"History will not judge this kindly" - torture OKed from top

mysteryman wrote:

In the whole article blatham posted, I dont see anything saying that Bush approved of anything.

Since apparently he didnt, that kind of shoots down the whole idea that he authorized torture, doesnt it.

Another trenchant voice enters the fray.

Your presumed scenario... Cheney and all the top level cabinet members meet many times in the WH to hammer out these procedures in detail but Bush knows nothing about it because he isn't interested...it's not his thing?

Or...VP and all others meet and hammer and Bush is interested, sort of, but he's content to let others make all the decisions and approvals because...it's not his thing?

Or... "at the top" means just Bush. That's all that is important for citizens to consider. If the VP and top cabinet level members discuss and OK torture techniques...that ain't no kind of problem.

Which of the above options is your preferred one?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
In the whole article blatham posted, I dont see anything saying that Bush approved of anything.

Since apparently he didnt, that kind of shoots down the whole idea that he authorized torture, doesnt it.

Another trenchant voice enters the fray.

Your presumed scenario... Cheney and all the top level cabinet members meet many times in the WH to hammer out these procedures in detail but Bush knows nothing about it because he isn't interested...it's not his thing?

Or...VP and all others meet and hammer and Bush is interested, sort of, but he's content to let others make all the decisions and approvals because...it's not his thing?

Or... "at the top" means just Bush. That's all that is important for citizens to consider. If the VP and top cabinet level members discuss and OK torture techniques...that ain't no kind of problem.

Which of the above options is your preferred one?

Or, Bush didnt attend the meetings, so he didnt know what was discussed.
Now, please show where in the piece you linked to that it says Bush attended the meetings in question.

Go ahead and look, we'll wait...

0 Replies

Quote:

he didnt know what was discussed.

Are you joking? Are you being really stupid on purpose?

Would Bush be saying, as his VP and top cabinet people all go through a regular series of meetings at this time..."Don't tell me what you guys are up to because I don't want to know"?

0 Replies

Of course. Its called official denyability. He didn't attend the meetings so he docent know anything about them. Probably I am going to be attacked by the english cop again because of my spelling. I use spellcheck but lots of spellings aren't there.

0 Replies

Of course. Its called official denyability. He didn't attend the meetings so he docent know anything about them. Probably I am going to be attacked by the english cop again because of my spelling. I use spellcheck but lots of spellings aren't there.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Good ol' brandon. You have the most impressive ability to pretend that you aren't making yourself a dullard.

So, having no actual, real example to give, you reduce the level to an attack on the poster. With no example of a torture method actually approved by the White House, it is not clear what you're criticizing.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
In the whole article blatham posted, I dont see anything saying that Bush approved of anything.

Since apparently he didnt, that kind of shoots down the whole idea that he authorized torture, doesnt it.

Another trenchant voice enters the fray.

Your presumed scenario... Cheney and all the top level cabinet members meet many times in the WH to hammer out these procedures in detail but Bush knows nothing about it because he isn't interested...it's not his thing?

Or...VP and all others meet and hammer and Bush is interested, sort of, but he's content to let others make all the decisions and approvals because...it's not his thing?

Or... "at the top" means just Bush. That's all that is important for citizens to consider. If the VP and top cabinet level members discuss and OK torture techniques...that ain't no kind of problem.

Which of the above options is your preferred one?

That's the question - what torture methods were officially approved, rather than administered without official sanction by specific underlings?

0 Replies

Quote:

Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.

What's your stance on this, Brandon and MM? Do you accept the legal reasoning forwarded by this administration?

Would either of you follow Yoo's reasoning, for example, that crushing the testicles of a boy in front of his father in order to gain 'valuable information' may be legally allowable?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
we're short a few towers, let's rough 'em up a bit.

I am hopeful that soon your kind will be obsolete in making those kinds of judgment decisions which define us as a country.

What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world if he losses his own soul.

You should have quoted my whole thing if I'm to have a kind - I said 'hail, hail' to the opposing principles. Anyway, what is the soul? Are we thinking religiously? Wait, thats a non-sequitur. If not is it the aesthetic of the person perhaps? Like, the mind, the body as it affects the former, the place in society, the potentialities...

So, and I'm not saying I have one, but if any American has one, why compromise it? People now have morals that go further than they could see with a telescope - what's the point? You can't vote a change that far - the interstitial space is full of other people with 'souls'. They screwed with the US, our country defines us quite a bit, if it's what the administration we voted in a second time for that very reason wants to do, let's interrogate 'em till they can never be no good for a woman again.

Or whatever McCain says - in fact I prefer his call in the matter - he's the kindof fightin' man we need to keep hostiles at bay and he knows what he's talking about even though this kind of thing, probably worse, was water-off-a-ducks-back to him.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

revel wrote:
Quote:
we're short a few towers, let's rough 'em up a bit.

I am hopeful that soon your kind will be obsolete in making those kinds of judgment decisions which define us as a country.

Hanno is such a manly fellow, isn't he? Give me freedom fries or give me death.

I'm calling them french fries again since they put out the Olympic flame three times. Seriously, you think I'm laying it on thick - what the hell are you - was that 'make love, not war' stuff not a vindication of the somatic over the cerebral, natural drives over ones perverted by society? You liked Clinton better than Bush from whatever country you're in didn't you? Just put that line between the natural/cerebral reaction and the moral course wherever's convenient. God forbid the proper mindset were at some point not fashionable with your demographic/nationality.

0 Replies

Quote:

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CALLS ON BOALT HALL TO DISMISS LAW PROFESSOR JOHN YOO, WHOSE TORTURE MEMOS LED TO COMMISSION OF WAR CRIMES
Wednesday, April 9, 2008, 08:31 AM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 9, 2008

http://nlg.org/news/index.php?entry=entry080409-083133

Looks like the Dean won't can him, though. Not yet.

0 Replies

"History will not judge this kindly" Laughing

No ****!

Thats why it won't be history.

0 Replies

Bush: "I Was Aware" of Harsh Tactics
By Jan Crawford Greenberg, Howard L. Rosenberg and Ariane de Vogue
ABC News

Friday 11 April 2008

President says he knew his senior advisors approved tough interrogation methods.
President Bush says he knew his top national security advisors discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

"Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC New s White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And, yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041108U.shtml

0 Replies

It gets interestinger and interestinger.

0 Replies

Aren't Brandon and MM of that conservative grouping that demands personal responsibility.

One has to wonder, just where does the buck stop these days?

Actually with all their jive talkin', they aren't really conservatives, they're conswervatives.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Aren't Brandon and MM of that conservative grouping that demands personal responsibility.

One has to wonder, just where does the buck stop these days?

Actually with all their jive talkin', they aren't really conservatives, they're conswervatives.

Yes, I do demand personal responsibility.
And as soon as someone with the legal authority to say so proves that the interrogation techniques are illegal, I will demand that those responsible get punished.

But as of yet, that hasnt happened.

0 Replies

I wasn't talking to you. I was channeling Marilyn Monroe. Smile

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

In the whole article blatham posted, I dont see anything saying that Bush approved of anything.

Since apparently he didnt, that kind of shoots down the whole idea that he authorized torture, doesnt it.

Or, Bush didnt attend the meetings, so he didnt know what was discussed.
Now, please show where in the piece you linked to that it says Bush attended the meetings in question.

Go ahead and look, we'll wait...

Quote:

Bush Aware of Advisers' Interrogation Talks
President Says He Knew His Senior Advisers Discussed Tough Interrogation Methods

"And I approved."

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/Story?id=4635175&page=1

As I said, Conswervatives.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.

What's your stance on this, Brandon and MM? Do you accept the legal reasoning forwarded by this administration?

Would either of you follow Yoo's reasoning, for example, that crushing the testicles of a boy in front of his father in order to gain 'valuable information' may be legally allowable?

No, was that approved?

You have yet to state even one example of a method of torture that received official approval. What is it that I am supposed to support or condemn? Must I ask again, and again, and again for an example of a torture method that was actually approved as a matter of stated policy? Do you always use evidence on the level of gossip and inuendo?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Aren't Brandon and MM of that conservative grouping that demands personal responsibility.

One has to wonder, just where does the buck stop these days?

Actually with all their jive talkin', they aren't really conservatives, they're conswervatives.

When you present to me a method of torture that was approved in a policy statement or memo from the White House, I'll tell you absolutely whether I approve or condemn it, but so far you are condemning the White House for approving torture without giving one single example of something that was actually officially approved. Am I to condemn the White House for things they never authorized?

0 Replies

"History will not judge this kindly" - torture OKed from top

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know