• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

They actually do according to the supreme court. This has nothing to do with Liberals in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld the supreme court determined that the Geneva conventions do apply to enemy combatants.

What does Article 3 of the Convention state?

Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

But alas, under the Convention, only parties to the Convention are entitled to it's protections. Where is it that these terrorists are parties to the Convention? Where is it in the Convention that the interrogation techniques used by the US were in violation?

What does Clarence Thomas dissent state regarding this bad decision?

In his dissent he asserted that the courts had no jurisdiction for this case for the reasons described in Scalia's dissent above; that Hamdan is an illegal combatant and therefore not protected by the Geneva convention; that the Geneva convention doesn't prohibit the special court council proposed; and that the President already had authority to set up the special court council proposed.[27]

Citing his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Thomas briefly reprised the roles granted by the Constitution to the three different branches in time of war. He argued that under the framework established in Ex parte Quirin and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, President Bush's decision to try Hamdan before a military commission "is entitled to a heavy measure of deference," inasmuch as Congress had authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to prevent future acts of terrorism when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


Who are parties to the Convention?

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 4 )

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Nothing above suggests that the prisoners in Gitmo apply here.

Torure as defined by the UN:

Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


The techniques used by our people hardly meet the definition.

So far you're the only one spewing divisive rhetoric

Only because you say so; but again, anything I state that is non-factual you are more than welcome to point it out factually.
 
You don't seem to know your history. Geneva didn't take place until 1949. The tokyo trials took place in 1946. So no Japan didn't sign onto Geneva during the time we tried and executed Japanese war criminals

I guess you missed the part where there were FOUR conventions:

On August 22, 1864 several European states congregated in Geneva and signed the First Geneva Convention.

....the Second Geneva Convention in 1906 and Hague Convention of 1899 which extended the articles to maritime warfare.

Are you suggesting that no convention dictated the behavior of Nations in WWI or WWII? Really??

Carry on. :2wave:
 
I guess you missed the part where there were FOUR conventions:

On August 22, 1864 several European states congregated in Geneva and signed the First Geneva Convention.

....the Second Geneva Convention in 1906 and Hague Convention of 1899 which extended the articles to maritime warfare.

Are you suggesting that no convention dictated the behavior of Nations in WWI or WWII? Really??

Carry on. :2wave:
What was it you said originally? You said Japan signed and violated the geneva conventions. That was an incorrect statement. The term geneva conventions refers to the ratification of the conventions in 1949. So your statement was incorrect. Japan didn't ratify the conventions until 1953. The hague conventions were separate from the Geneva Conventions. So once again your statement was false and demonstrably so.
 
What does Article 3 of the Convention state?

Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

But alas, under the Convention, only parties to the Convention are entitled to it's protections. Where is it that these terrorists are parties to the Convention? Where is it in the Convention that the interrogation techniques used by the US were in violation?

Funny your quote doesn't seem to imply that. Once again we are party to it. We are bound to treat others humanely because of our ratification of the convention. Also I bolded the part that applies. Also suspected terrorists. Aside from those who we knew committed crimes and were waterboarded. There are others who are suspects who we have tortured. You have to remember that Al-Qaida makes up a small percentage of the insurgency and that a majority are actual Iraqis fighting as a resistance group.


What does Clarence Thomas dissent state regarding this bad decision?

In his dissent he asserted that the courts had no jurisdiction for this case for the reasons described in Scalia's dissent above; that Hamdan is an illegal combatant and therefore not protected by the Geneva convention; that the Geneva convention doesn't prohibit the special court council proposed; and that the President already had authority to set up the special court council proposed.[27]

Citing his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Thomas briefly reprised the roles granted by the Constitution to the three different branches in time of war. He argued that under the framework established in Ex parte Quirin and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, President Bush's decision to try Hamdan before a military commission "is entitled to a heavy measure of deference," inasmuch as Congress had authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to prevent future acts of terrorism when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Dissenting opinions don't amount to jack. How often do we hear about the dissenting opinions in Brown V Board of Education or other landmark cases?
Who are parties to the Convention?

