doesn't have a very "awesome" grasp of history? I wonder what she would say to this:

She would probably point out that what the Japanese did during WWII and what some of our own soldiers did in the Philippines were different than what the Bush administration authorized. Of course, that kind of shades-of-gray thinking would probably be lost on you. The Bush administration doesn't dispute that waterboarding *can* be a form of torture, but they went to great lengths to make an informed determination about where that line is crossed based on our own laws and the enhanced interrogation techniques program is where they ended up when they decided to approach but not cross that line.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:38 PM
ROFL Wow. If this is what you were talking about, I shouldn't have even bothered with the caveat. Far from being an advocating agency, the JPRA appears to have been quite the opposite, a detracting agency. And you compound your deceit by exaggerating this single agency into "agencies". Your spin game is even weaker than I realized.
Well, I called that one like Nostradamus, didn't I? Uh, pat, the JPRA is not a "detracting agency." Perhaps you should have read the entire article before you went into defensive spin mode.

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency.

...

JPRA ran the military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which trains pilots and others to resist hostile questioning.

When it comes to commenting on the effectiveness of torture and "enhanced interrogation techniques," they're top tier, dude. I don't know if you really don't understand that, or if you just don't want to understand that, but really, you've lost.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 12:43 PM
She would probably point out that what the Japanese did during WWII and what some of our own soldiers did in the Philippines were different than what the Bush administration authorized. Of course, that kind of shades-of-gray thinking would probably be lost on you. The Bush administration doesn't dispute that waterboarding *can* be a form of torture, but they went to great lengths to make an informed determination about where that line is crossed based on our own laws and the enhanced interrogation techniques program is where they ended up when they decided to approach but not cross that line.
Ah, so their waterboarding is different from our waterboarding? Honestly, pat, where do you come up with this BS? You're not even trying to think your answers through anymore, are you? You're just desperately parroting any talking point that you think will get you through. Waterboarding is waterboarding, it is a very specific technique. There is no our version versus their version - they're the same version, you idiot! We simply decided to start whitewashing it in the media when we decided to start using it. Are you honestly this dumb?

patteeu
05-23-2009, 01:09 PM
Well, I called that one like Nostradamus, didn't I? Uh, pat, the JPRA is not a "detracting agency." Perhaps you should have read the entire article before you went into defensive spin mode.



When it comes to commenting on the effectiveness of torture and "enhanced interrogation techniques," they're top tier, dude. I don't know if you really don't understand that, or if you just don't want to understand that, but really, you've lost.

I know what the JPRA is and, like I said, they were a detracting agency not an advocating agency. Do you know what these words mean?

patteeu
05-23-2009, 01:11 PM
Ah, so their waterboarding is different from our waterboarding? Honestly, pat, where do you come up with this BS? You're not even trying to think your answers through anymore, are you? You're just desperately parroting any talking point that you think will get you through. Waterboarding is waterboarding, it is a very specific technique. There is no our version versus their version - they're the same version, you idiot! We simply decided to start whitewashing it in the media when we decided to start using it. Are you honestly this dumb?

OK, genius, if waterboarding is waterboarding, why is the waterboarding used in our SERE training not a war crime or a violation of our anti-torture laws?

VAChief
05-23-2009, 01:13 PM
Uh........ why do people give a shit if we are torturing terrorists and trying to get information out of them? The pussification of America is reaching an all new high every single day.

It has nothing to do with what we care about doing to a terrorist, it has everything to do with the values we hold dear, what we have fought for, and what we have defended and held up as the example for other nations to follow.

We don't torture the most vile criminal suspects (such as child molesters, rapists, etc.) without due process because we believe in the greater ideals.

You are suggesting that it is okay to alter what we have stood for in order to prove our machismo to a bunch of suspected terrorists. No thanks, lets refrain from phucking up the evidence so we can execute them publicly. Or is that being too big a pussy for you?

patteeu
05-23-2009, 01:23 PM
It has nothing to do with what we care about doing to a terrorist, it has everything to do with the values we hold dear, what we have fought for, and what we have defended and held up as the example for other nations to follow.

We don't torture the most vile criminal suspects (such as child molesters, rapists, etc.) without due process because we believe in the greater ideals.

You are suggesting that it is okay to alter what we have stood for in order to prove our machismo to a bunch of suspected terrorists. No thanks, lets refrain from phucking up the evidence so we can execute them publicly. Or is that being too big a pussy for you?

Are Miranda rights a value we hold dear? Is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law a value we hold dear? Is the right to not have property seized by our government without compensation a right we hold dear? Is freedom from a warrantless search a right we hold dear? How do we apply these rights we hold dear on a battlefield and why should we start doing it now after 233 years?

It's possible for us to hold different sets of values for domestic criminal situations and for warfare at the same time and I think it's a good idea if we do so if we want to be able to preserve the values we hold dear here at home.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 01:25 PM
I know what the JPRA is and, like I said, they were a detracting agency not an advocating agency. Do you know what these words mean?
Face the facts, pat, you lost. Now you're resorting to your second favorite tactic of verbal gymnastics to try to distract from the salient point that the agency whose very job it was to test these methods for reliability came down against it. Now, if you want to nitpick over whether I used the word "advocate" instead of some other word, that's fine, but the validity of my point remains.

mlyonsd
05-23-2009, 01:25 PM
It has nothing to do with what we care about doing to a terrorist, it has everything to do with the values we hold dear, what we have fought for, and what we have defended and held up as the example for other nations to follow.

We don't torture the most vile criminal suspects (such as child molesters, rapists, etc.) without due process because we believe in the greater ideals.

You are suggesting that it is okay to alter what we have stood for in order to prove our machismo to a bunch of suspected terrorists. No thanks, lets refrain from phucking up the evidence so we can execute them publicly. Or is that being too big a pussy for you?

You're kidding yourself if heaven forbid, the situation comes up and Obama is forced to decide whether to use EI if Americans are in danger.

He'll do it in a heartbeat.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 01:27 PM
Are Miranda rights a value we hold dear? Is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law a value we hold dear? Is the right to not have property seized by our government without compensation a right we hold dear? Is freedom from a warrantless search a right we hold dear? How do we apply these rights we hold dear on a battlefield and why should we start doing it now after 233 years?

It's possible for us to hold different sets of values for domestic criminal situations and for warfare at the same time and I think it's a good idea if we do so if we want to be able to preserve the values we hold dear here at home.
Very, very few of these guys were picked up "on a battlefield." You know this.

VAChief
05-23-2009, 01:48 PM
You're kidding yourself if heaven forbid, the situation comes up and Obama is forced to decide whether to use EI if Americans are in danger.

He'll do it in a heartbeat.

You are assuming it produces reliable information. Let's say, heaven forbid, Cheney is captured by terrorists, waterboarded and he is taped saying he lied about the reasons we entered Iraq, it was pre-decided even before they won the election and the sole use of waterboarding was to induce confessions that provided a rational link between 9/11 and the Iraq invasion.

Would we have to accept that information as reliable, or would we assume that it was merely a human being saying whatever he thought his terrorizers wanted him to say to relieve the discomfort?

mlyonsd
05-23-2009, 01:52 PM
You are assuming it produces reliable information. Let's say, heaven forbid, Cheney is captured by terrorists, waterboarded and he is taped saying he lied about the reasons we entered Iraq, it was pre-decided even before they won the election and the sole use of waterboarding was to induce confessions that provided a rational link between 9/11 and the Iraq invasion.

Would we have to accept that information as reliable, or would we assume that it was merely a human being saying whatever he thought his terrorizers wanted him to say to relieve the discomfort?

You totally dodged my point but that's ok.

To yours, there is no doubt in my mind every liberal on this board would take a Cheney waterboarded confession as gospel. You can take that to the bank.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 01:56 PM
Face the facts, pat, you lost. Now you're resorting to your second favorite tactic of verbal gymnastics to try to distract from the salient point that the agency whose very job it was to test these methods for reliability came down against it. Now, if you want to nitpick over whether I used the word "advocate" instead of some other word, that's fine, but the validity of my point remains.

OK, Comanche. :thumb:

VAChief
05-23-2009, 01:58 PM
You totally dodged my point but that's ok.

To yours, there is no doubt in my mind every liberal on this board would take a Cheney waterboarded confession as gospel. You can take that to the bank.

You mean those that defend Cheney as using reliable techniques would suddenly claim that these techniques are unreliable because they didn't like what they heard? Interesting.

Those "your family is going to die would you torture then" scenarios certainly put your beliefs to the test, my main question is if these techniques really aren't reliable why would we want to use them in such a critical situation?

mlyonsd
05-23-2009, 02:04 PM
You mean those that defend Cheney as using reliable techniques would suddenly claim that these techniques are unreliable because they didn't like what they heard? Interesting.

Where did I say that? It's your stupid scenario.

Those "your family is going to die would you torture then" scenarios certainly put your beliefs to the test, my main question is if these techniques really aren't reliable why would we want to use them in such a critical situation?

If the risk is great enough you do what it takes. I see you as being hung up on the idea that all information gained from these techniques is false.

If the risk is great enough even Obama will allow waterboarding. Yes, or no?

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 02:23 PM
You mean those that defend Cheney as using reliable techniques would suddenly claim that these techniques are unreliable because they didn't like what they heard? Interesting.
Technically he didn't say that. Instead he dodged your question just as he accused you of doing with his.

VAChief
05-23-2009, 02:24 PM
Where did I say that? It's your stupid scenario.


If the risk is great enough you do what it takes. I see you as being hung up on the idea that all information gained from these techniques is false.

If the risk is great enough even Obama will allow waterboarding. Yes, or no?

Maybe I misread your reply assuming that only the left would believe the information reliable in the Cheney situation. Are you saying his supporters would believe it because it came from waterboarding, and therefore it is reliable?

