Torturers' Prudential of America Insurance Package

However, McNamara's predecessor as CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, said: "I'm deeply troubled that CIA officers have to buy insurance. . . . There should be clear rules about what the officers can and can't do. The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried it out."

Brandon is constitutionally incapable of admitting error. Being afraid to look occasionally foolish, he ends up looking a complete fool.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon is constitutionally incapable of admitting error. Being afraid to look occasionally foolish, he ends up looking a complete fool.

It seems rather more foolish to me to be constitutionally incapable of trying to prevail by winning the actual argument on merit, and preferring always to try to prevail by impeaching the character of the opposing poster.

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon is constitutionally incapable of admitting error. Being afraid to look occasionally foolish, he ends up looking a complete fool.

It seems rather more foolish to me to be constitutionally incapable of trying to prevail by winning the actual argument on merit, and preferring always to try to prevail by impeaching the character of the opposing poster.

Perhaps you can attempt to address the actual responses to your post, which detailed (in short) the evidence and logic that the CIA has actually been utilizing torturous methods....

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon is constitutionally incapable of admitting error. Being afraid to look occasionally foolish, he ends up looking a complete fool.

It seems rather more foolish to me to be constitutionally incapable of trying to prevail by winning the actual argument on merit, and preferring always to try to prevail by impeaching the character of the opposing poster.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon is constitutionally incapable of admitting error. Being afraid to look occasionally foolish, he ends up looking a complete fool.

It seems rather more foolish to me to be constitutionally incapable of trying to prevail by winning the actual argument on merit, and preferring always to try to prevail by impeaching the character of the opposing poster.

For the millionth time, I have never suggested that one shouldn't attack an opposing poster.

Of course there is evidence; re: the exemption of the CIA from recently passed restrictions on torture by the Pentagon.

If they weren't using it, or didn't plan on using it, there would be no reason for exemptions.

from the lead article, last paragraph

Quote:
However, McNamara's predecessor as CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, said: "I'm deeply troubled that CIA officers have to buy insurance. . . . There should be clear rules about what the officers can and can't do. The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried it out."

The CIA general counsel is perhaps the person you wish to contact with your queries, brandon. Alternately, you could expand your reading sources.

You could also wrestle with the oddness that while you or the CIA guys working on computer programming in your city won't have need to take out one of these state-reimbursed insurance policies yourself, people involved in interrogations are taking them out.

Quote:

Of course there is evidence; re: the exemption of the CIA from recently passed restrictions on torture by the Pentagon.

If they weren't using it, or didn't plan on using it, there would be no reason for exemptions.

Logic states that there is no reason to exclude the CIA from torture restrictions if they haven't been, or aren't planning to, commit acts of torture. This is elementary, Brandon.

Quote:

from the lead article, last paragraph

Quote:
However, McNamara's predecessor as CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, said: "I'm deeply troubled that CIA officers have to buy insurance. . . . There should be clear rules about what the officers can and can't do. The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried it out."

The CIA general counsel is perhaps the person you wish to contact with your queries, brandon. Alternately, you could expand your reading sources.

You could also wrestle with the oddness that while you or the CIA guys working on computer programming in your city won't have need to take out one of these state-reimbursed insurance policies yourself, people involved in interrogations are taking them out.

\

Logic also states that if there was no reason for CIA officials to be worried that they may be prosecuted for torture, they wouldn't be taking out insurance policies.

This is also elementary, Brandon.

Cycloptichorn

Brandon9000 wrote:

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

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Of course there is evidence; re: the exemption of the CIA from recently passed restrictions on torture by the Pentagon.

If they weren't using it, or didn't plan on using it, there would be no reason for exemptions.

Logic states that there is no reason to exclude the CIA from torture restrictions if they haven't been, or aren't planning to, commit acts of torture. This is elementary, Brandon.

Quote:

from the lead article, last paragraph

Quote:
However, McNamara's predecessor as CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, said: "I'm deeply troubled that CIA officers have to buy insurance. . . . There should be clear rules about what the officers can and can't do. The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried it out."

The CIA general counsel is perhaps the person you wish to contact with your queries, brandon. Alternately, you could expand your reading sources.

You could also wrestle with the oddness that while you or the CIA guys working on computer programming in your city won't have need to take out one of these state-reimbursed insurance policies yourself, people involved in interrogations are taking them out.

\

Logic also states that if there was no reason for CIA officials to be worried that they may be prosecuted for torture, they wouldn't be taking out insurance policies.

This is also elementary, Brandon.

Cycloptichorn

My request was for a bit of actual evidence that CIA agents, acting according to orders, had lately been torturing prisoners. Do you have any such evidence? It sounds as though you do not.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon is constitutionally incapable of admitting error. Being afraid to look occasionally foolish, he ends up looking a complete fool.

It seems rather more foolish to me to be constitutionally incapable of trying to prevail by winning the actual argument on merit, and preferring always to try to prevail by impeaching the character of the opposing poster.

Perhaps you can attempt to address the actual responses to your post, which detailed (in short) the evidence and logic that the CIA has actually been utilizing torturous methods....

Of course, but I can't quite find such a response in this thread. Whose post on which page would you like me to respond to the logic of?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Of course there is evidence; re: the exemption of the CIA from recently passed restrictions on torture by the Pentagon.

If they weren't using it, or didn't plan on using it, there would be no reason for exemptions.

Logic states that there is no reason to exclude the CIA from torture restrictions if they haven't been, or aren't planning to, commit acts of torture. This is elementary, Brandon.

Quote:

from the lead article, last paragraph

Quote:
However, McNamara's predecessor as CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, said: "I'm deeply troubled that CIA officers have to buy insurance. . . . There should be clear rules about what the officers can and can't do. The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried it out."

The CIA general counsel is perhaps the person you wish to contact with your queries, brandon. Alternately, you could expand your reading sources.

You could also wrestle with the oddness that while you or the CIA guys working on computer programming in your city won't have need to take out one of these state-reimbursed insurance policies yourself, people involved in interrogations are taking them out.

\

Logic also states that if there was no reason for CIA officials to be worried that they may be prosecuted for torture, they wouldn't be taking out insurance policies.

This is also elementary, Brandon.

Cycloptichorn

My request was for a bit of actual evidence that CIA agents, acting according to orders, had lately been torturing prisoners. Do you have any such evidence? It sounds as though you do not.

My best guess would be that if and when any CIA "orders" are released to the public, it'll be along the same timeline as was Operation Northwoods. 25 years give or take.

So, in fact, no one has any evidence that the CIA has, of late, tortured prisoners, excepting, of course, agents who were acting contrary to policy?

Well, it'll come. Just as the secret CIA prisons have surfaced, the illegal wiretapping, and the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Accusations are where they begin and the facts emerge later.