Conservative radio host gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

Catz Part Deux said:

I'd like to know if Truth Detector can answer a simple question:

If waterboarding is Okay, why did the department of justice, under Ronald Reagan, prosecute it as a crime?

Click to expand...

Because there's differences in how the military handles enemy combatants captured on the battlefield vs US citizens in jail in Texas??

Here's another one:

If waterboarding is okay, does Truth Detector support U.S. police departments using it to gain confessions from suspects?

Click to expand...

I'll give it a go. I expect the CIAs treatment of captured terrorists and enemy combatants to be different than that of US cops dealing with civilian citizens.

The CIA waterboarded 3 people, enemy combatants, during a war. I'm fine with that.

But giving that to the police to be widely used by any yahoo with a badge against US citizens, uh no.

However if the CIA feels there's an extreme need to waterboard a us citizen then I'm ok with that. Just don't think it should be a widely used tool by every tom, dick, and harry cop.

dclxvinoise said:

People have been trying to keep you on topic throughout the thread despite your attempts to derail it. Thus far you are the only one who has tried to tie it to the Bush Administration. If you want to debate about that then you should probably start a thread relating to that. This thread is about Mancow getting water boarded.

Click to expand...

REALLY dclxvinoise, it’s JUST about a CONSERVATIVE talk show host who got water boarded?

So tell me dclxvinoise, if it is JUST about a CONSERVATIVE talk show host trying out water boarding why even bother responding to the thread; basically who cares then?

What was the purpose of this comment from the thread author, was it JUST to talk about a CONSERVATIVE talk show host who got water boarded?

danarhea said:

I want to see what the hyperpartisans are going to say now. Are they going to accept this, or has Mancow just now magically become a Liberal jihadist who hates America?

Click to expand...

How about this one from our resident Canadian Liberal?

Middleground said:

I'm in awe that some don't see waterboarding as torture. How can it not be? Justify it all you want, but it cannot be regarded as anything else. Period.

Click to expand...

How about your own comments?

dclxvinoise said:

I realize that our enemies do far worse, but I've always thought that we, as Americans, like to hold ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies. To me, that is what separates us from them.

Click to expand...

How about this comment once again, from the thread author?

danarhea said:

Most "combatants and terrorists" taken to places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib turned out to be innocent, and not the "combatants and terrorists" they were accused of being, and have been released without charges. Does it sit well with you that you don't want innocent people to be alive?

Click to expand...

Here’s another one from a Liberal poster you missed:

goldendog said:

Yes Kinda make one wonder why the Bush Administration chose to torture many innocent people.

For what reason? To save hundereds of thousands of lives as Dick put it?

Or to desperately gain support for is WMD Saddam/9-11 lies?

Click to expand...

Gee, you didn’t respond to him and ask him to STAY on topic did you?

So please, spare more you farcical and desperate notions that this is MERELY about a "CONSERVATIVE" talk show host who tried water boarding and that there is nothing partisan regarding this asinine debate.

Your selective outrage has, however, been noted. Carry on.

P.S. It is rather quaint watching you an Dan thank each other over and over again. :rofl

talloulou said:

Because there's differences in how the military handles enemy combatants captured on the battlefield vs US citizens in jail in Texas??

Click to expand...

The phrase enemy combatants is a distortion of the term "unlawful combatants" that was coined to circumvent treating these human beings with the due dignity of prisoners of war and/or unlawful combatants. You do realize this, right?

Feel good about using it. It's a phrase specifically designed to deprive other humans of due process and human rights by the Bush administration. It also knowingly undermines Ex Parte Quirin, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942.

Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Were these "unlawful combatants" given a trial? YES OR NO?

And for the record, I wouldn't trust the CIA as far as I could spit.

Do you realize that the FBI pulled their personnel away from working with the CIA because the director of the FBI realized that this issue was going to come back and bite them right on the ass, AS IT HAS.