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 4 )

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Nothing above suggests that the prisoners in Gitmo apply here.

Torure as defined by the UN:

Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


The techniques used by our people hardly meet the definition.



Only because you say so; but again, anything I state that is non-factual you are more than welcome to point it out factually.

Waterboarding does cause physical or mental harm even if it may be temporary the mental effects can be permanent. So yes that does fit the definition of torture. Even John McCain states its torture which makes you just seem even more foolish defending the practice. Jesse Ventura also underwent waterboarding and it is torture. How bout this you get someone in the armed services to waterboard you. Film it post it here and we'll see after its done with if you still think its not torture. Put up..
 
I see so anyone you disagree with must automatically make them a liberal right? So that would make you what? An extremist right?

Not in the least; when you sound like a Liberal, spew Liberal talking points like a Liberal and avoid facts and substance like a Liberal, perhaps you really must be a Liberal.

The notion that any of the drivel you have spewed here is “centrist” of course requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

You are a birther nothing to complain about there.

Because you say so; but when pressed for facts to support your wild eyed emotional hyperbole, you come up with nothing better.

But alas, never let REALITY, FACTS or HONESTY get in the way of your nonsensical emotion filled bile.

Again, another example of your “liberal” tendencies; but what I do not understand is why people like you so desperately avoid that label; you should embrace it.

Waterboarding as we have defined it. Once again we have prosecuted Waterboarding here in the US when a texas sheriff and 3 of his deputies used it on prisoners to elicit false confessions. Waterboarding is torture plain and simple.

Wrong; it is torture because you say so, but the UN definition of the act does not fit the techniques used by the CIA.

How amusing that the people trying to protect you from another attack are the bad guys and the ones who attack us are victims; perhaps this is more irony than amusing. A sad one at that.

You do know that when we sign treaties we are obligated to follow them right? Regardless of if a country has signed onto it or not.

What treaty applies in this case? Once more you keep referring to divined treaties where this case, none exist. What treaties did the terrorists sign onto? I wish there as a fraction of the outrage exhibited by Liberals like you regarding the methods used by the terrorist as you show towards the previous administration who tried to protect you.

You’re the definition of the Alice in Wonderland logic being used by Liberals and Democrats in their pathetic efforts to impugn political opponents.

What you seem not to understand is we have prosecuted Waterboarding here in this country. Regardless of the japanese we still have prosecuted it. So yes waterboarding is against the law no matter how much you pretend it isn't

When you can produce the specific case you keep citing here that supports the notion that the conduct of this Sheriff was anything remotely similar in the case of the CIAs treatment of terrorists, then perhaps you have a leg to stand on; but for now, your efforts fail to have anything remotely conclusive to support your emotional hyperbolic claims that we torture our prisoners.

Of course if we pretend that terrorists are parties to Geneva Conventions and that 9-11 never occurred, one could stretch credulity and have the positions you take.

James parker and 3 of his sheriffs were convicted in 1983 of waterboarding prisoners to force confessions for crimes.
Waterboarding: A Tortured History : NPR

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

From your quoted NPR source:

Waterboarding actually refers to two different interrogation techniques. One involves pumping water directly into the stomach. "This creates intense pain. It feels like your organs are on fire," says Darius Rejali, a professor at Reed College in Oregon and author of a new book, Torture and Democracy.

The other technique — the one more widely used today — involves choking the victim by filling their throat with a steady stream of water — a sort of "slow-motion drowning" that was perfected by Dutch traders in the 17th century. They used it against their British rivals in the East Indies.
Neither of these are remotely like the methods used by our CIA.


The Japanese Version:

Navarro: When Yuki could not get anything out of me, he wanted the interpreter to place me down below. And I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes, so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench, lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench, Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the faucet, they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.


Again, only desperate assertions for purely partisan purposes can suggest that what our people did are even remotely similar to the Japanese methods.

Really? You seem pretty emotional here with some vile invective not based on any facts but rather your own personal feelings. Everyone who seems to disagree with you is a liberal and then you throw up strawmen to describe what you think a liberal is.

Vile invective; now you wander from emotion filled hyperbolic rhetoric to outright absurdity.

Watching you type “strawmen” reading your emotion filled drivel is truly the definition of irony.

The only one spewing “strawmen” BS claiming I am a birther and a torture defender happens to be you. My comments are merely driven by the FACTS here.

Fact: we were indeed attacked on 9-11 by terrorists.

Fact: the definition of torture does not meet the methods used that are farcically begin claimed by Democrats and Liberals like you.

Fact: the efforts in the thread article are purely “partisan” in nature and intended to do nothing more than impugn the previous administration placing our nation at even greater risk in the future to attacks.

Fact: your desperate hyperbolic remarks do not support the notion that this effort is merely an effort at purification to ensure that we conduct ourselves with higher moral integrity than any nation on earth.


I'm dealing with the facts you're spinning on emotion

This is pure denial plain and simple. :rofl

Carry on.
 
What was it you said originally? You said Japan signed and violated the geneva conventions. That was an incorrect statement. The term geneva conventions refers to the ratification of the conventions in 1949. So your statement was incorrect. Japan didn't ratify the conventions until 1953. The hague conventions were separate from the Geneva Conventions. So once again your statement was false and demonstrably so.

Your desperate assertions have been noted. :rofl
 
Funny your quote doesn't seem to imply that. Once again we are party to it. We are bound to treat others humanely because of our ratification of the convention. Also I bolded the part that applies. Also suspected terrorists. Aside from those who we knew committed crimes and were waterboarded. There are others who are suspects who we have tortured. You have to remember that Al-Qaida makes up a small percentage of the insurgency and that a majority are actual Iraqis fighting as a resistance group.

This is again nothing more than "because you say so" in a vacuum of the facts of this case.


Dissenting opinions don't amount to jack. How often do we hear about the dissenting opinions in Brown V Board of Education or other landmark cases?

If they do not amount to "jack", why have them?

The FACT is that the contorted logic in the Supreme Court decision suggests that the Geneva Convention applies not because it does, but because a few justices say it does outside of their legal purview.

But hey, when these terrorists are once again loosed on society and murder again (which many already have), we can all feel justified that we took that "presumed" moral high ground Liberals love to quote; yet these are the same people who have no moral compunction regarding abortion. Ironic don't you think?

But it is hardly ironic if one comprehends that this is hardly a “moral” debate but more a highly charged hyper partisan political ploy by Liberal Democrats in a desperate effort to impugn their political opponents.

Nancy Pelosi, the moral high ground poster child in this debate was even briefed; seems her morality didn’t appear until it became politically expedient.

But alas, these FACTS and the REALITY don’t have a place in your emotional hyperbolic nonsensical pile of bile do they?

Waterboarding does cause physical or mental harm even if it may be temporary the mental effects can be permanent. So yes that does fit the definition of torture. Even John McCain states its torture which makes you just seem even more foolish defending the practice. Jesse Ventura also underwent waterboarding and it is torture.

Once more this is nothing more than "because you say so."

How bout this you get someone in the armed services to waterboard you. Film it post it here and we'll see after its done with if you still think its not torture. Put up..

Once again this is hardly a surprising remark coming from someone more inclined to highly emotional hyperbolic BS than coherent debate.

Once more you cannot comprehend the irony in your remarks can you?

Carry on. :rofl
 
Oh so we just made up war crimes as an excuse then Celtic.. gotcha
Pretty much. "War crime" is at best an oxymoron and at worst a lie. It has a remarkable tendency to be whatever the victor decides is "criminal". That the victor is usually guilty of the same conduct himself is one of those things just not mentioned in polite society.
 
Your desperate assertions have been noted. :rofl

Desperate assertions? You stated that they signed the geneva conventions. That was an inaccurate statement. The Geneva Conventions emcompasses the full ratification of the accords, which took place in 1949 after we had the trials for the Japanese. You made a false statement.
 
Bottom line, this isn't going to happen. This is lip service for the moveon.org and Soros crowd, whom Obama is heavily indebted to but represents a small sliver of the American populace.

If he does this, he's done.
 
Bottom line, this isn't going to happen. This is lip service for the moveon.org and Soros crowd, whom Obama is heavily indebted to but represents a small sliver of the American populace.

