Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

  1. #81
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    The key judgments hold more weight than the rest of the document. The information from global security was not in the key judgment summary but later down in the document. Also the State Department's agency concluded that the claims were dubious further down in the document. Again as according to your original wikipedia link there was conflicting information and not enough proof to even include it in the SOTU
    NO, it does not. As I said, the key judgements is just the summary. If you want to know the details, look through the entire report.

    You love being obtuse don't you?

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  2. #82
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    NO, it does not. As I said, the key judgements is just the summary. If you want to know the details, look through the entire report.

    You love being obtuse don't you?
    Not being obtuse. If the uranium bit was so credible it would have been in the key judgments section which it was not. Again that information is contradicted by the part in the document where the Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated the uranium claims were highly dubious. Again no clear consensus. There should have been no reason to have it in the SOTU.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

    Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    Got any evidence/facts to support this FALSE assertion?

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    I didn't make an assertion. I said I wondered how many we've treated the same way. According to the justifications used we could say drug runners and gang members are unlawful combatants and could be detained as well
    So you were just engaging in superficial hyperbole. Sorry, I mistook your efforts at debate for substance.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    Not being obtuse. If the uranium bit was so credible it would have been in the key judgments section which it was not. Again that information is contradicted by the part in the document where the Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated the uranium claims were highly dubious. Again no clear consensus. There should have been no reason to have it in the SOTU.
    I am curious by this Niger “yellowcake” argument; is your argument that Saddam didn't have highly enriched Uranium that can be used for weapons grade munitions?

    If so, I guess you missed this story from 2008:

    a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

    The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.

    FOXNews.com - Report: Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

    At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

    The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.


    France 24 | Iraq sells uranium to Canada | France 24

    Which begs the question; if Saddam wasn’t attempting to re-constitute his nuclear WMDs, what was 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” going to be used for; a birthday party?


  5. #85
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

    Quote Originally Posted by dragondad View Post
    Here is what I wrote.

    ""please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?"

    Unable to do this....you go off and list 5 lame links where you were criticizing Congress as a whole (your number #1 link) or GOP Congressman after they admitted or were found guilty of wrongdoing (links #2-5)

    I'll ask you again!!! Can you please post a link where you were critical or questioning of the Bush Administration for alleged lawbreaking?

    Here is you questioning whether it is OK for Government to lie to the public.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/archiv...-citizens.html
    I need you to post 134 links of threads you have started where you have expressed outrage and/or concern for the scarce evidence of the Unicorn's existence. If you cannot do this, your arguments will be rendered invalid and silly. Good day, sir.
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  6. #86
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    Got any evidence/facts to support this FALSE assertion?



    So you were just engaging in superficial hyperbole. Sorry, I mistook your efforts at debate for substance.
    Not hyperbole either. You want to try this one again? There's no reason why we shouldn't hold gang members as nonlawful combatants according to the rationale being used

  7. #87
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I am curious by this Niger “yellowcake” argument; is your argument that Saddam didn't have highly enriched Uranium that can be used for weapons grade munitions?

    If so, I guess you missed this story from 2008:

    a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

    The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.

    FOXNews.com - Report: Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

    At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

    The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.


    France 24 | Iraq sells uranium to Canada | France 24

    Which begs the question; if Saddam wasn’t attempting to re-constitute his nuclear WMDs, what was 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” going to be used for; a birthday party?


    Did you even bother to read your own article? The Iraqi government sold this to a canadian company. The Iraqi government we put in place.

    Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
    This yellowcake you speak of was from a stockpile we already knew about, we had control of and had been stored and safeguarded for years on end. Again we're talking about outlawed arms that we had no information on. That was what the problem was. We knew about this stockpile and there was no evidence that he had the means to create weapons grade uranium. Not even fox seems to support your contention. Reading comprehension try it sometime.

  8. #88
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

    Quote Originally Posted by dragondad View Post
    Here is what I wrote.

    ""please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?"

    Unable to do this....you go off and list 5 lame links where you were criticizing Congress as a whole (your number #1 link) or GOP Congressman after they admitted or were found guilty of wrongdoing (links #2-5)
    You should work on your reading comprehension.

    The first link is criticizing the OMB (part of the Bush Administration,) who was responsible for the proposed rule.

    The other links all clearly fall under your request as well.

    I'll ask you again!!! Can you please post a link where you were critical or questioning of the Bush Administration for alleged lawbreaking?
    Don't ****ing lie to me. You never said "alleged lawbreaking," you said:

    Also please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?
    How do examples 2-5 not fall under that scenario? (I'm reading "Bush administration" broadly, as that was obviously what you were getting at.)

    Pay up.

    Here is you questioning whether it is OK for Government to lie to the public.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/archiv...-citizens.html
    A four year old thread where we discuss a perfectly reasonable philosophical question (that I still agree with). Point?


    Quote Originally Posted by dragondad View Post
    Here is a link where RightinNYC agrees that denying Habes Corpus rights to "suspected" terrorist supects is a good thing to do. He thinks our Government can just hold suspects forever if the President says OK.


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...efinitely.html
    Do you understand why Bagram Air Force base is different from the US or Guantanamo (since Hamdan)?

    Quote Originally Posted by dragondad View Post
    Here is a link of "claimed Conservative" RightinNYC

    defending the use of Bush's signing statements...which effectively claim that the President is above the law if he declares so.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/archiv...warrant-2.html
    And again, signing statements are in and of themselves perfectly legitimate. They were fine under Bush and they're fine under Obama.

    Do you notice a pattern here?????
    Yes. I notice that you're posting threads where I express opinions on complex issues that you don't understand.

    Fake Conservatives are real concerned about law breaking and the weakening of the Constitution when Democrats are in power....but the are fine with erosions of Civil Liberties and reducing checks on Governmental power when their guys are in power.
    I know that you're capable of understanding this, so why don't you go back and look at those threads again. If I was really trying to defend it when Conservatives did it and criticize it when Liberals did it, then why am I defending it when Obama did it?

    It's called consistency.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •