cjhsa
Were it American prisoners that were being waterboarded would you still be all for it? How about the use of mustard gas or WMD's, of course if they were used by the US, would you be for it? You it appears would have made a good candidate for the Gestapo or SS.
Why try to reason with these two, folks? It won't work.
Walter Hinteler wrote:woiyo wrote:I prefer not to go to war, but if I must, kill them all.
I'm glad that the US-troops didn't follow your advice and only mock shot him after taking POW. But he was a non-combattant army surgeon - that might have been an excuse for their failure.
(But what about the other 25% of my family who weren't killed?)
Who are you talking about?
Since in a roundabout way Mukasey did say waterboarding was torture, (unconstitutional US to torture; be it waterbaording or anything else...) (going by memory; left a link twice on this thread.) and since he did say if congress passed a law forbidding torure he would prosecute it (or words to that affect) and since he did not rule out prosecuting Miers and Bolten for contempt of Congress; maybe his confirmation won't be a bad thing. I did notice that most of the democrats and one republican running for president in congress did not vote.
Mukasey To Congress: You Say It First
Quote:Mukasey, Schumer wrote, "made clear to me [in private] that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law."
W.H. Contempt Charges Loom In Attorney Firings
Quote:Keeping the U.S. attorney controversy alive are several political and administrative developments, including the pending Senate vote on the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general. Unlike former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mukasey during his confirmation hearings did not rule out prosecuting Miers and Bolten for contempt of Congress.
Mukasey Vows to Be Independent Advocate
Quote:Not voting were Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden of Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois. All four had said they opposed Mukasey's nomination.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona also was absent,
I think he might turn out to be surprising. After all it is not really in his interest to be another Gonzales with Bush being out of office soon.
In any event; he won't be there long and any else trotted out to be attorney general by this administration is bound to be the same or more than likely worse.
However; all this haggling was a good thing as it aired out all these issues for the public to think about.
Today Ted Kennedy came out in a big way against waterboarding. Tell that to Mary Jo big guy....
CJSHA the A2K gift that just keeps on giving.
blatham wrote:Why try to reason with these two, folks? It won't work.
I notice that there are only a handful of delusional folks left who still drink the Bush kool aid here and across the country. Recent polling shows that Bush is even losing the hard-core. It appears to me that the only remaining enthusiastic support for his policies comes from the pathological.
Sigh.... just do good anyway....
pathological... I wonder where Roxxx learned how to spell that?
Was Bill Clinton your teacher?
Roxxxanne wrote:blatham wrote:Why try to reason with these two, folks? It won't work.
I notice that there are only a handful of delusional folks left who still drink the Bush kool aid here and across the country. Recent polling shows that Bush is even losing the hard-core. It appears to me that the only remaining enthusiastic support for his policies comes from the pathological.
Yes, and that small percentage (perhaps 20% or a bit higher) remain ardently supportive. nimh asked at one point recently how low we all might estimate Bush's ratings would/could drop. I suspect it won't drop much lower and I think that is because of some set of factors about any human population...something like one in five are mostly unable to change their minds or allegiances. Mind you, I don't think this is a partisan or left/right matter. I think this would be true if it was a Dem president equally incompetent.
Roxxxanne wrote:blatham wrote:Why try to reason with these two, folks? It won't work.
I notice that there are only a handful of delusional folks left who still drink the Bush kool aid here and across the country. Recent polling shows that Bush is even losing the hard-core. It appears to me that the only remaining enthusiastic support for his policies comes from the pathological.
Pathological?
Is that like insisting that Karl Rove would be indicted, even AFTER the prosecutor said they were not going to indict him?
Pathological and delusional.
blatham wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:blatham wrote:Why try to reason with these two, folks? It won't work.
I notice that there are only a handful of delusional folks left who still drink the Bush kool aid here and across the country. Recent polling shows that Bush is even losing the hard-core. It appears to me that the only remaining enthusiastic support for his policies comes from the pathological.
Yes, and that small percentage (perhaps 20% or a bit higher) remain ardently supportive. nimh asked at one point recently how low we all might estimate Bush's ratings would/could drop. I suspect it won't drop much lower and I think that is because of some set of factors about any human population...something like one in five are mostly unable to change their minds or allegiances. Mind you, I don't think this is a partisan or left/right matter. I think this would be true if it was a Dem president equally incompetent.