I don't think that waterboarding and those kinds of techniques always produce false information, but many, including those in our own military, FBI, etc. say it produces unreliable information at best. How do you sort through what is truth and what is bs? I understand the willingness to "beat it out of people" in the ticking clock scenarios, and yes I think Obama would use whatever he thought would work just like most likely we all would in a life and death situation.

We waterboarded Zubaydah (sp?) 183 times presumably to gain a link to Bin Laden. Doesn't seem like a life or death situation to me.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 02:26 PM
OK, Comanche. :thumb:
Invalid comparison. Comanche claims victory by making unsupported assertions then insulting everyone who disagrees. I actually provided material support for my assertion (despite the irrelevant fact that I said "advocated" instead of "helped to devise," as the article actually states), the fact that you are unwilling to accept the word of the military agency charged with advising the State Department on the matter notwithstanding. All in all, I'd say you're a closer match to Comanche than I am, what with your tendency to make claims then lie and say you didn't say it, despite the fact that it's right there in black and white for everyone to see.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 02:30 PM
Maybe I misread your reply assuming that only the left would believe the information reliable in the Cheney situation. Are you saying his supporters would believe it because it came from waterboarding, and therefore it is reliable?
One thing that you can definitely take to the bank - those like patteeu et al. who are currently praising these techniques as reliable would be the first to shift gears and agree with the findings of the experts at the JPRA et al. if the Cheney scenario ever came to pass.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 02:32 PM
You mean those that defend Cheney as using reliable techniques would suddenly claim that these techniques are unreliable because they didn't like what they heard? Interesting.

Those "your family is going to die would you torture then" scenarios certainly put your beliefs to the test, my main question is if these techniques really aren't reliable why would we want to use them in such a critical situation?

It's far more complicated than the premise of your posts allows. Some types of information may not be completely reliable but others will be. I've been through this at least a dozen times here. Confessions without corroboration aren't going to be reliable. The combination to a safe that can be instantly checked will be quite reliable. Everything else falls somewhere between.

In answer to your second question, even if the fruits of a harsh interrogation (whether torture or EIT) were unreliable in a specific emergency instance, it's better than no information at all. Knowing that the information you extract may be unreliable helps prevent you from being misled. Knowing nothing gives you no help at all.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 02:33 PM
Invalid comparison. Comanche claims victory by making unsupported assertions then insulting everyone who disagrees. I actually provided material support for my assertion (despite the irrelevant fact that I said "advocated" instead of "helped to devise," as the article actually states), the fact that you are unwilling to accept the word of the military agency charged with advising the State Department on the matter notwithstanding. All in all, I'd say you're a closer match to Comanche than I am, what with your tendency to make claims then lie and say you didn't say it, despite the fact that it's right there in black and white for everyone to see.

Right on, Comanche! The record speaks for itself.

6 Iron
05-23-2009, 02:36 PM
An interesting topic, to be sure. But I cannot help but believe that the arguments above are limited because we do not know how each of us defines torture. From Merriam Webster:

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

I like a reasonable man standard whenever possible. May I then suggest the following:

If a reasonable man is willing to undergo a technique to see what it is like, at least for a similar duration, that could reasonably be considered as falling short of the torture threshold.

I am certain that waterboarding is miserable. I am glad that we are talking about 3 and not 30,000 prisoners that it has been used on. Still, I can say with confidence that if the US government were attempting to extract information or inflict punishment by anal occlusion with Superglue, Christopher Hitchens and Mancow would not have volunteered for a trial.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 02:37 PM
OK, genius, if waterboarding is waterboarding, why is the waterboarding used in our SERE training not a war crime or a violation of our anti-torture laws?
Because the use of it for the purpose of training soldiers and pilots to withstand it is an exception to the rule, just as is the use of many other techniques that would be deemed criminal in other circumstances if they were done without full disclosure to unwilling and unwitting recipients. If you tried to use some of the lethal training techniques of the Rangers or Seals on a high school track team, you can bet people would be going to jail.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 02:38 PM
An interesting topic, to be sure. But I cannot help but believe that the arguments above are limited because we do not know how each of us defines torture. From Merriam Webster:

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

I like a reasonable man standard whenever possible. May I then suggest the following:

If a reasonable man is willing to undergo a technique to see what it is like, at least for a similar duration, that could reasonably be considered as falling short of the torture threshold.

I am certain that waterboarding is miserable. I am glad that we are talking about 3 and not 30,000 prisoners that it has been used on. Still, I can say with confidence that if the US government were attempting to extract information or inflict punishment by anal occlusion with Superglue, Christopher Hitchens and Mancow would not have volunteered for a trial.

Extremely reasonable. At the very least, everyone ought to be able to agree that a technique for which so many will volunteer (and with which we train our own soldiers) is qualitatively quite different than techniques for which no sane person would do so.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 02:44 PM
Because the use of it for the purpose of training soldiers and pilots to withstand it is an exception to the rule, just as is the use of many other techniques that would be deemed criminal in other circumstances if they were done without full disclosure to unwilling and unwitting recipients. If you tried to use some of the lethal training techniques of the Rangers or Seals on a high school track team, you can bet people would be going to jail.

So your black and white world has expanded to allow at least one shade of gray that you call "an exception to the rule". Progress! We've moved from "waterboarding is waterboarding" to "there are (at least) two forms of waterboarding: illegal waterboarding and exception-to-the-rule waterboarding". Keep working.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 02:45 PM
Extremely reasonable. At the very least, everyone ought to be able to agree that a technique for which so many will volunteer (and with which we train our own soldiers) is qualitatively quite different than techniques for which no sane person would do so.
Except for the fact that the main reason so many people have volunteered for it (how many volunteers have there actually been, two?) is because the mouthpieces who have publically advocated for it have deliberately downplayed what the experience would actually be like. Note that of those who did volunteer for it, none of them volunteered again, and most (if not all) of them have since unequivocally called it torture.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 02:48 PM
So your black and white world has expanded to allow at least one shade of gray that you call "an exception to the rule". Progress! We've moved from "waterboarding is waterboarding" to "there are (at least) two forms of waterboarding: illegal waterboarding and exception-to-the-rule waterboarding". Keep working.
No, not two different forms. Two different circumstances, and the distinction is in the acceptance within the law of the circumstances, not in the form of the procedure. The procedure is the very same procedure that we prosecuted as war crimes when they were used against Americans.

6 Iron
05-23-2009, 02:59 PM
Except for the fact that the main reason so many people have volunteered for it (how many volunteers have there actually been, two?) is because the mouthpieces who have publically advocated for it have deliberately downplayed what the experience would actually be like. Note that of those who did volunteer for it, none of them volunteered again, and most (if not all) of them have since unequivocally called it torture.

Why would anybody volunteer to have it done again? My guess is that if one is given a turd sandwich, the taste of the second bite would be quite similar to the first.

mlyonsd
05-23-2009, 03:00 PM
We waterboarded Zubaydah (sp?) 183 times presumably to gain a link to Bin Laden. Doesn't seem like a life or death situation to me.

That's reasonable.

I just don't want the far left to paint Obama in a corner to the point if the situation comes up he balks at doing what's necessary as the CIC to protect lives.

When it comes to Bush/Cheney they did what they thought was necessary at the time. I'm good with that, as I would be Obama if the time came for him to make that decision.

As for me, personally I think terrorist's human rights are null and void.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 03:00 PM
No, not two different forms. Two different circumstances, and the distinction is in the acceptance within the law of the circumstances, not in the form of the procedure. The procedure is the very same procedure that we prosecuted as war crimes when they were used against Americans.

No it isn't. That's where you go off the rails. Try to find proof of your assertion and you won't be able to. There will, of course, be similarities, but you won't be able to show that the procedures, the circumstances and the mental states are identical because they aren't. The whole point of the OLC assessment was to take the generic technique and determine whether it could be applied in a non-torturous manner.

Here's a simple example. Committing common law battery (unwanted physical contact) during an interrogation may or may not violate our anti-terror laws. If it is physical contact for purposes of restraining a violent detainee or in the form of a minor face slap, it's clearly not torture. If it is an unprovoked pummeling that leaves the detainee crippled for life, it is probably torture. Each involves the "technique" of battery but the line where torture begins falls somewhere in the middle.

By the same token, the act of waterboarding can be torturous (done with an intention to punish and in a way that causes permanent damage) or non-torturous (done with extreme care for the subjects long term health in a safe environment for the purpose of training a soldier to deal with things he might face in captivity). The line between torture and non-torture is somewhere in between. OLC assessed the actual statute and drew the line. Presumably and by all accounts so far, the administration avoided crossing that line.

jAZ
05-23-2009, 03:04 PM
Uh........ why do people give a shit if we are torturing terrorists and trying to get information out of them? The pussification of America is reaching an all new high every single day.

I keep asking this, and so far no one has answered it directly.

America was just attacked and you have just been plucked off of an airplane and put into a holding cell at the airport. There is a guy telling you that he knows you know who did it. Who decides whether you are the terrorist who gets tortured?

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 03:06 PM
No it isn't. That's where you go off the rails. Try to find proof of your assertion and you won't be able to.
I can't prove a negative, especially since we don't have video cameras in there showing us exactly what our interrogators are doing when they do it to the enemy. We do have descriptions, and we have the techniques that were used on volunteers like Mancow, which the military purports to be the same thing that is being done to others - and those descriptions and techniques match the classic definition of waterboarding, the same techniques that we prosecuted as war crimes when they were done to us, the same techniques you are now insisting we weren't using. If you believe that they're two different techniques, then show it. Show us exactly how what we're doing is different from what those people we prosecuted were doing. And when I say show, I don't mean parrot Dick Cheney saying we didn't use torture. I mean show.

jAZ
05-23-2009, 03:08 PM
When it comes to Bush/Cheney they did what they thought was necessary at the time. I'm good with that, as I would be Obama if the time came for him to make that decision.
It's starting to look like they started using waterboarding, not because they thought another 9/11 was about to hit, but because they wanted to invade Iraq and wanted someone to link Saddam Hussein with 9/11.