If he does this, he's done.

I'd say that sounds about right. What's most annoying to me how this Thread been going,,,is how much some Folks insist on looking at our Defense in Lawyer-Speak. :roll: No one in their right minds would EVER look to a Lawyer, or a Judge to protect them from anything...:roll: Other than from other Lawyers and Judges.:lol:

Bottom -Feeders, mostly.

Take care, Erod.
 
Last edited:
Oh so we just made up war crimes as an excuse then Celtic.. gotcha

Actually, there's a strong argument to be made that we did. It was an argument made by many prominent minds of the day.
 
Waterboarding isn't a label. Its a specific act. I know specifically what the definition of torture is under our laws and geneva. Just because the prior administration tried to change it so almost anything but organ failure isn't torture, doesn't make it so.

OK. Give the elements of the crime and show how the specific facts satisfy each beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
This is again nothing more than "because you say so" in a vacuum of the facts of this case.
Yawn. This isn't a because I said so. It's because our laws say so. Its because someone like John McCain who was tortured says so. Fancy things up however you like but it still doesn't make you right. Article 146:

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Being a high contracting party we are under the obligation to search for anyone who may have committed or ordered crimes regardless of where they are from and bring them to trial. Even Saint Ronnie understood this principle.

If they do not amount to "jack", why have them?

The FACT is that the contorted logic in the Supreme Court decision suggests that the Geneva Convention applies not because it does, but because a few justices say it does outside of their legal purview.

Oh its contorted logic when it doesn't go your way but when it does it perfect reasoning. The dissenting opinions don't amount to jack as the case has already been decided. It wasn't just a few justices it was the highest court in our land.

But hey, when these terrorists are once again loosed on society and murder again (which many already have), we can all feel justified that we took that "presumed" moral high ground Liberals love to quote; yet these are the same people who have no moral compunction regarding abortion. Ironic don't you think?
Yeah go off on another weird tangent. Only a fraction of the people we hold currently do we know for sure committed a crime. We hold many civilians caught up in the middle of the conflict as well. But hey the ends justify the means right? You don't care what we do as long as someone tells you you'll be okay. You want to talk about emotion? You just went on an emotional appeal to ignorance. Tell me again how many terrorist plots were stopped by torture? Can you name some? Irony is quite a funny word that people often misuse. In your case you are one of those people. In this case you are the dramatic irony.

You're talking about the difference between viable live human beings and fetuses that often in late stages may not be viable. You do know 50% of pregnancies end in abortion within the first 2 weeks right?

But that's a topic for another thread.

But it is hardly ironic if one comprehends that this is hardly a “moral” debate but more a highly charged hyper partisan political ploy by Liberal Democrats in a desperate effort to impugn their political opponents.

Hyper partisan political ploy? Everyone to you is considered a liberal democrat even if they're a moderate or a conservative. Ronald Reagan would be considered a liberal democrat under your line of reasoning. He signed into law several bills opposing torture.


Nancy Pelosi, the moral high ground poster child in this debate was even briefed; seems her morality didn’t appear until it became politically expedient.

She stated quite clearly from the beginning that the CIA never briefed her that they had already begun using these techniques. This was a breach of the letter of the law. The CIA is obligated to inform the gang of 8 before they start using such techniques not after. Also the CIA even admitted that the so-called dates that these briefings took place weren't actually correct and their record keeping was off


But alas, these FACTS and the REALITY don’t have a place in your emotional hyperbolic nonsensical pile of bile do they?
Now this is what we would call ironic your whole reply was an emotional appeal to ignorance and yet you're accusing me of it.


Once more this is nothing more than "because you say so."



Once again this is hardly a surprising remark coming from someone more inclined to highly emotional hyperbolic BS than coherent debate.

Once more you cannot comprehend the irony in your remarks can you?

Carry on. :rofl

Once more its not because I say so its because our laws say so under 18 U.S.C. § 2340.

When you can make a cogent argument please let me know because right now all I see is ad hominems, exactly the same kind you threw at people in the birther thread.
 