What does it tell you, Tally, when the FBI attorneys determined that these activities were illegal and would not allow their agents to participate? Why do you think they came to this conclusion?

Truth Detector said:

REALLY dclxvinoise, it’s JUST about a CONSERVATIVE talk show host who got water boarded?

So tell me dclxvinoise, if it is JUST about a CONSERVATIVE talk show host trying out water boarding why even bother responding to the thread; basically who cares then?

What was the purpose of this comment from the thread author, was it JUST to talk about a CONSERVATIVE talk show host who got water boarded?



How about this one from our resident Canadian Liberal?



How about your own comments?



How about this comment once again, from the thread author?



Here’s another one from a Liberal poster you missed:



Gee, you didn’t respond to him and ask him to STAY on topic did you?

So please, spare more you farcical and desperate notions that this is MERELY about a "CONSERVATIVE" talk show host who tried water boarding and that there is nothing partisan regarding this asinine debate.

Your selective outrage has, however, been noted. Carry on.

P.S. It is rather quaint watching you an Dan thank each other over and over again. :rofl

Click to expand...

Once more, please answer the question:

What is your take on Conservatives who are against waterboarding? More specifically, why did a Conservative change his mind after being waterboarded?

And yes, I did bring up the fact in my OP that some would attempt to turn this into a "liberal **** fest", and that makes me a prophet. You have proven that. Now how about answering the question:

What is your take on Conservatives who are against waterboarding? More specifically, why did a Conservative change his mind after being waterboarded?

I am still waiting for an honest answer.

Truth Detector said:

REALLY dclxvinoise, it’s JUST about a CONSERVATIVE talk show host who got water boarded?

So tell me dclxvinoise, if it is JUST about a CONSERVATIVE talk show host trying out water boarding why even bother responding to the thread; basically who cares then?

What was the purpose of this comment from the thread author, was it JUST to talk about a CONSERVATIVE talk show host who got water boarded?

Click to expand...

Well, I'd say it sparks a particularly interesting discussion because Conservatives typically don't consider waterboarding to be torture. This particular Conservative host said many times that he didn't. So he went through six seconds of it himself and suddenly considers it torture. I'd say that's a pretty big issue. Now, would you care to explain how you draw the conclusion from the OP that it has ANYTHING to do with the Bush Administration?

How about this one from our resident Canadian Liberal?

How about your own comments?

How about this comment once again, from the thread author?

Here’s another one from a Liberal poster you missed:

Gee, you didn’t respond to him and ask him to STAY on topic did you?

Click to expand...

And what exactly does any of that have to do with the Bush Administration? I'd say that all of those comments relate to the general topic of waterboarding. What you are doing here is accusing people of attacking something specific when there was absolutely nothing throughout the thread to imply that. So again, I'll ask you: Where in the OP does it mention the Bush Administration?

So please, spare more you farcical and desperate notions that this is MERELY about a "CONSERVATIVE" talk show host who tried water boarding and that there is nothing partisan regarding this asinine debate.

Click to expand...

Again, what does it have to do with the Bush Administration? You've been asked over and over again by myself and other posters here and have yet to answer. :2wave:

Your selective outrage has, however, been noted. Carry on.

P.S. It is rather quaint watching you an Dan thank each other over and over again. :rofl

Click to expand...

You seem to take offense when people thank posts that you don't agree with. I'd suggest that you worry less about that and more about how you are going to back up your assertions that people have been asking about over and over again.

danarhea said:

Once more you talk around the Q and bring up your Liberal bogey men. This is about a CONSERVATIVE who is against waterboarding, not a Liberal. And while I am at pinning you down on a question you have consistently refused to answer, let me make an excellent CONSERVATIVE case against waterboarding by providing you an essay by CONSERVATIVE blogger Jim Minzi, which gives the reasons why we should not waterboard anyone:

The essay is here.

I can also bring up other Conservatives who are against waterboarding, which I am prepared to do. However, in light of the evidence I have brought up so far, which not only proves your dishonesty in refusing to answer the question, but also proves your dishonesty in attempting to deflect the question...........

I will ask you the question again:

What is your take on Conservatives who are against waterboarding? More specifically, why did a Conservative change his mind after being waterboarded?

Click to expand...

OBVIOUSLY you ignored my response or you wouldn't have to keep asking the same question OVER and OVER and OVER again. Here, let me REPEAT it in BOLD (pay special attention to the capitalized parts):

Would it have been less relevant IF A LIBERAL had done this? Tell me something, WHY IS THE FACT THAT HE IS “CONSERVATIVE” EVEN A RELEVANT TALKING POINT FOR YOU?

Now, a better question to ask yourself, which you won't of course, is DID THIS TECHNIQUE CAUSE THE "CONSERVATIVE" IRREPARABLE HARM? DID IT CAUSE SEVERE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HARM PER THE DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES TORTURE?

The ANSWER to your desperate assertion was contained here, so let me repeat it AGAIN:

No it OBVIOUSLY did not; IT MERELY SCARED THE CRAP OUT OF A RADIO SHOW PERSON WHO HAD NO CLUE WHAT HE WAS ABOUT TO ENDURE and proved why WE SUBJECT OUR OWN TROOPS TO THESE METHODS AS A PREPARATION TO WHAT THEY MAY EXPECT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TECHNIQUES USED BY OUR ENEMIES ARE SO OBVIOUSLY SEVERE THAT WE CANNOT POSSIBLY PREPARE OUR TROOPS FOR THEM WITHOUT CAUSING SEVERE PERMANENT PHYSICAL DAMAGE, PERMANENT MENTAL HARM OR BASICALLY KILLING THEM.

There, I hope the second reading made my points more clear. Perhaps the bold and caps will help you READ and with a little effort, attempt to comprehend what it is I am saying.

Let me again point you to the definition of what TORTURE is as stated by the UNITED NATIONS:

...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.

—UN Convention Against Torture[1]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture]Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Carry on dude! :2wave:

Catz Part Deux said:

You realize the phrase enemy combatants was coined to circumvent treating these human beings with the due dignity of prisoners of war.

Click to expand...

ummmm, from what I read its a term used for combatants who do not meet the requirements for designation as a POW. There are requirements for status as a POW.

Were these "unlawful combatants" given a trial? YES OR NO?

Click to expand...

by established law they are allowed to be held without trial until resolution of the conflict.

What does it tell you, Tally, when the FBI attorneys determined that these activities were illegal and would not allow their agents to participate?

Click to expand...

link? Never heard this one before.

talloulou said:

We waterboarded 3 enemy combatants. 3. The waterboarding did not physically harm them in any way. Left no mark on them. Your hysteria is completely unwarranted.

Click to expand...

But what Cheney and Rush refuse to tell their followers is that we tortured over 100 people to death..

A simple fact is being overlooked in the Bush-era torture scandal: the number of cases in which detainees have been tortured to death. Abuse did not only involve the high-profile cases of smashing detainees into plywood barriers (“walling”), confinement in coffin-like boxes with insects, sleep deprivation, cold, and waterboarding. To date approximately 100 detainees, including CIA-held detainees, have died during U.S. interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death. From John Sifton


A review of homicide cases, however, shows that few detainee deaths have been properly investigated. Many were not investigated at all. And no official investigation has looked into the connection between detainee deaths and the interrogation policies promulgated by the Bush administration.
Yet an important report by the Senate Armed Services Committee, declassified in April 2009, explains in clear terms how Bush-era interrogation techniques, including torture, once authorized for CIA high-value detainees, were promulgated to Guantánamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the policies have led to homicides.

