dodedoodedoodedoodedoodedooded
oodedooodedoo

Consider if you will a 400 year old Chinese tomb, apparently untouched.....

Time Traveler:)

No tickee, no watchee

Those fucking Swiss bastards!

Archeologists in China are baffled after finding a tiny Swiss watch in a 400-year-old tomb.

Swiss watches and clocks were first made in the middle of the 16th century. That's more than 400 years ago. It's a stretch, but still a possibility, that a ring with a Swiss watch may have found its way along the trade routes to a wealthy person in China. Since the ring watch was found inside the tomb, but outside the coffin, maybe it slipped off the ringfinger of someone who was helping with the burial?

Now, if they had found a car antenna....

Now, if they had found a car antenna....

Were there bigfoot hairs on it?

Anitque Roadshow!!!

the chinese would never lie or try to scam anybody. no sir.

I'm sorry honey, but she looked pretty damn good for four hundred.

Damn grave robbers were good.

Lots of cheesy jokes here... Swiss cheesy jokes.

Swiss cheesy jokes.

#13 | Posted by Apocalypto

What-they got big holes in 'em?

I believe it. I once pried a Timex out of the mud in a landfill that was run over by a D8!!! Yes it still worked.

That Timex was American made. The Swiss have been at it for a lot longer, but then again...A ring watch that was 400 years old?

OH THANK GOD, someone found it!! Where can I pick up my ring?

Look at the monkeys with something shiny---aren't they cute.

It all goes to prove Buffalo_Boob was right about aliens building factories on the moon.

"The watch stopped at 10:06am" So how does an analog watch indicate am?

This is reminiscent of the old watchmaker analogy by William Paley. If you found a Swiss watch in the deep woods, what would you assume?

That the watch had evolved from nature there in the woods, or that there was somewhere a watchmaker?

Or, as Cicero said over 2 millenia ago:

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"

Sometimes they have little, like, display thingies, which say "AM" or "PM". But this kind of things seems like something from around 100 years ago or sooner. I'd go to the makers, if they could be found, and ask when this model was created.

This could have been so much less confusing if those damned aliens had been wearing a SWATCH watch instead of a SWISS watch.....

the chinese would never lie or try to scam anybody. no sir.

#10 | Posted by nutcase

What have you got against chinks?

Was it a ring shaped like a watch or did it actually work at one time? Anyone know?

The pic looks very much like a modern watch with a lot of crud on it.

I agree with all the time travelers comments. I am waiting for the 400 year old stone plasma tv necklace pendant with the word "Sony" on the back.

It took a lickin and kept on tickin

They may have been making Swiss watches 400 years ago, but when was the first watch ring made? The watch ring should be easy to trace to the manufacturer.

In China they found this?

Great, a four hundred year old Rolex knockoff.

Be Well.

"The watch stopped at 10:06am" So how does an analog watch indicate am?

I'd bet more like 10:06 PM. Seriously, who robs graves in the middle of the morning?

So how does an analog watch indicate am?

"The watch stopped at 10:06am" So how does an analog watch indicate am?

I'd bet more like 10:06 PM. Seriously, who robs graves in the middle of the morning?

Posted by northguy3 at 2008-12-18 08:51 PM | Reply

A Second AM PM Window Perhaps??

Larry

"In China they found this?

Great, a four hundred year old Rolex knockoff."

Big time FF for spud.

I'm surprised communist China didn't claim it was of Chinese design.

"It might look like a Rolex, but it has Chinese characteristics."

Just like their Russian space capsules.

Since when has China been communist?

Since when has China been communist?

1948

Those commies seem to have caught onto our system pretty quick, though. We owe them our future in debt, and all we got out of it was their torture manual.

Yeah a little public financing of infanticide and we'll be right there with 'em.

Pinche-
It's good to see you have your limits, but I like to remain in the realm of reality. For example: Bush authorizing torture (actual), versus Al Gore in a flying car killing babies with a flamethrower (your imagination).