Unknown BS? You're sending a message that there are no rules and that the rule of law we have in this country shouldn't apply to anyone in government. They knew the law before they did it. That's why we have laws for conscientious objectors. Many in the CIA and FBI quit because of being told to do things illegal. Many in the FBI were prepared to quit over the Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft hospital visit. If your boss tells you to do something which you know is illegal that doesn't provide you any cover

Again, you're mistaking an agent acting on his own initiative with an agent who acted under orders. The United States government didn't stop being the United States government, just because we got a new prez and the United States government owes these people some cover, for doing what the United States government told them to do.


This whole thing will have a negative effect on our intel services. It will cripple our intel community for decades to come.

This resembles the Great Purge in the Soviet Union back in the 30's. The Soviets paid a huge price for killing all those quality members of their military and intel community.
 
oh, for cryin out loud

this is at least the 6th time holder has THREATENED to go forward with this inane investigation

for pete's sake, holder, DO IT

or SHUT UP

he's gonna investigate
he's not gonna investigate
he's gonna investigate
he's not...

quit TORTURING the DAISY, at least, ya flighty little girl

dang

DO IT!

you and NANCY!

haul in VEEP cheney

make him SWEAR to REMEMBER

ask him why he DUNKED khalid sheikh muhammed

ask him how/if/why the cia lied to the palsied speakeress

or, closer, ask HER

she was RIGHT THERE, every step

cheney'll KICK YOUR LILY BUTTS

just like he did ahmed's and ali's

i for one am SICK of hearing THIS leadership make EMPTY THREATS

only to CHANGE ITS MIND like marcia! marcia! marcia! within the month

the point---holder ain't gonna do SQUAT

if he was, then he woulda

long time ago

he's trying to get a headline (for the umpteenth time)

cuz his BOSS don't like the headlines there are

fool me 5 times, shame on me

fool me again, you're holder

SHUT UP, AG, and go find a TERRORIST to PARDON

close GITMO, if you can

try to answer the WHERE's and HOW's this time

so NINETY freakin senators don't LOL! you and your pencil necked boss right off the expensive blue carpet

go suck up to MARK RICH for what he still OWES you

squelch investigations into the grossly illegal activities of ACORN

you're the POWERS THAT BE

put a pause to prosecutions of billy club brandishing black panthers outside voting precincts in philly

but do YOUR NATION a favor

quit BLUFFING your BLOWHARD BLATHERINGS til ya got SOMETHING

ok?
 
Last edited:
Again, you're mistaking an agent acting on his own initiative with an agent who acted under orders. The United States government didn't stop being the United States government, just because we got a new prez and the United States government owes these people some cover, for doing what the United States government told them to do.


This whole thing will have a negative effect on our intel services. It will cripple our intel community for decades to come.

This resembles the Great Purge in the Soviet Union back in the 30's. The Soviets paid a huge price for killing all those quality members of their military and intel community.

You really should read the article before you comment. The investigation is not of people doing what the government did, but those who broke the rules as the Bush administration interpreted them. In other words, the people that would have been guilty of crimes even under Bush. If prosecuting criminals is going to hurt our intel service, there is a real problem with the intel services.
 
oh, for cryin out loud

this is at least the 6th time holder has THREATENED to go forward with this inane investigation

for pete's sake, holder, DO IT

or SHUT UP

he's gonna investigate
he's not gonna investigate
he's gonna investigate
he's not...

quit TORTURING the DAISY, at least, ya flighty little girl

dang

DO IT!

you and NANCY!

haul in VEEP cheney

make him SWEAR to REMEMBER

ask him why he DUNKED khalid sheikh muhammed

ask him how/if/why the cia lied to the palsied speakeress

or, closer, ask HER

she was RIGHT THERE, every step

cheney'll KICK YOUR LILY BUTTS

just like he did ahmed's and ali's

i for one am SICK of hearing THIS leadership make EMPTY THREATS

only to CHANGE ITS MIND like marcia! marcia! marcia! within the month

the point---holder ain't gonna do SQUAT

if he was, then he woulda

long time ago

he's trying to get a headline (for the umpteenth time)

cuz his BOSS don't like the headlines there are

fool me 5 times, shame on me

fool me again, you're holder

SHUT UP, AG, and go find a TERRORIST to PARDON

close GITMO, if you can

try to answer the WHERE's and HOW's this time

so NINETY freakin senators don't LOL! you and your pencil necked boss right off the expensive blue carpet

go suck up to MARK RICH for what he still OWES you

but do YOUR NATION a favor

quit BLUFFING your BLOWHARD BLATHERINGS til ya got SOMETHING

ok?