100 TORTURED TO DEATH

dclxvinoise said:

Well, I'd say it sparks a particularly interesting discussion because Conservatives typically don't consider waterboarding to be torture. This particular Conservative host said many times that he didn't. So he went through six seconds of it himself and suddenly considers it torture. I'd say that's a pretty big issue. Now, would you care to explain how you draw the conclusion from the OP that it has ANYTHING to do with the Bush Administration?

And what exactly does any of that have to do with the Bush Administration? I'd say that all of those comments relate to the general topic of waterboarding. What you are doing here is accusing people of attacking something specific when there was absolutely nothing throughout the thread to imply that. So again, I'll ask you: Where in the OP does it mention the Bush Administration?

Again, what does it have to do with the Bush Administration? You've been asked over and over again by myself and other posters here and have yet to answer. :2wave:

You seem to take offense when people thank posts that you don't agree with. I'd suggest that you worry less about that and more about how you are going to back up your assertions that people have been asking about over and over again.

Click to expand...

Your original asinine assertion was that it was ME who brought up the Bush administration, and then when given a Liberals statement you pretend it was never mentioned.

Are you really this "dense" as you appear to be in these debates or do you work at it being obtuse?

Carry on; it is obvious you can't argue the FACTS or coherently deal with the merits of my arguments.

dclxvinoise said:

And what exactly does any of that have to do with the Bush Administration? I'd say that all of those comments relate to the general topic of waterboarding. What you are doing here is accusing people of attacking something specific when there was absolutely nothing throughout the thread to imply that. So again, I'll ask you: Where in the OP does it mention the Bush Administration?

Click to expand...

Here dclxvinoise, go after this Liberal, he's talking about Bush and Cheney again and as you stated, this has NOTHING to do with the thread topic: :rofl

goldendog said:

But what Cheney and Rush refuse to tell their followers is that we tortured over 100 people to death..

A simple fact is being overlooked in the Bush-era torture scandal: the number of cases in which detainees have been tortured to death. Abuse did not only involve the high-profile cases of smashing detainees into plywood barriers (“walling”), confinement in coffin-like boxes with insects, sleep deprivation, cold, and waterboarding. To date approximately 100 detainees, including CIA-held detainees, have died during U.S. interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death. From John Sifton

A review of homicide cases, however, shows that few detainee deaths have been properly investigated. Many were not investigated at all. And no official investigation has looked into the connection between detainee deaths and the interrogation policies promulgated by the Bush administration.
Yet an important report by the Senate Armed Services Committee, declassified in April 2009, explains in clear terms how Bush-era interrogation techniques, including torture, once authorized for CIA high-value detainees, were promulgated to Guantánamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the policies have led to homicides.

100 TORTURED TO DEATH

Click to expand...

You and Dan are such a caricatures of selective outrage. Let's see if Dan responds and asks GoldenDawg why he is attempting to de-rail the thread. :rofl

Truth Detector said:

OBVIOUSLY you ignored my response or you wouldn't have to keep asking the same question OVER and OVER and OVER again. Here, let me REPEAT it in BOLD (pay special attention to the capitalized parts):

Would it have been less relevant IF A LIBERAL had done this? Tell me something, WHY IS THE FACT THAT HE IS “CONSERVATIVE” EVEN A RELEVANT TALKING POINT FOR YOU?

Now, a better question to ask yourself, which you won't of course, is DID THIS TECHNIQUE CAUSE THE "CONSERVATIVE" IRREPARABLE HARM? DID IT CAUSE SEVERE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HARM PER THE DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES TORTURE?

The ANSWER to your desperate assertion was contained here, so let me repeat it AGAIN:

No it OBVIOUSLY did not; IT MERELY SCARED THE CRAP OUT OF A RADIO SHOW PERSON WHO HAD NO CLUE WHAT HE WAS ABOUT TO ENDURE and proved why WE SUBJECT OUR OWN TROOPS TO THESE METHODS AS A PREPARATION TO WHAT THEY MAY EXPECT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TECHNIQUES USED BY OUR ENEMIES ARE SO OBVIOUSLY SEVERE THAT WE CANNOT POSSIBLY PREPARE OUR TROOPS FOR THEM WITHOUT CAUSING SEVERE PERMANENT PHYSICAL DAMAGE, PERMANENT MENTAL HARM OR BASICALLY KILLING THEM.