If that's the case, it falls outside the realm of somehow excusably doing "what they thought was necessary at the time" and starts turning into doing something inexcusable.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 03:12 PM
I keep asking this, and so far no one has answered it directly.

America was just attacked and you have just been plucked off of an airplane and put into a holding cell at the airport. There is a guy telling you that he knows you know who did it. Who decides whether you are the terrorist who gets tortured?
They won't answer that question. It's too easy, too comfortable for them to simply assume that all of the detainees are convicted terrorists, that it is a foregone conclusion in all cases that the information provided against was reliably obtained from perfectly reliable methods and perfectly reliable witnesses. If they have to pause for a moment and consider that maybe not all of them are guilty of anything, that maybe not all of them are terrorists, that maybe some of our "harsh interrogation techniques" are being employed against people whose only crime is being Muslim and having the wrong first name, if they have to pause to consider that their own personal demons allow them to support such things, then their world would turn on its ear, they'd realize they're no better than the people they fear.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 03:16 PM
I can't prove a negative, especially since we don't have video cameras in there showing us exactly what our interrogators are doing when they do it to the enemy. We do have descriptions, and we have the techniques that were used on volunteers like Mancow, which the military purports to be the same thing that is being done to others - and those descriptions and techniques match the classic definition of waterboarding, the same techniques that we prosecuted as war crimes when they were done to us, the same techniques you are now insisting we weren't using. If you believe that they're two different techniques, then show it. Show us exactly how what we're doing is different from what those people we prosecuted were doing. And when I say show, I don't mean parrot Dick Cheney saying we didn't use torture. I mean show.

You didn't assert a negative, you asserted a positive. You said that the techniques were the same. Your admission that you don't really know that to be true is welcome though.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 03:21 PM
I keep asking this, and so far no one has answered it directly.

America was just attacked and you have just been plucked off of an airplane and put into a holding cell at the airport. There is a guy telling you that he knows you know who did it. Who decides whether you are the terrorist who gets tortured?

In your hypothetical, is the person locked in the holding cell a known, high-ranking member of a terrorist organization who has attacked the US on several previous occasions?

The answer in the case of our previous administration is that after other forms of interrogation have been exhausted, the request to use enhanced interrogation techniques works it's way up the chain of command to the highest levels of the government (short of the POTUS himself) and the questions about whether we are certain that the subject is a high ranking member of the terrorist organization with vital information yet to be revealed is vetted all the way up and down the line before approval is granted. Of course, even at that point they don't approve the use of torture.

Edit: I should correct this. It's the use of waterboarding specifically that required approval all the way up the chain of command to a national security advisory board made up of people like Dick Cheney and Condi Rice. The use of lessor forms of EIT like the lapel shake would have probably been approved at a much lower level.

wild1
05-23-2009, 03:21 PM
I'm actually kind of pleased to hear it's so intense. It sounds like it's a very effective way to extract critical information. I'm glad they had the guts to employ it, the 3 times or whatever.

Still waiting to see what the intelligence we gained was. You can't make a judgment on whether we did the right thing until you know what we had and what our results were.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 03:22 PM
Here's a simple example. Committing common law battery (unwanted physical contact) during an interrogation may or may not violate our anti-terror laws. If it is physical contact for purposes of restraining a violent detainee or in the form of a minor face slap, it's clearly not torture. If it is an unprovoked pummeling that leaves the detainee crippled for life, it is probably torture. Each involves the "technique" of battery but the line where torture begins falls somewhere in the middle.
Bad example. It relies on a degree of separation that does not exist with waterboarding. Both the frequency of contact and the amount of force employed are significantly different with pummeling versus restraint. Not so with waterboarding. Waterboarding doesn't rely on physical pain or physical damage for its effectiveness, it relies on the mind's unconscious sense of approaching death overpowering the conscious realization that the body is not actually dying. It relies on instinctual fear, not pain or physical injury.

Presumably and by all accounts so far, the administration avoided crossing that line.
We don't know that that's true. We only know that the administration claims the line was never crossed, based of course on its rather dubious claim that there actually is a line to be crossed, a claim you've clearly bought but failed to reasonably demonstrate.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 03:25 PM
Bad example. It relies on a degree of separation that does not exist with waterboarding. Both the frequency of contact and the amount of force employed are significantly different with pummeling versus restraint. Not so with waterboarding. Waterboarding doesn't rely on physical pain or physical damage for its effectiveness, it relies on the mind's unconscious sense of approaching death overpowering the conscious realization that the body is not actually dying. It relies on instinctual fear, not pain or physical injury.


We don't know that that's true. We only know that the administration claims the line was never crossed, based of course on its rather dubious claim that there actually is a line to be crossed, a claim you've clearly bought but failed to reasonably demonstrate.

It's not a bad example, it's just an example that you don't like because it makes it too easy to see the shades of gray that you'd rather not admit exist.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 03:26 PM
You didn't assert a negative, you asserted a positive.
What you asked me to prove was a negative, to prove they aren't different.

You said that the techniques were the same. Your admission that you don't really know that to be true is welcome though.
Based on the descriptions they've given, and based on the demonstrations on Mancow et al., which the military insists was the same thing being done in actual practice, the techniques are the same. Your contention that are different relies on the possibility that the military is lying in the descriptions and demonstrations of the technique and actually applying something different behind closed doors when the microphones and cameras aren't rolling.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 03:29 PM
It's not a bad example, it's just an example that you don't like because it makes it too easy to see the shades of gray that you'd rather not admit exist.
It is a bad example because, well, it has nothing in common with waterboarding, except that waterboarding is considered torture, and pummeling can be considered torture. If you can't see the difference between the two techniques, then I can't help you. You'll just have to be content to remain blind to reality with your head firmly planted up Cheney's ass.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 03:30 PM
What you asked me to prove was a negative, to prove they aren't different.


Based on the descriptions they've given, and based on the demonstrations on Mancow et al., which the military insists was the same thing being done in actual practice, the techniques are the same. Your contention that are different relies on the possibility that the military is lying in the descriptions and demonstrations of the technique and actually applying something different behind closed doors when the microphones and cameras aren't rolling.

We're past that now. You've already admitted that you don't really know whether they were the same or not.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 03:33 PM
We're past that now. You've already admitted that you don't really know whether they were the same or not.
I've admitted that what they've told us and showed us they are doing is the same as what we prosecuted as war crimes when it was done to our people. I've also admitted that they could be lying and doing something completely different than what they've told us and showed us they were doing, but we'll never know unless someone comes forward and tells us about it. You're insisting that the latter is absolutely the case, because you don't want to accept reality, but you've failed to support that position.

RNR
05-23-2009, 03:34 PM
It's far more complicated than the premise of your posts allows. Some types of information may not be completely reliable but others will be. I've been through this at least a dozen times here. Confessions without corroboration aren't going to be reliable. The combination to a safe that can be instantly checked will be quite reliable. Everything else falls somewhere between.

In answer to your second question, even if the fruits of a harsh interrogation (whether torture or EIT) were unreliable in a specific emergency instance, it's better than no information at all. Knowing that the information you extract may be unreliable helps prevent you from being misled. Knowing nothing gives you no help at all.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was treated better than he deserves and if the information he was giving was wrong or he had no more information or was unwilling to give more information they should put a bullet in his head and moved on to the next one in line. This ain't a John Wayne movie where we are wearing a white hat and good always wins over evil bullshit. These cowards attack women and kids slaughter them, it is not collateral damage because the innocent is their target.

Now we have a bunch of bleeding heart ass holes taking the high ground acting appalled. Many of them totally aware of what was going on but now it is unfashionable so the are doing nothing more than lying for political gain. Unlike them this is where I stand and if it was my decision to waterboard these worthless dumps in "hopes" of gaining intelligentce that might save one troop or one innocent person I would say proceed eat dinner that night and sleep well. BTW he was not waterboarded 183 times as reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/

penchief
05-23-2009, 03:38 PM
I'm sure that Liz Cheney would agree that it's not fun to be waterboarded. BTW, for anyone who isn't aware of it already, Liz Cheney is awesome.

Yeah, I remember how she joined in the John Kerry mockfest. Classy lady.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 03:39 PM
In your hypothetical, is the person locked in the holding cell a known, high-ranking member of a terrorist organization who has attacked the US on several previous occasions?

The answer in the case of our previous administration is that after other forms of interrogation have been exhausted, the request to use enhanced interrogation techniques works it's way up the chain of command to the highest levels of the government (short of the POTUS himself) and the questions about whether we are certain that the subject is a high ranking member of the terrorist organization with vital information yet to be revealed is vetted all the way up and down the line before approval is granted. Of course, even at that point they don't approve the use of torture.
Wow, just wow! You really are on the koolaid, aren't you?

How many of the 240 men at Gitmo are "known, high-ranking members of a terrorist organization that has attacked the US on several previous occasions?" Answer that one for us, patteeu.

jAZ
05-23-2009, 03:39 PM
In your hypothetical, is the person locked in the holding cell a known, high-ranking member of a terrorist organization who has attacked the US on several previous occasions?

It's you.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 03:42 PM
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was treated better than he deserves and if the information he was giving was wrong or he had no more information or was unwilling to give more information they should put a bullet in his head and moved on to the next one in line. This ain't a John Wayne movie where we are wearing a white hat and good always wins over evil bullshit. These cowards attack women and kids slaughter them, it is not collateral damage because the innocent is their target.

Now we have a bunch of bleeding heart ass holes taking the high ground acting appalled. Many of them totally aware of what was going on but now it is unfashionable so the are doing nothing more than lying for political gain. Unlike them this is where I stand and if it was my decision to waterboard these worthless dumps in "hopes" of gaining intelligentce that might save one troop or one innocent person I would say proceed eat dinner that night and sleep well. BTW he was not waterboarded 183 times as reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
I'm going to ask you the same question I asked patteeu. How many of the men in Gitmo are known terrorists? How many are known to have targeted women, children, the innocent? There are 240 men there. How many fit into the previous categories?

