2
   

Sigh, more lies about abuses

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 09:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
We're talking about official policies, not 'individuals.'

Quote:


If one's expectations for America reside at the level of perfection, America will always fail.


Perfection? Hardly. I'd settle for mediocrity.

No you would not, and you are a liar for asserting such.

You failed to specifically address any of the points brought up, which is unsurprising; they are indefensible. If the best you can do is an indictment of those who are 'incessantly finding fault,' your argument is pretty weak.

Blah, blah blah...be specific.

Today:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,487325,00.html

Quote:
The illegal deportation of suspects by CIA kidnapping teams in Europe amounts to a "massive and systematic violation of human rights," the report says.

[Dick] Marty, who conducted the investigation on behalf of the Council of Europe, accuses the CIA of having committing a number of transgressions: "We believe we have shown that the CIA committed a whole series of illegal acts in Europe by abducting individuals, detaining them in secret locations and subjecting them to interrogation techniques tantamount to torture."


I really could care less if you have a low opinion of those who are 'incessantly finding fault,' Finn. I'd rather be that guy then an apologist for terrible actions such as the Conservative branch of America.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 10:07 pm
Quote:

No you would not, and you are a liar for asserting such.


Well, maybe if you increased the size of the font as well as writing in red AND underlining, you'd get across just how much of a liar you consider me to be.

But, you're wrong. I settled for Clinton and Bush Sr., and mediocre is a great way to describe both their terms. We don't have to be perfect; perfection isn't even possible to attain if we tried. We will always have moral problems and abuses by certain members of our society.

But if we show that the Rule of Law is what matters, we will retain our moral superiority to the cultures we seek to do business/war with. This is imperative to our mission as a country, as I'm sure you don't need me to explain.

If you want specificity, go back and read what I originally posted. If you don't feel like doing that, then bugger off; I'm not interested in your breathless exhortations about my character today.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 10:39 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

No you would not, and you are a liar for asserting such.


Well, maybe if you increased the size of the font as well as writing in red AND underlining, you'd get across just how much of a liar you consider me to be.

Not necessary. Red underlined font is quite enough to reveal your trouble with the truth, however, if there is any doubt....YOU ARE A LIAR! OK?

But, you're wrong. I settled for Clinton and Bush Sr., and mediocre is a great way to describe both their terms. We don't have to be perfect; perfection isn't even possible to attain if we tried. We will always have moral problems and abuses by certain members of our society.

But if we show that the Rule of Law is what matters, we will retain our moral superiority to the cultures we seek to do business/war with. This is imperative to our mission as a country, as I'm sure you don't need me to explain.

If you want specificity, go back and read what I originally posted. If you don't feel like doing that, then bugger off; I'm not interested in your breathless exhortations about my character today.

Fair enough, but you still have not provided specificity.

By the way, I don't have enough lung capacity to be breathless about anything. However, while I think very little of your character, it's failings have never taxed my lungs. Replies to your posts are a self-indulgence.
I will admit that your are getting a little better in the sharpness of your retorts. Having said this, I feel safe to assume that you will always provide me with an opportunity to be supercilious in a most lazy way.


There is fodder and there are delicacies, you are ....
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:37 am
Well, while that is indeed supercillious, it doesn't address the topic whatsoever. Which is the entire point of your and other Republican/conservatives' postings here - to not adress the topic, b/c you can't address the topic.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 07:51 pm
This seems a good thread for this item..

Quote:
SOMEWHERE, NIXON IS LAUGHING:

So I guess I'm not terribly surprised when Rush Limbaugh, defending himself against the charge that he smeared service members who favor withdrawal as "phony soldiers," delivers an edited version of the clip in question and pretends it's the "entire transcript."

But I am surprised when the official video of Bono receiving the Liberty Medal from the first President Bush last week carefully edits out his comments regarding torture without telling anyone. (It's worth watching the linked video.) [..]

--Christopher Orr


Quote:
This stunned me, so I had to ask... (2 of 15)
posted by dbhuff on 2007-10-01 14:03:02

Here's the response:

Hi xxx! The version you are looking at is actually an outside company that made a shortened version of the entire event for their purposes (it's more of a tourism piece). We have not edited Bono's speech and the entire one-hour ceremony will be available on our website today.

Ashley Berke Public Relations Manager National Constitution Center Independence Mall 525 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19106

Hmmm....

dbhuff (5 of 15)
posted by chrisorr on 2007-10-01 14:24:44

Thanks for the sleuthing. Odd how that "outside company" video was prominently posted on the top of the Liberty Medal homepage, with no mention of its provenance or the fact that it was in any way edited. Also odd how the outside company happened to cut the references to torture despite the fact that they seem, in the transcript, to be among the more forceful (though friendly) comments, they provide context for the subsequent line about "monsters," and they received an extremely strong hand of applause.

Consider me extremely skeptical.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:53 pm
This may very well be redundant, but having revisited the title of this post I felt compelled to comment:

Is there anything more pretentious or inspid that the use of "sigh" in one of these posts?

Don't you just want to smack these "sighers" in their effete mugs?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 06:27 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
This may very well be redundant, but having revisited the title of this post I felt compelled to comment:

Is there anything more pretentious or inspid that the use of "sigh" in one of these posts?

Don't you just want to smack these "sighers" in their effete mugs?

I'd think a mere "sigh" is child's play in terms of this kind of annoyance compared with vacuous, self-satisfied sneering that goes on for sentences or even paragraphs on end..

Yes, when it comes to effete, insipid pretension, I think we have a case here of - well, not so much pot and kettle - let me try to think of something wild enough to be more appropriate here - of the cloudy, starless sky at night calling the inside of a cupboard black. So to speak.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 08:59 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
This may very well be redundant, but having revisited the title of this post I felt compelled to comment:

Is there anything more pretentious or inspid that the use of "sigh" in one of these posts?

Don't you just want to smack these "sighers" in their effete mugs?


Nothing like an internet faux-tough guy, throwing around his faux-tough cred.

In real life, you'd be on the floor trying to find your teeth, Finn, just like the last fellow who figured Liberals don't know how to smack people right back.

You're not a very nice person, you know that? I think it's a common theme amongst most of the Republicans here: they just aren't very nice people.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 04:53 pm
Quote:


Nothing like tampering with evidence. Money line:

Quote:
They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.


How incriminating a statement is that? 'We destroyed the evidence, b/c if anyone saw these tapes, we would get in trouble.' That practically begs for an investigation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 06:06 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nothing like an internet faux-tough guy, throwing around his faux-tough cred.

In real life, you'd be on the floor trying to find your teeth, Finn, just like the last fellow who figured Liberals don't know how to smack people right back.


Were you calling Finn "an internet faux tough-guy", or just suggesting that you are one yourself?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're not a very nice person, you know that? I think it's a common theme amongst most of the Republicans here: they just aren't very nice people.

Cycloptichorn


Actually I think you are a "nice person". However, after some reflection, do you still want to stick with that rather sweeping - and, itself, not-very-nice - characterization?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 06:36 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nothing like an internet faux-tough guy, throwing around his faux-tough cred.

In real life, you'd be on the floor trying to find your teeth, Finn, just like the last fellow who figured Liberals don't know how to smack people right back.


Were you calling Finn "an internet faux tough-guy", or just suggesting that you are one yourself?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're not a very nice person, you know that? I think it's a common theme amongst most of the Republicans here: they just aren't very nice people.

Cycloptichorn


Actually I think you are a "nice person". However, after some reflection, do you still want to stick with that rather sweeping - and, itself, not-very-nice - characterization?


I was calling him one.

A common theme is not necessarily all-inclusive. I stand by my statement, and why not? Evidence abounds. Too many opportunities to be just plain nasty, for no good reason, taken.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 07:56 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372_pf.html

Quote:
Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Military prosecutors said in November that they would seek to refile charges against Qahtani, 30, based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques. But Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against him in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward....

"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.


The truth starts to come out. We did torture and abuse prisoners, and likely still do, in both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. It was not the invention of low-level jokers; it was policy.

It will be difficult for the US to move forward without a process which exams what has happened, finds the former Bush officials who were responsible for these abuses, charge them with crimes, try and hopefully convict them. We already know that the Bush administration 'destroyed' more data than can possibly be considered accident. Accounts such as this one are going to be critical to obtaining the justice that the victims of this situation deserve - both the detainees in question, and America's reputation as a whole.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 08:12 pm



Torture works and it's needed with this type of enemy.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 08:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Anyone pretending to continue to believe the propaganda crap about the US not torturing has been wilfully blind for years, now.

Good to see the beginnings of official recognition of truth.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 08:39 pm
@dlowan,



If Cyclotroll honestly thinks that other nations do not use torture, then he and those like him are in deep denial.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 09:15 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:




If Cyclotroll honestly thinks that other nations do not use torture, then he and those like him are in deep denial.


I rest my case.


Your thankfully outgoing president and other administration liars have consistently denied claims of orture.

Why not stick to the point of this thread?

What the **** has what other countries do (and do not forget the US has conistently been sending prisoners to countries that do torture, to get your torture done for you, presumably in a feeble attempt to avoid blame, any legal consequences, and give some semblance of reality to American lies) got to do with what the US has done, while consistently claiming some obviously mendacious higher ground, and lying and breaking its own laws?



oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 09:39 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372_pf.html

Quote:
Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Military prosecutors said in November that they would seek to refile charges against Qahtani, 30, based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques. But Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against him in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward....

"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.


The truth starts to come out. We did torture and abuse prisoners, and likely still do, in both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. It was not the invention of low-level jokers; it was policy.

It will be difficult for the US to move forward without a process which exams what has happened, finds the former Bush officials who were responsible for these abuses, charge them with crimes, try and hopefully convict them. We already know that the Bush administration 'destroyed' more data than can possibly be considered accident. Accounts such as this one are going to be critical to obtaining the justice that the victims of this situation deserve - both the detainees in question, and America's reputation as a whole.

Cycloptichorn


After letting Clinton get away with a long series of crimes, committed with the goal of hiding his affair, the Democrats don't really have any moral standing to call for prosecuting Bush for committing crimes with the goal of saving American lives.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 09:40 pm
@oralloy,
Ah, the 'Clinton did it' defense. It isn't going to save them.

Nobody's really concerned with your opinion of the Dem's moral standing, Oralloy. It's not a determinative factor in the pursuit of the truth, and the law.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 09:45 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:




If Cyclotroll honestly thinks that other nations do not use torture, then he and those like him are in deep denial.


I rest my case.


Your thankfully outgoing president and other administration liars have consistently denied claims of orture.

Why not stick to the point of this thread?

What the **** has what other countries do (and do not forget the US has conistently been sending prisoners to countries that do torture, to get your torture done for you, presumably in a feeble attempt to avoid blame, any legal consequences, and give some semblance of reality to American lies) got to do with what the US has done, while consistently claiming some obviously mendacious higher ground, and lying and breaking its own laws?



Ah, the "What the **** has what other countries do" defense. Nice try.

O boy will also lie about it as will the rest of the world or they may all talk openly about it... it does not matter because it will continue.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ah, the 'Clinton did it' defense. It isn't going to save them.


Sure it will.

I realize that most of the Democratic rank and file have no shame and don't care that they are hypocrites with no moral standing, but that lack of moral standing will nonetheless doom their hypocritical whining to insignificance.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nobody's really concerned with your opinion of the Dem's moral standing, Oralloy.


No one is really concerned with your opinion that Bush should be prosecuted for trying to save American lives.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's not a determinative factor in the pursuit of the truth, and the law.

Cycloptichorn


The determinative factor is that Obama has no interest in pursuing a hypocritical prosecution of Bush for trying to save American lives.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/03/2022 at 05:39:02