For example: Bush authorizing torture

You have a problem differentiating between "torture" and "trendy liberal hyperbole".

And because you're kind of an obnoxious little ideological shill that can't seem to inform himself with anything other than a number of mouth-breathing websites that I can count on one hand, I'm gonna make your world a little bit bigger.

Pinche Mao-
I was actually referring to the bi-partisan Senate report, in which there were no dissenters, and it was signed by the recent Republican nominee for president of the US.

Congress has declined to criminalize waterboarding despite many opportunities to do so, and international law leaves a great deal of flexibility in interrogations. Even so, President Bush's February 2007 directive required that all prisoners be treated "humanely." Waterboarding, the most extreme tactic employed by the CIA, was limited to three top al-Qaeda captives (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and hasn't been used since 2003. At the Pentagon in 2002, Donald Rumsfeld echoed the president's insistence on humane treatment and declined to approve waterboarding and other aggressive tactics, such as exposure to temperature extremes. When military lawyers objected to his approval of mildly coercive techniques, such as grabbing, poking, and pushing, Rumsfeld withdrew the authorization, ordered a study, and issued spring 2003 guidelines that rejected all tactics involving physical contact. Repeat: No physical contact. Hardly the stuff of torture.

I believe there were 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans on the committee. Not a single Republican dissented from the conclusions of the final report.

Even so, President Bush's February 2007 directive required that all prisoners be treated "humanely."

That's nice. That was five years after he abrogated the Geneva Conventions.

BTW, what did the National Review have to say about the projected costs of the Iraq war? What did they have to say about WMDs, and the connection between Saddam and al Qaeda? In short, why do you value a propaganda publication over the bi-partisan senate panel?

Here's a partial list of murders of detainees:

It seems, Pinche, that when faced with the facts, you have run for cover under an editorial at the National Review.

General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes

Here's the full declassified report, if you care to come out from under your editorial at the National Review and read it for yourself:

"Editorials" are arguments whose conclusions are backed by facts.

That was five years after he abrogated the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions don't apply to the prisoners, dumbass.

That narrative is flawed in its fundamental assumptions and fictional in its sweeping conclusions. The Bush administration did not "redefine" detainee treatment law; it undertook to determine what the law says and whom it covers. The intent of the Geneva Conventions, the principal law on the subject, is to civilize warfare by affording benefits, including an absolute bar against abusive treatment, to eligible prisoners of war i.e., to captured soldiers who adhere to the laws of armed conflict, meaning, among other things, that they forgo intentionally endangering civilians. By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians.

From the beginning of operations in Iraq, the president insisted that the Geneva Conventions be observed there. When the abuse scandal surfaced, it was the military that reported and investigated it, aggressively prosecuting the offending soldiers. Multiple investigations, including the bipartisan panel chaired by former Nixon, Ford, and Carter cabinet member James Schlesinger, have rejected the outlandish claim that President Bush installed a program of systematic prisoner abuse, much less a torture regime.

The Geneva Conventions don't apply to the prisoners, dumbass.

Of course they don't, by decree of the President (Bush).

Until you read the report, I don't see how you can comment on it. I really don't care to be spoon-fed editorials from the National Review, or be treated to hypothetical situations you pull out of your ass.

For example from your piece of shit editorial:

From the beginning of operations in Iraq, the president insisted that the Geneva Conventions be observed there.

Which is why he signed a decree that the Geneva Convention article Three did not apply?

Please, read the report and look at the demonstrable facts before you fall for such swill.

I know you REALLY want to believe the fantasies spun by the editorial board of the National Review, but where has that got you so far?

Of course they don't, by decree of the President (Bush).

No.

By the convention itself.

I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Which is why your sole argument consists of half-assed attacks on sources that have completely deconstructed your silly little narrative.