RNR
05-23-2009, 04:14 PM
I'm going to ask you the same question I asked patteeu. How many of the men in Gitmo are known terrorists? How many are known to have targeted women, children, the innocent? There are 240 men there. How many fit into the previous categories?

I am not privy to that information, if it is proven that innocent men were subjected to this I will support criminal charges against those involved. I also would like all memos released so we can know who knew what and when. I unlike many have no problem telling the world how we deal with terrorists. I think it is silly to think if we act nice the threat will be less. This we do not want to make them mad bullshit is a joke. They hate us they want us dead and that will never change.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 04:41 PM
Here's more, patsy, this time from interviews with CIA officials.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866


It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

...

In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 06:00 PM
Wow, just wow! You really are on the koolaid, aren't you?

How many of the 240 men at Gitmo are "known, high-ranking members of a terrorist organization that has attacked the US on several previous occasions?" Answer that one for us, patteeu.

I have no idea. What's the answer?

patteeu
05-23-2009, 06:10 PM
It's you.

I don't think I'd have much to worry about, but my answer about who decides remains the same.

BTW, who decides whether someone gets the death penalty in a capital criminal case? The judge and the jury. Who decides whether a convict gets parole? The parole board. Who decides whether or not a person is a threat on a battlefield and pulls the trigger to end their life? A front line soldier. The decision about whether or not to waterboard is just as deliberative if not more so and takes place at a much higher level of our government than any of these other life/death/incarceration/freedom decisions.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 06:12 PM
BTW he was not waterboarded 183 times as reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/

This deserved to be highlighted because we have a lot of people operating under a serious misconception about it right now. Thanks for posting the link. :thumb:

patteeu
05-23-2009, 06:13 PM
Here's more, patsy, this time from interviews with CIA officials.

More of what? More people who don't agree with waterboarding? Big deal.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 06:17 PM
More of what? More people who don't agree with waterboarding? Big deal.
More people in a much better position to know than Cheney that the tendency is for techniques such as waterboarding to lead to unreliable information.

Nightwish
05-23-2009, 06:20 PM
This deserved to be highlighted because we have a lot of people operating under a serious misconception about it right now.
Not really. Waterboarding is the act of pouring the water on the victim's face. Victims are usually waterboarded multiple times in one session. Each pour is its own "simulation." So the 183 count is correct. Five sessions, 183 waterboardings.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 06:31 PM
More people in a much better position to know than Cheney that the tendency is for techniques such as waterboarding to lead to unreliable information.

Better position to know? Neither of the named people, Bob Baer or Larry Johnson, were even in the CIA when EIT were approved/used and AFAIK, neither of them was ever an interrogator. And again, the fact that some, even some within the CIA when the program was in place, had objections isn't really news.

RNR
05-23-2009, 06:34 PM
Not really. Waterboarding is the act of pouring the water on the victim's face. Victims are usually waterboarded multiple times in one session. Each pour is its own "simulation." So the 183 count is correct. Five sessions, 183 waterboardings.

LMAO Yeah that is not misleading at all. You being an expert and all you understand this. However the rest of us not in the inner circle like yourself may misunderstand the 183 times report as him being brought in 183 seperate times in one month.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 06:34 PM
Not really. Waterboarding is the act of pouring the water on the victim's face. Victims are usually waterboarded multiple times in one session. Each pour is its own "simulation." So the 183 count is correct. Five sessions, 183 waterboardings.

The number 183 without a description is ambiguous and the fact of the matter is that many people have been under a misconception whether you admit that you were one of them or not. Posting an article that explains what the number means was a service to the community and will help to clear up that misconception.

RNR
05-23-2009, 06:53 PM
The number 183 without a description is ambiguous and the fact of the matter is that many people have been under a misconception whether you admit that you were one of them or not. Posting an article that explains what the number means was a service to the community and will help to clear up that misconception.

I thought about starting a thread with that link because it clarified things. I just figured I would get moronic responses like the one I got from him. There are also links to memos there. I find it funny that I could find out this information with a simple google search yet several media outlets released it without the break down.

splatbass
05-23-2009, 07:08 PM
Explain why the former VP is publically calling for the information gained from EIT's to be released, which is information he knows afterall, and why the current President will only release what the EIT's were.....

They are classified. Cheney knows full well the CIA won't release them, that is why he feels safe in calling for their release.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 08:25 PM
They are classified. Cheney knows full well the CIA won't release them, that is why he feels safe in calling for their release.

Barack Obama could release them if he wanted to.

patteeu
05-23-2009, 08:26 PM
I thought about starting a thread with that link because it clarified things. I just figured I would get moronic responses like the one I got from him. There are also links to memos there. I find it funny that I could find out this information with a simple google search yet several media outlets released it without the break down.

Yep. Definitely thread worthy, but guaranteed to draw moronic responses. Thanks for posting it though.

SBK
05-23-2009, 08:48 PM
They are classified. Cheney knows full well the CIA won't release them, that is why he feels safe in calling for their release.

Obama can declassify anything he wants.

Cheney should have called on Biden to just read the docs, he would have told the world what they said in no time.

splatbass
05-23-2009, 08:50 PM
Barack Obama could release them if he wanted to.

But he doesn't want to release information that could damage national security, unlike Dick Cheney.

RINGLEADER
05-23-2009, 10:34 PM
Mancow defended waterboarding until today. That's what matters here.

Mancow changing his opinion on waterboarding is what matters?

jAZ
05-23-2009, 10:38 PM
Mancow changing his opinion on waterboarding is what matters?
In this thread.

VAChief
05-23-2009, 10:39 PM
I'm actually kind of pleased to hear it's so intense. It sounds like it's a very effective way to extract critical information. I'm glad they had the guts to employ it, the 3 times or whatever.

Still waiting to see what the intelligence we gained was. You can't make a judgment on whether we did the right thing until you know what we had and what our results were.

Apparently nothing of merit, certainly nothing of imminent danger:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_05_24_Intel_experts:_Dick_Cheney_was_wrong_about_Bush_administration_moves/

Jenson71
05-24-2009, 12:10 AM
Limbaugh accepts waterboarding by warm bacon grease. Lasts six hours before supply runs dry. Limbaugh's true conservative status cemented in eyes of fans.

orange
05-24-2009, 01:38 AM
I can't prove a negative, especially since we don't have video cameras in there showing us exactly what our interrogators are doing when they do it to the enemy.

Incorrect. We DID videotape the Enhanced Interrogations - but the CIA destroyed the tapes.

The same CIA that never misleads congress...

patteeu
05-24-2009, 08:21 AM
But he doesn't want to release information that could damage national security, unlike Dick Cheney.

He's already proven you wrong.

patteeu
05-24-2009, 08:23 AM
Incorrect. We DID videotape the Enhanced Interrogations - but the CIA destroyed the tapes.

The same CIA that never misleads congress...

Prudent move considering the treacherous impulses of many of our country's left wing.

orange
05-24-2009, 10:36 AM
Olbermann On Mancow Waterboarding: Hannity "Now Irrelevant"

Rachel Weiner
First Posted: 05-24-09 10:48 AM | Updated: 05-24-09 11:52 AM


MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has pledged that if Sean Hannity submits to waterboarding, he would donate significant funds to a charity of the Fox News host's choice. Hannity, who himself suggested the torture-for-a-cause, has yet to respond. Now he's off the hook. Last week, conservative disc jockey Erich "Mancow" Muller underwent waterboarding with no incentive other than his belief that the procedure wasn't torture. (He came out convinced that it "absolutely" was.)

Olbermann declared the torture debate "over" and promised to donate $10,000 to the charity Veterans of Valor, founded by Sgt. Klay South (who administered the waterboarding to Muller), and withdrew his offer to Sean Hannity.

OLBERMANN: This is where I normally remind Sean Hannity that it is so many days since I took him up on his offer to be water-boarded for charity, without any reply.

But with today's development, the point is moot.

"Mancow Muller" had the guts to put his mouth where his mouth was, and the guts to admit he was dead wrong -- as you saw, he not only said it is torture, but that he had nearly drowned as a boy, and it is drowning, and that he would have admitted to anything to make it stop.

So the offer to the coward Hannity -- a thousand dollars a second he lasted on the waterboard -- is withdrawn.

And to Mancow Muller, whose station's publicity person contacted us yesterday saying she'd heard I'd offered ten thousand dollars to anybody who would do what he did...

You got it. Ten thousand dollars to the military-families charity of the man who did the waterboarding, "Veterans Of Valor."

As to Hannity... you are now unnecessary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/24/olbermann-on-mancow-water_n_207161.html

splatbass
05-24-2009, 11:28 AM
He's already proven you wrong.


How?

Cannibal
05-24-2009, 01:27 PM
You sure do use a lot of terms and implications basically calling people pussies. You name yourself cannibal, and put a pic of Chuck Norris for your avatar.

I'm just guessing here, but I bet you're one tough son of a bitch in real life.

I do call out the chickenhawks. If war and torture and "get tough" seem to be their only answers, I would at least like to have seen them sign up and fight at some point in their lives. These insects are for the "get tough" solution to every problem, so long as it is someone else getting tough for them.

Earthling
05-24-2009, 03:38 PM
Just curious if the CIA broke the law when they destroyed those tapes..?

orange
05-24-2009, 04:04 PM
Just curious if the CIA broke the law when they destroyed those tapes..?


U.S. Says C.I.A. Destroyed 92 Tapes of Interrogations
MARK MAZZETTI
Published: March 2, 2009

WASHINGTON — The government on Monday revealed for the first time the extent of the destruction of videotapes in 2005 by the Central Intelligence Agency, saying that agency officers destroyed 92 videotapes documenting the harsh interrogations of two Qaeda suspects in C.I.A. detention.