Jezz it is so easy to blame others for Republicans breaking the law..you play you pay..America will be investigating the unlawful acts of the politicians.

It is not the Dems doing it to the Republicans...it is the Republicans doing it to themselves and blaming America for their failures...again.
 
tell it to holder

he's been rattling that rusty saber since january

when's he gonna subpoena the veep?

why haven't we heard word one since this story broke last week?

when do you think you're gonna hear the next shoe drop?

how many months this time til he gives throat to his theatrical threat?

nothing will come of it, not a step

it's spelled P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

which, in this context, can be transcribed: L-O-L!

sorry to disappoint
 
This is a bad mistake on B.O.'s part... You don't "attack" the People that Defend America. :roll:


Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected - Los Angeles Times

They're turning their back on our Defenders...:( And seem more worried over the Trash that Master-Minded the 9-11 attacks against us.

The Justice Department authorized waterboarding in an August 2002 memo that contained a caveat that could prove crucial to any criminal investigation. Although it allowed the approved methods to be "used more than once," the memo stipulated that "repetition will not be substantial because the techniques generally lose their effectiveness after several repetitions."

One passage of the CIA report declassified this year said that the method had been used "at least 83 times during August 2002" on Abu Zubaydah, the first senior Al Qaeda figure captured by the agency. Waterboarding was then employed "183 times during March 2003" on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The men who got the initial information that got us bin Laden are still in the gun sights of Eric Holder. Disgusting.

Call your representative and have them do what they can to stop this nonsense, and to have Obama reverse course on enhanced interrogation techniques.

.
 
Last edited:
The men who got the initial information that got us bin Laden are still in the gun sights of Eric Holder. Disgusting.

Call your representative and have them do what they can to stop this nonsense, and to have Obama reverse course on enhanced interrogation techniques.

.

Actually, again, we got the real information after we stopped with the EITs. But it wouldn't matter. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Being immoral is being immoral. Being ineffective is being ineffective.
 
If your ead the IG report, you'll notice that the CIA recommended that the DoJ examine the conduct of more than one individual. Idk how exactly these things are related, but since they stopped waterboarding a while back, they may well be related.

Exactly. Why punish anybody for simply performing within the scope of their defined roles? :confused:
The thing is that they may not have been "within the scope of their defined roles."
Under GWB, the DoJ and the CIA worked out some guidelines as to what was legal and permissible and what wasn't. On the CIA's watch, some individuals engaged in activities that weren't in accordance with what the CIA and the DoJ had worked out.

Also, there was one guy in Afghanistan who turned himself in and then was beaten to death.
 
If your ead the IG report, you'll notice that the CIA recommended that the DoJ examine the conduct of more than one individual. Idk how exactly these things are related, but since they stopped waterboarding a while back, they may well be related.

The thing is that they may not have been "within the scope of their defined roles."
Under GWB, the DoJ and the CIA worked out some guidelines as to what was legal and permissible and what wasn't. On the CIA's watch, some individuals engaged in activities that weren't in accordance with what the CIA and the DoJ had worked out.

Also, there was one guy in Afghanistan who turned himself in and then was beaten to death.

Makes a difference to be sure.
 
Actually, again, we got the real information after we stopped with the EITs.

yup, right after we "broke ksm's spirit"

he became "preeminent source," he conducted "tutorials..."

those are pretty unequivocal descriptions

made by the agency's INSPECTOR GENERAL

as ISSUED BY ERIC HOLDER's doj

LOL!

if it took ten years to assassinate ubl, how long would it have taken without the "preeminent source?"
 
Back
Top Bottom