Actually, in all candor, it is pathological, these people (mostly middle-aged to older men) just can't admit they were wrong. They are in complete, lock-down denial.
Roxxxanne wrote:Pathological and delusional.
So you admit to being both!
Thats a start.
mysteryman wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Pathological and delusional.
So you admit to being both!
Thats a start.
A start would be if you were able to retort above the level of a five year old.
mysterymen wrote: I know you are but what I am.
You also might learn that one does not refer to herself in the third person plural.
Roxxxanne wrote:mysteryman wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Pathological and delusional.
So you admit to being both!
Thats a start.
A start would be if you were able to retort above the level of a five year old.
mysterymen wrote: I know you are but what I am.
You also might learn that one does not refer to herself in the third person plural.
And you might learn not to be making up quotes.
Please provide a link to the reputed quote by me that you are using for your second quote.
An exact link, not a general idea of where it is.
Since you wont be able to do that, feel free to admit that you made that quote up, if you have the decency to do so.
An irony that can be seen quite often: conservatives calling for consideration on a situational basis and liberals calling for absolute application.
I admit that I'm conflicted on this one. I'm not real happy with the notion of America joining the ranks of the world's torturers, but can concieve of a plausible scenario wherein I believe torture would be the correct measure to employ.
I'm not convinced that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and loud music constitutes torture in the sense that slicing eyeballs, cutting off toes, and crushing testicles do.
I am also not convinced that torture doesn't work. Certainly it is not the equivalent of a truth serum, but the example of KSM would seem to indicate that harsh interrogation (or torture, if you prefer) works. He may have confessed to killing JFK in the process, but clearly he also provided actionable information.
Perhaps playing chess for six months with a prisoner will result in more reliable information than waterboarding, but sometimes we don't have six months.
God forbid, but I think there will come a time when America suffers another major terrorist attack.
It is, by no means, a given that we will have had the opportunity to prevent it through interrogation of a suspect, but that would certainly be a plausible possibility.
It is also not a given that torture of the suspect would provide the essential information not obtainable through a rigorous game of chess, but unless one believes torture never works - a unsupportable position in my opinion - it remains a possibly fruitful measure.
Sometimes I just would like to see people acknowledge the full measure of their beliefs.
If you believe that torture is unacceptible in any situation than you should be willing to acknowledge that you accept that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocents may die as a direct result of that absolute ban, and when it happpens those for the ban will grieve as much as the rest of us, but they will also accept some measure of a burden uniquely theirs.
Playing around with probabilities is a dodge as long as saving the innocents by torturing the suspect is a plausible possibility.
It is all well and good for we dilletantes to make absolute pronouncements on the topic, but we will never be faced with the actual decision.
An absolute ban on torture means just that, while leaving a crack open for considered torture could possibly open a wide door to gratuitous torture.
Not, in my mind, a clear cut choice, but, at least, in this regard I can appreciate the danger of absolutism.
mysteryman wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:mysteryman wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Pathological and delusional.
So you admit to being both!
Thats a start.
A start would be if you were able to retort above the level of a five year old.
mysterymen wrote: I know you are but what I am.
You also might learn that one does not refer to herself in the third person plural.
And you might learn not to be making up quotes.
Please provide a link to the reputed quote by me that you are using for your second quote.
An exact link, not a general idea of where it is.
Since you wont be able to do that, feel free to admit that you made that quote up, if you have the decency to do so.
Are you really that stupid that you can't recognize a parody? I mean even you are not that stupid, are you?
Roxxxanne wrote:mysteryman wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:mysteryman wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Pathological and delusional.
So you admit to being both!
Thats a start.
A start would be if you were able to retort above the level of a five year old.
mysterymen wrote: I know you are but what I am.
You also might learn that one does not refer to herself in the third person plural.
And you might learn not to be making up quotes.
Please provide a link to the reputed quote by me that you are using for your second quote.
An exact link, not a general idea of where it is.
Since you wont be able to do that, feel free to admit that you made that quote up, if you have the decency to do so.
Are you really that stupid that you can't recognize a parody? I mean even you are not that stupid, are you?
So, you admit you lied about what you claim I said?
I recognize parody, if thats what you were trying to do, but parody, like all good humor, must have at least a grain of truth in it.
Your attempt at parody had no truth in it at all.