The disclosure came in a letter filed by federal prosecutors investigating the destruction of the tapes in November 2005.

It had been previously known that officials of the agency had destroyed hundreds of hours of videotaped interrogations, but the documents filed Monday reveal the number of tapes.

The tapes had been held in a safe at the C.I.A. station in Thailand, the country where two detainees — Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — were interrogated.

The filing of the documents, submitted to a court in New York as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, came as federal prosecutors were wrapping up the investigation into the matter.

The criminal investigation, begun in January 2008, is being led by John H. Durham, a career prosecutor from Connecticut with long experience trying organized-crime cases.

The order to destroy the tapes was given by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who at the time was the head of the spy agency’s clandestine service. Prosecutors have spent months trying to piece together whether anyone besides Mr. Rodriguez authorized the destruction and to decide whether anyone should be indicted in the matter.

The tapes were destroyed as Congress and the courts were intensifying their scrutiny of the agency’s detention and interrogation program.

The civil liberties union is asking a judge to hold the agency in contempt for destroying the tapes.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the matter on Monday.

The destroyed videotapes are thought to have depicted some of the harshest interrogation techniques used by the C.I.A. during the two years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including the simulated drowning technique called waterboarding.

In a speech on Monday in Washington, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that “waterboarding is torture” and that he would never authorize the technique, a position he first articulated in his confirmation hearings.

Mr. Holder is leading a review to determine which interrogation techniques should be authorized for C.I.A. use.

According to the letter that was filed, the agency has asked to have until Friday to produce a schedule for the court detailing when it will turn over a number of records associated with the destruction of the tapes, including a list of witnesses who might have viewed the videotapes before they were destroyed.

Mr. Durham has made no public statements about when he will conclude his investigation.

Last year, however, he asked that freedom-of-information requests directed at the agency be held in abeyance until he wrapped up the criminal inquiry. He asked at that time to have until the end of February to conclude his work, and he has not asked for another extension.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03web-intel.html

patteeu
05-24-2009, 07:05 PM
How?

By damaging our national security with the optional release of the OLC memos.

patteeu
05-24-2009, 07:09 PM
I do call out the chickenhawks. If war and torture and "get tough" seem to be their only answers, I would at least like to have seen them sign up and fight at some point in their lives. These insects are for the "get tough" solution to every problem, so long as it is someone else getting tough for them.

Did you read about how Chickenhawk Obama is avoiding detainee rendition issues by having our rendition partners take possession of potential detainees from the start instead of first taking them into American custody and then renditioning them to fine places like Egypt and Morocco? Or about how he's continuing Bush policies with little more than rhetorical changes in most areas of the GWoT?

I assume we'll see you "call[ing] out" the current POTUS just as enthusiastically as you've been calling out Bush and Cheney someday soon.

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 11:56 AM
We all seen the movie Mississippi Burning, right?

Who here wasn't rooting for Gene Hackman when he was brutalizing and torturing suspects in order to build a case?

fan4ever
05-26-2009, 12:35 PM
You know ABSOLUTELY nothing about torture. Give me a chance to torture you, seriously. We'll see what's up after that.

LOL. Now we finally have exposed the true liberal mindset. "I sure don't want terrorists, who would love to kill me, tortured in hopes of some valuable information, but I'll readily volunteer to torture a conservative because his viewpoint is opposition to mine". Love it. Bravo.

penchief
05-26-2009, 01:47 PM
LOL. Now we finally have exposed the true liberal mindset. "I sure don't want terrorists, who would love to kill me, tortured in hopes of some valuable information, but I'll readily volunteer to torture a conservative because his viewpoint is opposition to mine". Love it. Bravo.

Hardly. The point is to expose the hypocricies, chickenhawk tendencies, and sadistic nature of a lot of righties. One thing you can count on is that bullies and posers will always be willing to dish it out but not so willing to subject themselves to the same things they advocate for others. Dick Cheney and Sean Hannity are classic examples. Their particular mindset permeates the right wing.

Cheney is probably the biggest evader of military service to ever advocate for such things as torture, human rights violations, or aggressive war. Yet he has no second thoughts whatsoever when it comes to exploiting our troops or subjecting potential innocents to human rights violations. I don't advocate torture for anyone but I'll admit that the thought of a sadistic bastard like Cheney experiencing a eureka moment does have its appeal.

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 01:48 PM
We all seen the movie Mississippi Burning, right?

Who here wasn't rooting for Gene Hackman when he was brutalizing and torturing suspects in order to build a case?

penchief
05-26-2009, 01:51 PM
We all seen the movie Mississippi Burning, right?

Who here wasn't rooting for Gene Hackman when he was brutalizing and torturing suspects in order to build a case?

You liked your own post so much that you had to post it again because you thought it was going to be overlooked?

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 01:54 PM
You liked your own post so much that you had to post it again because you thought it was going to be overlooked?

We all seen the movie Mississippi Burning, right?

Who here wasn't rooting for Gene Hackman when he was brutalizing and torturing suspects in order to build a case?

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:15 PM
6 seconds? Most people can hold their breath for at least ten. What a pussy.

Taco John
05-26-2009, 03:22 PM
This is going to turn into a Friday night high school phenomenon. Mark my words. Someday we're going to see a news report of kids who were waterboarding eachother for fun and sport when something went horribly wrong and one of them died. Set your watches.

Cannibal
05-26-2009, 03:48 PM
Did you read about how Chickenhawk Obama is avoiding detainee rendition issues by having our rendition partners take possession of potential detainees from the start instead of first taking them into American custody and then renditioning them to fine places like Egypt and Morocco? Or about how he's continuing Bush policies with little more than rhetorical changes in most areas of the GWoT?

I assume we'll see you "call[ing] out" the current POTUS just as enthusiastically as you've been calling out Bush and Cheney someday soon.

To my knowledge Obama is not a draft dodger who actively sought to avoid war service like 90%+ of the Republicans currently serving in the United States Congress. The same Republicans who's answer for all matter of foreign policy seems to be war or military strikes.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 04:25 PM
Hardly. The point is to expose the hypocricies, chickenhawk tendencies, and sadistic nature of a lot of righties. One thing you can count on is that bullies and posers will always be willing to dish it out but not so willing to subject themselves to the same things they advocate for others. Dick Cheney and Sean Hannity are classic examples. Their particular mindset permeates the right wing.

Cheney is probably the biggest evader of military service to ever advocate for such things as torture, human rights violations, or aggressive war. Yet he has no second thoughts whatsoever when it comes to exploiting our troops or subjecting potential innocents to human rights violations. I don't advocate torture for anyone but I'll admit that the thought of a sadistic bastard like Cheney experiencing a eureka moment does have its appeal.

Cheney didn't evade military service. He qualified for deferments that were built into the system for a valuable reason. He played by the rules, just like Obama has played by the rules. Neither of them served, neither of them dodged the draft. Both of them are chickenhawks to the exact same degree (which, IMO, is not at all).

Cannibal
05-26-2009, 04:32 PM
Cheney didn't evade military service. He qualified for deferments that were built into the system for a valuable reason. He played by the rules, just like Obama has played by the rules. Neither of them served, neither of them dodged the draft. Both of them are chickenhawks to the exact same degree (which, IMO, is not at all).

You're so full shit it's not even funny anymore. Cheney himself stated that serving his country in Vietnam "was not a priority". ROFL But at the same time has always pushed the war option. He is the very definition of chickenhawk.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 04:34 PM
To my knowledge Obama is not a draft dodger who actively sought to avoid war service like 90%+ of the Republicans currently serving in the United States Congress. The same Republicans who's answer for all matter of foreign policy seems to be war or military strikes.

Dick Cheney was not a draft dodger either, nor were most of the people you're libeling.

Dick Cheney led the kind of life that our country values as much as we value military service. We can see these values reflected in the deferments that he qualified for during a time when our country was desperate enough for manpower in our armed forces that we employed a draft. Had Dick Cheney been a vagabond community organizer or a no-account hippie like many of the people who grew up to be today's democrats, he wouldn't have been eligible for those deferments because his lifestyle wouldn't have reflected our values. It's not that hard to understand.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 04:37 PM
You're so full shit it's not even funny anymore. Cheney himself stated that serving his country in Vietnam "was not a priority". ROFL But at the same time has always pushed the war option. He is the very definition of chickenhawk.

Dick Cheney also said that he would have been "proud to serve" if he had been called"? So what. Serving in Vietnam was not a priority for several million people (the vast majority of the eligible US population) and I'd bet my life that it wasn't the priority for many, if not most, of those who did serve.

Obama was eligible to serve in the first Gulf War. Why didn't he? Apparently it wasn't a priority for him. Like I said, Obama and Cheney are chickenhawks to the same degree.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 04:37 PM
You're so full shit it's not even funny anymore. Cheney himself stated that serving his country in Vietnam "was not a priority". ROFL But at the same time has always pushed the war option. He is the very definition of chickenhawk.

Your opinion doesn't change the validity of patteeu's post.

orange
05-26-2009, 04:39 PM
On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On Jan. 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/politics/campaign/01CHEN.html?pagewanted=2


The issue also received little attention during Mr. Cheney's Senate confirmation hearings as defense secretary in 1989 under the first President Bush, largely because the Armed Services Committee had just completed a bitter and protracted battle over the president's original choice, John G. Tower...

He said he "never served" because of deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, which he attributed to subpar academic performance and the fact that he had to work to pay for his education.

...

The deferment process proved controversial, discriminating against men who were black or poor, and a lottery was introduced in 1969. President Nixon did away with student deferments in 1971 and the draft ended in 1973.

orange
05-26-2009, 04:49 PM
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1196/929492735_e080b3d231.jpg?v=1209824151

Roosterhawk and henhawk doing their part for their country.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 04:49 PM
On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On Jan. 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/politics/campaign/01CHEN.html?pagewanted=2


The issue also received little attention during Mr. Cheney's Senate confirmation hearings as defense secretary in 1989 under the first President Bush, largely because the Armed Services Committee had just completed a bitter and protracted battle over the president's original choice, John G. Tower...

He said he "never served" because of deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, which he attributed to subpar academic performance and the fact that he had to work to pay for his education.

...

The deferment process proved controversial, discriminating against men who were black or poor, and a lottery was introduced in 1969. President Nixon did away with student deferments in 1971 and the draft ended in 1973.

Vice President Cheney has shown that he's one of the best family men in Washington DC and both his wife and his two daughters attest to it any chance they get. The fact that his eligibility for deferments was so providential does not detract from that fact nor from the fact that he lived his life according to that which was deemed so important by our government that they created these deferments in the first place. Besides, you must believe he's a fertility God if you think he can impregnate his wife on the day the deferment rules change at the drop of a hat. I don't know what the statistics are, but there are a lot of people who have to try for months before they get pregnant. I wouldn't be surprised if that's more common than hitting the home run on the first pitch.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 05:14 PM
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1196/929492735_e080b3d231.jpg?v=1209824151

Roosterhawk and henhawk doing their part for their country.

Which one is Biden since he voted for authorization of US armed forces against Saddam?

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 05:21 PM
6 seconds? Most people can hold their breath for at least ten. What a pussy.

Well, in fairness to Mancow, you have a blindfold on so you can't see when they are going to pour the water. If you hold your breath, you can see that, and you just wait until they inhale to dump it.

You can actually waterboard yourself; stand in the shower, put a dry washclothe on your face, close your eyes; breathe normally; then pour a cup of water over the washclothe as you breathe. You will feel like you are drowning.

orange
05-26-2009, 05:25 PM
Which one is Biden since he voted for authorization of US armed forces against Saddam?

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa283/delboyonline/ChickChoke.gif

(he was exempted from the draft for asthma)

patteeu
05-26-2009, 05:42 PM
(he was exempted from the draft for asthma)

Asthma exemptions good. Fatherhood exemptions bad. Right?

orange
05-26-2009, 05:45 PM
Asthma exemptions good. Fatherhood exemptions bad. Right?

First off - huh? That IS a chicken choking there, right? That is a reference to his student deferments (before the exemption).

Second - well, yes. Asthma and other health exemptions - Pilondial Cysts for example - remained after the deferments were abolished. There are actual valid reasons for them besides "daddy's got money."

penchief
05-26-2009, 05:54 PM
Cheney didn't evade military service. He qualified for deferments that were built into the system for a valuable reason. He played by the rules, just like Obama has played by the rules. Neither of them served, neither of them dodged the draft. Both of them are chickenhawks to the exact same degree (which, IMO, is not at all).

He actively and repeatedly seeked deferrments as a means of evading service. Which is the exact opposite of that guy John Kerry who volunteered to serve his country during wartime and actually earned a medal for courage under fire. Opposite ends of the spectrum those two are.

penchief
05-26-2009, 05:56 PM
You're so full shit it's not even funny anymore. Cheney himself stated that serving his country in Vietnam "was not a priority". ROFL But at the same time has always pushed the war option. He is the very definition of chickenhawk.

He IS Papa Chickenhawk.

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 05:56 PM
He actively and repeatedly seeked deferrments as a means of evading service. Which is the exact opposite of that guy John Kerry who volunteered to serve his country during wartime and actually earned a medal for courage under fire. Opposite ends of the spectrum those two are.

ROFL

John Kerry--- the only guy on record to receive three purple hearts and not spend a minute in a hospital, or even on light duty.

ROFL

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 05:56 PM
John Kerry.

ROFL

penchief
05-26-2009, 06:05 PM
ROFL

John Kerry--- the only guy on record to receive three purple hearts and not spend a minute in a hospital, or even on light duty.

ROFL

Laugh all you want but he didn't get them for nothing. He did what he did under fire and he sure as hell didn't give them to himself.

Righties love to rewrite history so they can deflect from their own deficiencies. Chickenhawk Bush was AWOL from his Silver Spoon Guard duty and Papa Chickenhawk Cheney was the king of deferrments. Hell, Bush was such an ingrate sack of shit that he couldn't even show up for his guard duty after daddy got him the gig to save him from Viet Nam.

penchief
05-26-2009, 06:09 PM
John Kerry.

ROFL

Dick Cheney, George Bush.....heh. They couldn't carry John Kerry's jock when it comes to military service. Hell, Jimmy Carter has more credibility when it comes to military service than those two chickenshits.

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 06:25 PM
Dick Cheney, George Bush.....heh. They couldn't carry John Kerry's jock when it comes to military service. Hell, Jimmy Carter has more credibility when it comes to military service than those two chickenshits.

This is the guy you have your panties in a bunch over the CIA pouring water on his face



No one exemplifies the model of the terrorist entrepreneur more clearly than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. Khalid followed a long path to his eventual membership in al Qaeda. Highly educated and equally comfortable in a government office or a terrorist safehouse, KSM applied his imagination, technical aptitude, and managerial skills to hatching and planning an extraordinary array of terrorist schemes. These ideas included conventional car bombing, political assassination, aircraft bombing, hijacking, reservoir poisoning, and, ultimately, the use of aircraft as missiles guided by suicide operatives.

Like his nephew Ramzi Yousef (three years KSM’s junior), KSM grew up in Kuwait but traces his ethnic lineage to the Baluchistan region straddling Iran and Pakistan. Raised in a religious family, KSM claims to have joined the Muslim Brotherhood at age 16 and to have become enamored of violent jihad at youth camps in the desert. In 1983, following his graduation from secondary school, KSM left Kuwait to enroll at Chowan College, a small Baptist school in Murfreesboro, North Carolina. After a semester at Chowan, KSM transferred to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro, which he attended with Yousef’s brother,another future al Qaeda member. KSM earned a degree in mechanical engineering in December 1986.

Although he apparently did not attract attention for extreme Islamist beliefs or activities while in the United States, KSM plunged into the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad soon after graduating from college. Visiting Pakistan for the first time in early 1987, he traveled to Peshawar, where his brother Zahid introduced him to the famous Afghan mujahid Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, head of the Hizbul-Ittihad El-Islami (Islamic Union Party). Sayyaf became KSM’s mentor and provided KSM with military training at Sayyaf’s Sada camp. KSM claims he then fought the Soviets and remained at the front for three months before being summoned to perform administrative duties for Abdullah Azzam. KSM next took a job working for an electronics firm that catered to the communications needs of Afghan groups, where he learned about drills used to excavate caves in Afghanistan.

KSM first came to the attention of U.S. law enforcement as a result of his small role in the first World Trade Center bombing. According to KSM, he learned of Ramzi Yousef’s intention to launch an attack inside the United States in 1991 or 1992,when Yousef was receiving explosives training in Afghanistan. During the fall of 1992,while Yousef was building the bomb he would use in that attack, KSM and Yousef had numerous telephone conversations during which Yousef discussed his progress and sought additional funding. On November 3, 1992, KSM wired $660 from Qatar to the bank account of Yousef’s co-conspirator, Mohammed Salameh. KSM does not appear to have contributed any more substantially to this operation.

Yousef’s instant notoriety as the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing inspired KSM to become involved in planning attacks against the United States. By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. In 1994, KSM accompanied Yousef to the Philippines, and the two of them began planning what is now known as the Manila air or “Bojinka”plot, the intended bombing of 12 U.S. commercial jumbo jets over the Pacific during a two-day span. This marked the first time KSM took part in the actual planning of a terrorist operation. While sharing an apartment in Manila during the summer of 1994, he and Yousef acquired chemicals and other materials necessary to construct bombs and timers. They also cased target flights to Hong Kong and Seoul that would have onward legs to the United States. During this same period, KSM and Yousef also developed plans to assassinate President Clinton during his November 1994 trip to Manila, and to bomb U.S.-bound cargo carriers by smuggling jackets containing nitrocellulose on board.

KSM left the Philippines in September 1994 and met up with Yousef in Karachi following their casing flights. There they enlisted Wali Khan Amin Shah, also known as Usama Asmurai, in the Manila air plot. During the fall of 1994, Yousef returned to Manila and successfully tested the digital watch timer he had invented, bombing a movie theater and a Philippine Airlines flight en route to Tokyo. The plot unraveled after the Philippine authorities discovered Yousef’s bomb-making operation in Manila; but by that time, KSM was safely back at his government job in Qatar. Yousef attempted to follow through on the cargo carriers plan, but he was arrested in Islamabad by Pakistani authorities on February 7, 1995, after an accomplice turned him in. In January 1996, well aware that U.S. authorities were chasing him, he left Qatar for good and fled to Afghanistan, where he renewed his relationship with Rasul Sayyaf.

Just as KSM was reestablishing himself in Afghanistan in mid-1996, Bin Ladin and his colleagues were also completing their migration from Sudan. Through Atef, KSM arranged a meeting with Bin Ladin in Tora Bora,a mountainous redoubt from the Afghan war days. At the meeting, KSM presented the al Qaeda leader with a menu of ideas for terrorist operations. According to KSM, this meeting was the first time he had seen Bin Ladin since 1989. Although they had fought together in 1987, Bin Ladin and KSM did not yet enjoy an especially close working relationship. At the meeting, KSM briefed Bin Ladin and Atef on the first World Trade Center bombing, the Manila air plot, the cargo carriers plan, and other activities pursued by KSM and his colleagues in the Philippines. KSM also presented a proposal for an operation that would involve training pilots who would crash planes into buildings in the United States. This proposal eventually would become the 9/11 operation.