There, I hope the second reading made my points more clear. Perhaps the bold and caps will help you READ and with a little effort, attempt to comprehend what it is I am saying.

Let me again point you to the definition of what TORTURE is as stated by the UNITED NATIONS:

...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.

—UN Convention Against Torture[1]

Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carry on dude! :2wave:

Click to expand...

You keep attempting to derail the discussion by asking if it would be less relevant if a Liberal did it? I will answer that. Hell NO. If a Liberal did it, it is still torture.

We prosecuted the Japanese for using it.

We prosecuted our own soldiers in Viet Nam for using it.

We prosecuted one of our own Generals during the Spanish American War for using it.

Who else used waterboarding?

1) The German Gestapo.

2) Various Latin dictatorships.

3) The Kmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I believe we are above that. Now please answer the question:

What is your take on Conservatives who are against waterboarding? More specifically, why did a Conservative change his mind after being waterboarded?

Truth Detector said:

No you don't; that is a lie based on your emotional hysterics about the previous administration somehow conducting illegal torture on those poor pathetic terrorists.

Click to expand...

Then your entire, hyper partisan, hysteria laden production is a lie. You are a prime example of everything that is going wrong with the right at this point in time. You mind is locked up tight as a drum and you have no ability the see anything outside the your extremist blinders.

I don't know how a person can type as much as you do but never actually say anything new or enlightening. The record just continues to skip.

goldendog said:

But what Cheney and Rush refuse to tell their followers is that we tortured over 100 people to death..

A simple fact is being overlooked in the Bush-era torture scandal: the number of cases in which detainees have been tortured to death. Abuse did not only involve the high-profile cases of smashing detainees into plywood barriers (“walling”), confinement in coffin-like boxes with insects, sleep deprivation, cold, and waterboarding. To date approximately 100 detainees, including CIA-held detainees, have died during U.S. interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death. From John Sifton


A review of homicide cases, however, shows that few detainee deaths have been properly investigated. Many were not investigated at all. And no official investigation has looked into the connection between detainee deaths and the interrogation policies promulgated by the Bush administration.
Yet an important report by the Senate Armed Services Committee, declassified in April 2009, explains in clear terms how Bush-era interrogation techniques, including torture, once authorized for CIA high-value detainees, were promulgated to Guantánamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the policies have led to homicides.

100 TORTURED TO DEATH

Click to expand...

Assuming your "source" is even valid how does this prove or support the assertion that it was some policy set forth by the Bush admin? You believe that incidents such as beatings, retribution killings and other such acts don't occur on a BATTLEFIELD and if they do they are all a policy of "evil bush and co."? I suppose its beyond your cognitive abilties to detach yourself from hyper-partisan fantasies rather than acknowledge the immense uncertainity in your THEORY.

danarhea said:

You keep attempting to derail the discussion by asking if it would be less relevant if a Liberal did it? I will answer that. Hell NO.

Click to expand...

Your lying Dan. If it was about a Liberal talk show host doing it, you wouldn’t have bothered. Why you may ask? Because we already know pretty much where Liberals stand on this patently partisan emotionally hysterical issue don’t we?

But you selected a story about a “CONSERVATIVE” in a desperate effort to suggest that it supports YOUR misguided views about what actually constitutes torture.

Here it is again Dan, because you keep IGNORING it for some profound reason that is beyond me:

...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.

—UN Convention Against Torture[1]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture]Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

danarhea said:

If a Liberal did it, it is still torture.

We prosecuted the Japanese for using it.

