Torturers' Prudential of America Insurance Package

Quote:

Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; Page A01

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

The anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning. The White House contends the methods were legal, but some CIA officers have worried privately that they may have violated international law or domestic criminal statutes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286.html

It must be wonderful you to come from the perfect utopia of Canada, and to be able to criticize others from such a situation of moral superiority.

Do liberals ever simply stay on topic and argue the facts, without all these idiotic references to the character of the poster?

Brandon9000 wrote:

It must be wonderful you to come from the perfect utopia of Canada, and to be able to criticize others from such a situation of moral superiority.

Would you like to take a moment to compose yourself and try that again, Brandon? Next time, try using the English language. We might then be able to understand your point.

What i found hilarious is that Brandon attacks Mr. Mountie, when Mr. Mountie has simply posted a portion of an artile, and a link to the article, without further comment.

Brandon, you might direct your complaint to the author(s) of the piece linked in the Mountie's article, rather than lashing out at someone who has not, as of yet, commented.

JTT wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It must be wonderful you to come from the perfect utopia of Canada, and to be able to criticize others from such a situation of moral superiority.

Would you like to take a moment to compose yourself and try that again, Brandon? Next time, try using the English language. We might then be able to understand your point.

Obviously, I mean "wonderful for you." Would you like me to review your posts to verify that none contains a typo? I suppose that irrelevant distractions are probably your best bet for defeating my viewpoint.

Brandon9000 wrote:

JTT wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It must be wonderful you to come from the perfect utopia of Canada, and to be able to criticize others from such a situation of moral superiority.

Would you like to take a moment to compose yourself and try that again, Brandon? Next time, try using the English language. We might then be able to understand your point.

Obviously, I mean "wonderful for you." Would you like me to review your posts to verify that none contains a typo? I suppose that irrelevant distractions are probably your best bet for defeating my viewpoint.

There was no viewpoint to defeat. Despite your obsession with "winning" discussions, you really stepped in it this time. Mr. Mountie had posted a portion of an article and a link to that article. He posted no comment on the article. You lashed out at him completely without reason. There was no "viewpoint" on your part to be dealt with other thatn your hateful babbling.

Setanta wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

JTT wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It must be wonderful you to come from the perfect utopia of Canada, and to be able to criticize others from such a situation of moral superiority.

Would you like to take a moment to compose yourself and try that again, Brandon? Next time, try using the English language. We might then be able to understand your point.

Obviously, I mean "wonderful for you." Would you like me to review your posts to verify that none contains a typo? I suppose that irrelevant distractions are probably your best bet for defeating my viewpoint.

There was no viewpoint to defeat. Despite your obsession with "winning" discussions, you really stepped in it this time. Mr. Mountie had posted a portion of an article and a link to that article. He posted no comment on the article. You lashed out at him completely without reason. There was no "viewpoint" on your part to be dealt with other thatn your hateful babbling.

I'm sure that people post political articles on the Politics Forum all the time with no actual point whatsoever. And, of course, he has no previous posts from which intent can be inferred.

That doesn't change the fact that you attacked the poster. You should apologize.

Cycloptichorn

That doesn't change the fact that you attacked the poster. You should apologize.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that you attacked the poster. You should apologize.

Cycloptichorn

For the millionth time, I have never suggested that one shouldn't attack an opposing poster. I have argued that a post which contains nothing but a personal attack has no significance in debate.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that you attacked the poster. You should apologize.

Cycloptichorn

Is this something you are going to actually start doing? Enforcing this rule? You'll be busier then a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest with just the liberals here.

Do you have any evidence that they have violated US law or treaties to which the US is signatory?

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that you attacked the poster. You should apologize.

Cycloptichorn

Is this something you are going to actually start doing? Enforcing this rule? You'll be busier then a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest with just the liberals here.

Nah, I don't mind personal insults one bit and have been known to throw them out when I feel they are warranted. I just thought it was funny to see Brandon doing it, seeing as he gets his panties in a bunch all the time about it.

Cycloptichron

Brandon9000 wrote:

Do you have any evidence that they have violated US law or treaties to which the US is signatory?

The problem here isn't just that Brandon misunderstands the nature of blatham's post, but that he also misunderstands the nature of insurance. If there had been any evidence that the CIA officers had violated US law or treaties, then they couldn't have gotten insurance coverage. Insurance only covers future risks, not past misdeeds. So Brandon is asking for something that not only the article doesn't address, but something that doesn't make any sense in the context of insurance.