From KSM’s perspective, Bin Ladin was in the process of consolidating his new position in Afghanistan while hearing out others’ ideas, and had not yet settled on an agenda for future anti-U.S. operations. At the meeting,Bin Ladin listened to KSM’s ideas without much comment, but did ask KSM formally to join al Qaeda and move his family to Afghanistan. KSM declined. He preferred to remain independent and retain the option of working with other mujahideen groups still operating in Afghanistan, including the group led by his old mentor, Sayyaf. Sayyaf was close to Ahmed Shah Massoud,the leader of the Northern Alliance. Therefore working with him might be a problem for KSM because Bin Ladin was building ties to the rival Taliban.

According to KSM, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam marked a watershed in the evolution of the 9/11 plot. KSM claims these bombings convinced him that Bin Ladin was truly committed to attacking the United States. He continued to make himself useful, collecting news articles and helping other al Qaeda members with their out-dated computer equipment. Bin Ladin, apparently at Atef’s urging, finally decided to give KSM the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. KSM then accepted Bin Ladin’s standing invitation to move to Kandahar and work directly with al Qaeda. In addition to supervising the planning and preparations for the 9/11 operation, KSM worked with and eventually led al Qaeda’s media committee. But KSM states he refused to swear a formal oath of allegiance to Bin Ladin, thereby retaining a last vestige of his cherished autonomy. At this point,late 1998 to early 1999, planning for the 9/11 operation began in earnest. Yet while the 9/11 project occupied the bulk of KSM’s attention, he continued to consider other possibilities for terrorist attacks.

KSM appears to have been popular among the al Qaeda rank and file. He was reportedly regarded as an effective leader, especially after the 9/11 attacks. Co-workers describe him as an intelligent, efficient, and even-tempered manager who approached his projects with a single-minded dedication that he expected his colleagues to share.

Like Yousef, KSM reasoned he could best influence U.S. policy by targeting the country’s economy. KSM and Yousef reportedly brainstormed together about what drove the U.S. economy. New York, which KSM considered the economic capital of the United States, therefore became the primary target. For similar reasons, California also became a target for KSM. KSM claims that the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center taught him that bombs and explosives could be problematic, and that he needed to graduate to a more novel form of attack. He maintains that he and Yousef began thinking about using aircraft as weapons while working on the Manila air/Bojinka plot, and speculated about striking the World Trade Center and CIA headquarters as early as 1995.

Indeed, KSM describes a grandiose original plan: a total of ten aircraft to be hijacked, nine of which would crash into targets on both coasts—they included those eventually hit on September 11 plus CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and the state of Washington. KSM himself was to land the tenth plane at a U.S. airport and, after killing all adult male passengers on board and alerting the media, deliver a speech excoriating U.S. support for Israel, the Philippines, and repressive governments in the Arab world. Beyond KSM’s rationalizations about targeting the U.S. economy, this vision gives a better glimpse of his true ambitions. Although Bin Ladin listened to KSM’s proposal, he was not convinced that it was practical. Bin Ladin was receiving numerous ideas for potential operations— KSM’s proposal to attack U.S. targets with commercial airplanes was only one of many. Thus, although KSM contends he would have been just as likely to consider working with any comparable terrorist organization, he gives no indication of what other groups he thought could supply such exceptional commodities.

KSM acknowledges formally joining al Qaeda, in late 1998 or 1999, and states that soon afterward, Bin Ladin also made the decision to support his proposal to attack the United States using commercial airplanes as weapons. Bin Ladin summoned KSM to Kandahar in March or April 1999 to tell him that al Qaeda would support his proposal. The plot was now referred to within al Qaeda as the “planes operation.” No one else but KSM, Bin Ladin, and Atef were involved in the initial selection of targets.

Much of his activity in mid-1999 had revolved around the collection of training and informational materials for the participants in the planes operation. For instance, he collected Western aviation magazines; telephone directories for American cities such as San Diego and Long Beach, California; brochures for schools; and airline timetables, and he conducted Internet searches on U.S. flight schools. He also purchased flight simulator software and a few movies depicting hijackings. To house his students, KSM rented a safehouse in Karachi with money provided by Bin Ladin. The course in Karachi apparently lasted about one or two weeks. According to KSM, he taught the three operatives basic English words and phrases. He showed them how to read phone books,interpret airline timetables, use the Internet, use code words in communications, make travel reservations, and rent an apartment. KSM told them to watch the cabin doors at takeoff and landing, to observe whether the captain went to the lavatory during the flight, and to note whether the flight attendants brought food into the cockpit.

Although Bin Ladin, Atef, and KSM initially contemplated using established al Qaeda members to execute the planes operation, the late 1999 arrival in Kandahar of four aspiring jihadists from Germany suddenly presented a more attractive alternative. The Hamburg group shared the anti-U.S. fervor of the other candidates for the operation, but added the enormous advantages of fluency in English and familiarity with life in the West, based on years that each member of the group had spent living in Germany.

KSM played a key role in facilitating travel for al Qaeda operatives. KSM provided his operatives with nearly all the money they needed to travel to the United States, train, and live. The available evidence indicates that the 19 operatives were funded by al Qaeda, either through wire transfers or cash provided by KSM, which they carried into the United States or deposited in foreign accounts and accessed from the United States. KSM, Binalshibh, and another plot facilitator, Mustafa al Hawsawi, each received money, in some cases perhaps as much as $10,000, to perform their roles in the plot. According to KSM, the Hamburg cell members each received $5,000 to pay for their return to Germany from Afghanistan after they had been selected to join the plot, and they received additional funds for travel from Germany to the United States.

Sheikh Mohammed's arrest in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 marks one of the most important breakthroughs in the fight against al-Qaeda. The two key factors leading to his arrest was a bribe to an Al-Qaeda operative in the amount of $27 million, as well as information gained from the NSA electronic surveillance network, Echelon. Although the arrest was solely a Pakistani operation the FBI observed the arrest and was to a large degree invovled in the interrogation process. Pakistani officials claim that KSM remained in Pakistan for 3 days and then was subsequently moved to an undisclosed location by US officials.

Reportedly, the use of harsh interrogation techniques in the questioning of Khaled Sheik Mohammed was approved by Justice Department and CIA, according to a May 13, 2004 New York Times report.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ksm.htm

patteeu
05-26-2009, 06:35 PM
First off - huh? That IS a chicken choking there, right? That is a reference to his student deferments (before the exemption).

Second - well, yes. Asthma and other health exemptions - Pilondial Cysts for example - remained after the deferments were abolished. There are actual valid reasons for them besides "daddy's got money."

Dick Cheney came from modest means. He wasn't dirt poor or anything, but he used to go on family vacations sitting in a box where the backseat of his parent's hand-me-down car should have been.

There are valid reasons for college, marriage and fatherhood exemptions too. You may not share the values of America circa 1960s, but those are reflections of our values.

penchief
05-26-2009, 06:37 PM
This is the guy you have your panties in a bunch over the CIA pouring water on his face.

Once again you completely miss the point. But that is hardly surprising considering that you don't have a leg to stand on. Lame attempt at a deflection, as well. It's not the who. It's the what and the how. It's about us and what we are.

What Bush, Cheney, and their ilk are is chickenshit chickenhawks. It's no coincidence that men and woman who have served in the military and fought in combat unanimously advocate caution and diplomacy. While it's the big-talking punk ass bitches who never served that are always eager to indiscriminitely sacrifice someone else's loved ones as cannon fodder.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 06:37 PM
He actively and repeatedly seeked deferrments as a means of evading service. Which is the exact opposite of that guy John Kerry who volunteered to serve his country during wartime and actually earned a medal for courage under fire. Opposite ends of the spectrum those two are.

The deferments were available because our government made the calculation that people who were eligible for them were at least as valuable to the nation doing what they were doing as those who were fighting in Vietnam.

The biggest difference between Cheney and Kerry is that Cheney never betrayed American troops with whom he worked.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 06:39 PM
Laugh all you want but he didn't get them for nothing. He did what he did under fire and he sure as hell didn't give them to himself.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

penchief
05-26-2009, 06:41 PM
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Okay. How did he award them to himself?

patteeu
05-26-2009, 06:41 PM
Dick Cheney, George Bush.....heh. They couldn't carry John Kerry's jock when it comes to military service. Hell, Jimmy Carter has more credibility when it comes to military service than those two chickenshits.

Jimmy Carter never disgraced his uniform and deserves plenty of credit for hism military career. I can't say the same about John Kerry.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 06:50 PM
This whole chickenhawk bullshit is laughable now that the elected executive leadership never served but are responsible for sending our military into harm's way.

You guys look like fools and have 7 and a half years to turn your present bullshit into complete idiocy.

Just a thought.

penchief
05-26-2009, 06:53 PM
The deferments were available because our government made the calculation that people who were eligible for them were at least as valuable to the nation doing what they were doing as those who were fighting in Vietnam.

So he was resourceful. That doesn't mean he didn't avoid service when he could have served. It certainly has no bearing on his chickenhawk status. He, his five deferrments, and his advocacy for aggressive war epitomize the meaning of chickenhawk.

The biggest difference between Cheney and Kerry is that Cheney never betrayed American troops with whom he worked.

No, Cheney just betrayed American troops en masse when he lied about Iraq, and therefore, showed a blatant disregard for their well-being.

John Kerry's sin was wanting to end a war and bring the troops home after he did his time serving in that war. Cheney's sin was to intentionally abuse the purpose of our troops by starting a war in pursuit of a political agenda, as someone who never understood what it meant to serve or fight for one's country.

penchief
05-26-2009, 06:58 PM
This whole chickenhawk bullshit is laughable now that the elected executive leadership never served but are responsible for sending our military into harm's way.

You guys look like fools and have 7 and a half years to turn your present bullshit into complete idiocy.

Just a thought.

There is a clear difference between those who choose military aggression over diplomacy and those who choose diplomacy over unnecessary military aggression.

Why is it that those who have served and who have fought in combat almost unanimously urge caution and diplomacy? While those who want to shoot first and ask questions later are usually people like Bush and Cheney who not only didn't serve but evaded military service?