We prosecuted our own soldiers in Viet Nam for using it.

We prosecuted one of our own Generals during the Spanish American War for using it.

Who else used waterboarding?

1) The German Gestapo.

2) Various Latin dictatorships.

3) The Kmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I believe we are above that.

Click to expand...

How asinine and offensive to the good men and women who are trying to protect this nation by comparing what they did to three select prisoners to the Japanese, Viet Cong, Gestapo and Kmer Rouge. Is it willful denial that you left out the KGB and their gulags?

But again, you willfully ignore the definition of torture so here it is again Dan, because you keep IGNORING it for some profound reason that is beyond me:

...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.

—UN Convention Against Torture[1]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture]Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Now please share with me in a coherent fashion how our methods and reasons for water boarding even comes close to the above definition and stop deliberately avoiding my questions?

danarhea said:

What is your take on Conservatives who are against waterboarding? More specifically, why did a Conservative change his mind after being waterboarded?

Click to expand...

I gave you my take; you have a talk show host who tried it and discovered it is a very EFFECTIVE technique that doesn’t cause any severe harm or damage to it’s subjects.

Why should ANYONE care what HE thinks torture is Dan? I gave you the United Nations definition which mirrors the Geneva Conventions; please share with me how the CIA’s handling of these confessed terrorists was even close to the definition.

While you’re at it, please support your asinine assertions that it was anything like the torture conducted by the Japanese, the Nazi’s, the Vietcong, the Khmer Rouge or the professional torturers of all time, the KGB?

Carry on Dan, your desperate assertions in a vacuum of reality and the facts and SELECTIVE outrage have been noted.

scourge99 said:

Assuming your "source" is even valid how does this prove or support the assertion that it was some policy set forth by the Bush admin? You believe that incidents such as beatings, retribution killings and other such acts don't occur on a BATTLEFIELD and if they do they are all a policy of "evil bush and co."? I suppose its beyond your cognitive abilties to detach yourself from hyper-partisan fantasies rather than acknowledge the immense uncertainity in your THEORY.

Click to expand...

Did the article say any thing about "retribution killings of beatings on the battlefield"? IT SAYS TORTURED TO DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you choose to ignore reality?

goldendog said:

But what Cheney and Rush refuse to tell their followers is that we tortured over 100 people to death..

A simple fact is being overlooked in the Bush-era torture scandal: the number of cases in which detainees have been tortured to death. Abuse did not only involve the high-profile cases of smashing detainees into plywood barriers (“walling”), confinement in coffin-like boxes with insects, sleep deprivation, cold, and waterboarding. To date approximately 100 detainees, including CIA-held detainees, have died during U.S. interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death. From John Sifton


A review of homicide cases, however, shows that few detainee deaths have been properly investigated. Many were not investigated at all. And no official investigation has looked into the connection between detainee deaths and the interrogation policies promulgated by the Bush administration.
Yet an important report by the Senate Armed Services Committee, declassified in April 2009, explains in clear terms how Bush-era interrogation techniques, including torture, once authorized for CIA high-value detainees, were promulgated to Guantánamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the policies have led to homicides.

100 TORTURED TO DEATH

Click to expand...

I have been saying such all along. This, more than anything, is why I view the emotions over the waterboarding of 3 high level detainees as hysterical. In the overall scope of things there are far more things to be concerned about.

goldendog said:

Did the article say any thing about "retribution killings of beatings on the battlefield"? IT SAYS TORTURED TO DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you choose to ignore reality?

Click to expand...

Do you comprehend that the truth is bad enough without exaggeration and hyperbole? You aren't helping.

You're like the people who attribute millions of casualties to our actions in Iraq: inflammatory and not interested in the truth.

Catz Part Deux said:

Do you comprehend that the truth is bad enough without exaggeration and hyperbole? You aren't helping.

You're like the people who attribute millions of casualties to our actions in Iraq: inflammatory and not interested in the truth.