Your thought is a legitimate thought but I disagree with it. The chickenhawk is a very real concept, IMO.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 07:08 PM
There is a clear difference between those who choose military aggression over diplomacy and those who choose diplomacy over unnecessary military aggression.

Why is it that those who have served and who have fought in combat almost unanimously urge caution and diplomacy while those who want to shoot first and ask questions later are usually people like Bush and Cheney who not only didn't serve but evaded military service?

Your thought is a legitimate thought but I disagree with it. The chickenhawk is a very real concept, IMO.

And every day our troops are in Afghanistan and everywhere else our new chickenhawks control their fate.

Obama has stated he is willing to commit troops to Pakistan. In case you forgot they have nukes.

Since Bush and Cheney are such chickenshits Biden publicly agreed with their intent to use military force.

By the standards you impose on Bush/Cheney, Obama/Biden have no right to decide how our military is used. You logic on the whole chickenhawk issue is flawed now.

I know we're a bit apart from a political POV but I fail to understand you wanting to push the hate Cheney mantra.

penchief
05-26-2009, 07:19 PM
And every day our troops are in Afghanistan and everywhere else our new chickenhawks control their fate.

Obama has stated he is willing to commit troops to Pakistan. In case you forgot they have nukes.

Since Bush and Cheney are such chickenshits Biden publicly agreed with their intent to use military force.

By the standards you impose on Bush/Cheney, Obama/Biden have no right to decide how our military is used. You logic on the whole chickenhawk issue is flawed now.

I know we're a bit apart from a political POV but I fail to understand you wanting to push the hate Cheney mantra.

Obama voted against the Iraq authorization. It's hard to say he was an advocate for the unnecessary aggression when he voted against it. While Biden voted to give Bush the authorization I believe he admitted it was a mistake long before it was fashionable to do so. That said, Biden has always been a diplomacy first guy. His track record would indicate that. Unfortunately, Obama/Biden have inherited a situation that they would not have created for themselves. It may be a situation that requires them to take steps that they would not otherwise advocate.

Another big difference in guys like Obama/Biden and guys like Bush/Cheney is that they actually put their money where their mouth is when it comes to "supporting the troops." It is the former who actually care about veterans issues, the troops' care, and their quality of life. While Bush/Cheney were continually trying to cut funding to veterans and sending troops into harms way underequipped, it was Biden/Obama who led the way trying to get the proper armor to the troops and increase (rather than cut) funding for veteran issues.

Of course, how one treats veterans issues is another sure sign of a chickenhawk. When rhetoric about "supporting the troops" becomes a substitute for actually supporting the troops in tangible ways you can almost be certain that it is a chickenhawk squawking about "supporting the troops."

Cannibal
05-26-2009, 07:42 PM
Which one is Biden since he voted for authorization of US armed forces against Saddam?

Joe Biden is also a chickenhawk.

Cannibal
05-26-2009, 07:45 PM
This whole chickenhawk bullshit is laughable now that the elected executive leadership never served but are responsible for sending our military into harm's way.

You guys look like fools and have 7 and a half years to turn your present bullshit into complete idiocy.

Just a thought.

Obama hasn't dodged the draft. Most all in the Bush administration and the Republican's in general have. There's your difference.

Cannibal
05-26-2009, 07:47 PM
Republican politicos are all for war, as long as they or their kids are the ones who don't have to sacrifice their lives for it.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 07:52 PM
Obama voted against the Iraq authorization. It's hard to say he was an advocate for the unnecessary aggression when he voted against it. While Biden voted to give Bush the authorization I believe he admitted it was a mistake long before it was fashionable to do so. That said, Biden has always been a diplomacy first guy. His track record would indicate that. Unfortunately, Obama/Biden have inherited a situation that they would not have created for themselves. It may be a situation that requires them to take steps that they would not otherwise advocate.

Another big difference in guys like Obama/Biden and guys like Bush/Cheney is that they actually put their money where their mouth is when it comes to "supporting the troops." It is the former who actually care about veterans issues, the troops' care, and their quality of life. While Bush/Cheney were continually trying to cut funding to veterans and sending troops into harms way underequipped, it was Biden/Obama who led the way trying to get the proper armor to the troops and increase (rather than cut) funding for veteran issues.

Of course, how one treats veterans issues is another sure sign of a chickenhawk. When rhetoric about "supporting the troops" becomes a substitute for actually supporting the troops in tangible ways you can almost be certain that it is a chickenhawk squawking about "supporting the troops."

You are missing my point. Obama is responsible for every soldier that dies on foreign soil now even though he is a true chickenhawk because he has the audacity to think he can do a President's job although not ever serving.

The clock is ticking and you don't see the conservative pussy chickenhawks keeping score. Until now.

Cannibal
05-26-2009, 07:54 PM
Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of draft age.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 07:57 PM
Obama hasn't dodged the draft. Most all in the Bush administration and the Republican's in general have. There's your difference.

Bleh, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how F'd up it is.

mlyonsd
05-26-2009, 08:00 PM
Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of draft age.

My dad had a 40 year military career and thinks Obama is a chickenhawk. Go figure.

Cannibal
05-26-2009, 08:03 PM
My dad had a 40 year military career and thinks Obama is a chickenhawk. Go figure.

Then your father does not know the definition of the word unfortunately. You may want to send him the definition via email.

Cannibal
05-26-2009, 08:03 PM
Or call him.

penchief
05-26-2009, 08:18 PM
You are missing my point. Obama is responsible for every soldier that dies on foreign soil now even though he is a true chickenhawk because he has the audacity to think he can do a President's job although not ever serving.

The clock is ticking and you don't see the conservative pussy chickenhawks keeping score. Until now.

I guess I am missing your point. I don't believe that Obama is an indiscriminate hawk. IMO, he's trying to salvage the situation by retargeting our efforts toward the root of the problem in hopes of bringing a sooner but proper end to our entanglement.

Meanwhile, the entire chickenhawk controversy has reared it its ugly head again because Dick Cheney has seen fit to publicly undermine the president's efforts by dropping his chickenhawk turds all over the place. The vast majority of people in this country disagree with Cheney and said so in November. Yet he persists in spreading his special brand of fear and deceit.

Cheney has refocused the chickenhawk spotlight back on himself and his fellow chickenhawks via his own self-serving conduct. The American people would prefer he just take his place in infamy and shut the hell up but he's too busy trying to play politics with national security. Some things never change.

Cannibal
05-26-2009, 08:24 PM
Obama inherited two wars. If he could, I believe he would withdraw from both right now. But they have gone to shit and he needs to find a way to end them without a bloodbath. Although in my opinion, the bloodbath will come no matter when we leave.

patteeu
05-27-2009, 05:42 AM
So he was resourceful. That doesn't mean he didn't avoid service when he could have served. It certainly has no bearing on his chickenhawk status. He, his five deferrments, and his advocacy for aggressive war epitomize the meaning of chickenhawk.

Until you said "five deferments", I thought you were talking about the other chickenhawk, Barack Obama.

No, Cheney just betrayed American troops en masse when he lied about Iraq, and therefore, showed a blatant disregard for their well-being.

John Kerry's sin was wanting to end a war and bring the troops home after he did his time serving in that war. Cheney's sin was to intentionally abuse the purpose of our troops by starting a war in pursuit of a political agenda, as someone who never understood what it meant to serve or fight for one's country.

Fairytales.

patteeu
05-27-2009, 05:44 AM
Obama hasn't dodged the draft. Most all in the Bush administration and the Republican's in general have. There's your difference.

No one in the Bush administration dodged the draft.

Obama avoided service during wartime when he could have served, just like those in the Bush administration. No difference.

patteeu
05-27-2009, 05:47 AM
I guess I am missing your point. I don't believe that Obama is an indiscriminate hawk. IMO, he's trying to salvage the situation by retargeting our efforts toward the root of the problem in hopes of bringing a sooner but proper end to our entanglement.

Meanwhile, the entire chickenhawk controversy has reared it its ugly head again because Dick Cheney has seen fit to publicly undermine the president's efforts by dropping his chickenhawk turds all over the place. The vast majority of people in this country disagree with Cheney and said so in November. Yet he persists in spreading his special brand of fear and deceit.

Cheney has refocused the chickenhawk spotlight back on himself and his fellow chickenhawks via his own self-serving conduct. The American people would prefer he just take his place in infamy and shut the hell up but he's too busy trying to play politics with national security. Some things never change.

Pakistan didn't attack us. In fact, neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan attacked us, while Iraq actually did.

penchief
05-27-2009, 06:00 AM
Pakistan didn't attack us. In fact, neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan attacked us, while Iraq actually did.

Al Qaeda attacked us. Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and you know it. Iraq was the neocon chickenhawk's wet dream that became America's greatest blunder.

patteeu
05-27-2009, 06:07 AM
Al Qaeda attacked us. Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and you know it. Iraq was the neocon chickenhawk's wet dream that became America's greatest blunder.

Pakistan didn't attack us. Afghanistan didn't attack us. Iraq did attack us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones)... repeatedly.

Al Qaeda is in dozens of countries around the world. If their presence justifies a military response, we have no problem justifying Iraq.

penchief
05-27-2009, 06:12 AM
No one in the Bush administration dodged the draft.

Obama avoided service during wartime when he could have served, just like those in the Bush administration. No difference.

But what makes Cheney a chickenhawk is his over-the-top advocacy for aggressive war and torture as policy vehicles. In fact, he's currently expressing those beliefs publicly while on his neocon revival tour. The same cannot be said about Obama's beliefs.

Those who believe war is a virtue but also go to great lengths to avoid military service or combat themselves ARE chickenhawks. Dick Cheney is the king of chickenhawks. He is Papa Chickenhawk.

***SPRAYER
05-27-2009, 06:12 AM
Laugh all you want but he didn't get them for nothing. He did what he did under fire and he sure as hell didn't give them to himself. .


Oh yes he did.