Click to expand...

Please explain why this is not part of the TRUTH?

Why is is exaggeration and hyperbole to point out these deaths by torture?

Look beyound what is being offered up as reality...the truth lies there.

The truth many people want desperately to ignore.

Lerxst said:

Then your entire, hyper partisan, hysteria laden production is a lie.

Click to expand...

How quaint, you come in the thread and declare my statements a lie, yet you back them up with nothing more than your typical whiney Liberal drivel and hyperbole Lerxst.

Why don't you share with me what exact part of any of my comments in this debate were a "LIE"? Or is this just another of your "because I say so's?"

Lerxst said:

You are a prime example of everything that is going wrong with the right at this point in time. You mind is locked up tight as a drum and you have no ability the see anything outside the your extremist blinders.

Click to expand...

You left out the words "because you say so" lerxst. But then, the idea that a Liberal deciding what is wrong with their political opponents as being trite and laughable never occurred to you did it.

Here, let me play your hyperbolic game Lerxst; you are prime example of what is wrong with the LEFT at this point in time. Your mind is locked up tight as a drum and you have no ability to see outside your blinders.

Gosh, it is so easy to be a Liberal isn't it Lerxst? You just say whatever FEELS good without substance, without facts but using a lot of uninformed blather and hyperbole and Walla; you get thanked for it by all the other uninformed whiney Liberals of the forum.

Got substance Lerxst? Or did you just find this a convenient time to troll and bait?

Lerxst said:

I don't know how a person can type as much as you do but never actually say anything new or enlightening. The record just continues to skip.

Click to expand...

Obviously you have not spent a lot of time reading your empty headed babble then. Tell me something, what part of your above posts contains anything substantive beyond the typical hyperbolic whiney drivel Liberals are famous for?

Carry on; it is obvious you didn't come in here to debate but rather troll and bait. :rofl

goldendog said:

Did the article say any thing about "retribution killings of beatings on the battlefield"? IT SAYS TORTURED TO DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you choose to ignore reality?

Click to expand...

And you assumption is that such deaths were the result of a TORTURE POLICY. You've not shown this to be the case. You've merely posited the theory and let your hyperpartisanship do the rest. Once again, this ASSUMES your source is even trustworthy.

goldendog said:

Please explain why this is not part of the TRUTH?

Why is is exaggeration and hyperbole to point out these deaths by torture?

Look beyound what is being offered up as reality...the truth lies there.

The truth many people want desperately to ignore.

Click to expand...

Sweetie, I'm as appalled by the issue of torture and government complicity in it as you are. But I'm not going to allow myself to be jolted into hysteria by non-credible sources.

You need to examine, VERY CAREFULLY, the information that is impacting your opinions on these issues. There is enough bad news without exaggerating it.

goldendog said:

Did the article say any thing about "retribution killings of beatings on the battlefield"? IT SAYS TORTURED TO DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you choose to ignore reality?

Click to expand...

What part of that article was real? I saw a less than credible and un-sourced diatribe that was lifted from a left wing blog site.

If this is such a credible story, why is it not headlined in the New York Times? After all, everyone knows they have been on a seven year campaign of ignorance against the Bush Administration.

:roll:

Truth Detector said:

If this is such a credible story, why is it not headlined in the New York Times? After all, everyone knows they have been on a seven year campaign of ignorance against the Bush Administration.

:roll:

Click to expand...

You know what's really amusing about this comment? The New York Times STILL won't even use the term TORTURE.

But, don't let that distract you from your paradigms.

Catz Part Deux said:

You know what's really amusing about this comment? The New York Times STILL won't even use the term TORTURE.

But, don't let that distract you from your paradigms.

Click to expand...

They use it all the time:


torture - NYTimes.com Search

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

They use it all the time:


torture - NYTimes.com Search

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, let me be more clear. They have yet to refer to U.S. actions towards enemy combatants as "torture."