The intent of the Geneva Conventions, the principal law on the subject, is to civilize warfare by affording benefits, including an absolute bar against abusive treatment, to eligible prisoners of war i.e., to captured soldiers who adhere to the laws of armed conflict, meaning, among other things, that they forgo intentionally endangering civilians. By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians.

Pinche-
Read the report. Until you do, you are speaking out of someone elses ass, and it's quite annoying.

I know you REALLY want to believe the fantasies spun by the editorial board of the National Review, but where has that got you so far?

Posted by BetelG at 2008-12-19 01:46 AM | Reply

OK...

Point #1- A swiss watch was found in a 400 year old tomb still intact. Discuss.

Point #2- Why do you keep taking David Duke to the ball, betel? Is he a good dancer?

Seriously, you're not solving anything...this is a waste of time. The right wingers who want to be him will roll their eyes at YOU, once pinche starts talking about your wife and you flip out.

Virtually all the other posters will roll their eyes at this bullshit exchange and wonder, like I am, why you attempt any serious discourse or rebuttals. If you're going to waste your time, at least have fun and mock the bigot like everyone else.

You're getting angry over a foregone conclusion. No amount of factual content, internet outrage, or insults is going to make this conversation any different tomorrow for either one of you. That being the case, either meet somewhere and beat the fuck out of each other(or fuck, whatever) or try and spend one night not flaming each other and see how it feels.

Oh and Pinche it doesn't matter if Al Qaeda signed onto the Geneva Conventions or not. We did so We have to abide by them no matter what.

Larry

You know, cuz change is good.

Which is why he signed a decree that the Geneva Convention article Three did not apply?

Because he initiaslly defaulted to leniency, and gave those protections to people who had no business enjoying them.

On a lighter note, its nice to see such an apologist for the most despicable human beings history has ever produced.

Remember this discussion next time you feel persecuted for being a "liberal".

People like you truly are sickening.

You don't deserve to live in this country with me.

You really, really don't.

We have to abide by them no matter what.

We are.

The intent of the Geneva Conventions, the principal law on the subject, is to civilize warfare by affording benefits, including an absolute bar against abusive treatment, to eligible prisoners of war i.e., to captured soldiers who adhere to the laws of armed conflict, meaning, among other things, that they forgo intentionally endangering civilians. By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians.

Pinche-
In a broader sense, your (or, rather, the National Review's position, which you have adopted) stance seems to be that international law and laws against war crimes are hinderances to be parsed and dodged. You (and the National Review) ignore our past leadership in these matters.

But, aside from that philosophical difference, it would be easier to speak to that difference if you at least had your facts straight and weren't relying on a biased editorial from a Bush cheerleading rag.

Read the report.

On a lighter note, its nice to see such an apologist for the most despicable human beings history has ever produced.

*rubs a crystal ball*

Betel-"why did bush let most of these human beings out of gitmo if they're so despicable, pinche? Smells like that came from your ass too."

Pinche-"so they could fuck your wife."

Betel- "Asshole"

Pinche-"Fairy"

Betel- "ASSHOLE!"

Pinche- "FAIRY!"

Can we move on now please?

Read the report, Pinche. That way, while we will still disagree, you will have a rough idea of what you are blathering about.

Pinche-
Read the report.

I did.

And it doesn't affect the validity of whatever "point" you're attempting to make.

Other than your repeated insistance that I "read the report"

Bu that's not really an "argument", per se.

Is it?

NO WE ARE NOT Pinche. Dubya and Cheney both have admitted to such. The United States have abridged their Duties to abide by the Geneva Conventions. It's not too hard to grasp if You are anywhere near intellectually honest about it.

Larry

PS nice repeating of the same bullshit tripe. Becoming a Buffalo Bob aren't You Pinche??

In a broader sense, your (or, rather, the National Review's position, which you have adopted) stance seems to be that international law and laws against war crimes are hinderances to be parsed and dodged.

The language regarding who's covered under the Geneva Convention (and who isn't) is fairly clear.

Al Qaeda isn't.

Pinche-
re: By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians.

So, if we round up people and say they are al Qaeda, we can do what we wish with them?

Is that "the intent of the Geneva Conventions"?

What if the gov't (any gov't) claims that you are al Qaeda?

The United States have abridged their Duties to abide by the Geneva Conventions.

"Abridged"?

I guess they they "abridged" their duties by reading it.

captured soldiers who adhere to the laws of armed conflict, meaning, among other things, that they forgo intentionally endangering civilians. By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections

I'm noticing a pattern of difficulty in addressing the point.

What if the gov't (any gov't) claims that you are al Qaeda?

I'm a U.S. citizen Boyd.

I get a speedy trial.

Pinche-
Not if your al Qaeda.

"you're", grammar nazis

Art. 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities .

Pinche-
See Jose Padilla. (Google it)

I'm a U.S. citizen Boyd.

I get a speedy trial.

#70 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-12-19 02:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

You are so full of shit, and you really need to pull your head out of your ass. It's very tiring, dealing with people who get their news filtered by National Review editorials.

Mao-
re: I'm a U.S. citizen Boyd.

I get a speedy trial.

#70 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-12-19 02:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Answer?

The Bush administration did not negate the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3, which requires that captives be "treated humanely." CA3 simply did not apply or at least it did not until the 2006 Hamdan case, in which five Supreme Court justices ignored its terms. As the plain language of the law makes clear, CA3 governs civil wars: "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties."

Pinche-
You seem to be flailing about. I say you are al Qaeda, and if I happen to be president, you have no rights under any laws, as they have been abrogated by my decree.

Capice?

(Are you still quoting from that National Review editorial, douchebag?)

Padilla got a trial in civilian court, Boyd.

It wasn't speedy.

But Padilla is also a deflection from an argument you're incapable of making.

From the senate report:

On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention. The President's order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.

I say you are al Qaeda, and if I happen to be president, you have no rights under any laws, as they have been abrogated by my decree.

Exactly.

Unless I'm a citizen of the United States.

It wasn't speedy.

No shit?

Our president argued that a citizen was an "illegal enemy combatant" and therefore subject to no law, but the president's decree.

On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention.

Because they weren't, Boyd.

By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians.

Answer?

Unless I'm a citizen of the United States.

Which, I suppose, means you can only be held in a box without charges or counsel for less than a decade. Because, of course, you are an American.

By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians.

#85 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-12-19 02:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm unclear as to what position you are taking. You at first claim that there were laws governing the treatment of prisoners, as Bush did not abrogate those in effect, and now you say that there are no laws applicable.

You've come a long way.

From "Bush illegally authorizing torture" to "Jose Padilla's time of incarceration".

In other words, you're deflecting.

You're bouncing around and throwing one shrill cliche after another hoping one will stick.

How come the Supreme Court of The United States declares Al Qaeda members in our custody are entitled to Geneva Conventions??

Larry

If you had read the report, instead of operating off of your authoritarian impulses sans facts, you would understand that the treatment of prisoners you saw at Abu Ghraib were not aberrations, but policy.

Your choice now is to approve or condemn.

But, since you haven't read the report you are so glib to comment upon, I don't see getting a coherent statement from you.

I'm a U.S. citizen Boyd.

I get a speedy trial.

#70 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-12-19 02:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

LOL!

Which, I suppose, means you can only be held in a box without charges or counsel for less than a decade. Because, of course, you are an American.

Padilla got a civil trial.

And he was your only example.

I'm unclear as to what position you are taking.

That's because I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about.

You at first claim that there were laws governing the treatment of prisoners

There are.

In the Geneva Convention.

and now you say that there are no laws applicable.

Not to Al Qaeda, there aren't.

By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians.

Citizens get a fair trial, Non citizens should be entitled to Geneva Convention rules during war time. even non citizens should get a fair trial. Pinche Imagine you go to Europe on a vacation and get accused of a capital crime. Wouldn't you want a fair trial to prove your innocence?

It wasn't speedy.

-Pinche Mao

LOL!

How come the Supreme Court of The United States declares Al Qaeda members in our custody are entitled to Geneva Conventions??

Because 5 Justices ignored the the terms of CA3.

As the plain language of the law makes clear, CA3 governs civil wars: "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties."

Pinche Imagine you go to Europe on a vacation and get accused of a capital crime

If Europe is a battlefield upon which I'm captured, you'd have a point.

Pinche-
Your statements are clear. We can do anything we like to those we declare "illegal enemy combatants".

What you don't seem to be able to face up to is that we have done just that, on the president's decree.

Until you face that (and read the report), I don't see where you intend to go from here.

good thing Bush and his corrupt admin are almost out the door and we can go back to being America again. Maybe Pinche can be deported.

Pinche some people in Gitmo were picked up for no reason and locked up for 5 years without ever being charged. If they are guilty prove it in court. That is the way the system works here.

Non citizens should be entitled to Geneva Convention rules during war time

Only if they're captured soldiers who adhere to the laws of armed conflict, meaning, among other things, that they forgo intentionally endangering civilians.

By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians.

Pinche argues that those we declare "illegal enemy combatants" are subject to no laws of treatment.

What Pinche will not accept are the obvious and documented ramifications of that, i.e., torture, abuse, homicide under the flag of the United States of America.

Until you face that (and read the report)

I've read the report and it has no effect on the dynamic of our discussion.

You have a problem differentiating between "torture" and "trendy liberal hyperbole".

And I told you that several hours ago.

You need to get a grip.

documented ramifications of that, i.e., torture, abuse, homicide under the flag of the United States of America.

Which have been prosecuted.

I would take Pinche more seriously if he would own up to what his legal parsing has caused.

He wants both: The rules of war do not apply (by decree of Bush), and we are humane (by rhetoric of Bush)

Which have been prosecuted.

#104 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-12-19 02:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

The authorization came from the president himself. To my knowledge, he has not been prosecuted.

Are there any military folks in the house? Is that how it works? Commander says "take the gloves off", and private so and so goes to the brig, and it stops there?

You have a problem differentiating between "torture" and "trendy liberal hyperbole".

You've said that several times. Is that also from your National Review editorial, or did you make that up all by your boot-licking self?

By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians.

Quotes from the national review, not the actual geneva conventions.

Signed, Buffalo Pinche mao.

The rules of war do not apply

The "rules of war" are the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convetion doesn't apply to Al Qaeda.

This is becoming tiresome.

On the other hand, its people like you upon which Al Qaeda relies.

Even a fucker in a cave with a 6th century education knows that a self-loathing American liberal faggot is a greater threat to the U.S. than he could ever be.

You're on their side, Boyd.

You're an apologist for America's enemies---to the point where you'll stay up until 2 am and (poorly) make their case for them.

How sad and despicable.

Its time people like you are called out for what you are: traitors.

And not hyperbolic, rhetorical, and flippant sense.

A traitor.

Night-night.

Scum.

You've said that several times.

I've said it twice because you've yet to refute it.

You're an apologist for America's enemies

Worn out argument, PINCHE

If we aren't fighting to spread the message of America - that we're a nation of laws and value the rule of law - then what do you say we're fighting for?

Bush's tactics in 'The War on Terror' have further inflamed the Arab world, and made us less safe. That's the consensus opinion of our Intelligence services.

Quotes from the national review, not the actual geneva conventions.

The Geneva Conventions are laid out.

They're not secret text.

You are the traitor Pinche. People who throw away what America stands for because it is convenient are traitors. The spirit of the law guarantees criminals due process along with that comes freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

You are the traitor Pinche. People who throw away what America stands for because it is convenient are traitors. The spirit of the law guarantees criminals due process along with that comes freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

sorry for the double post.

Oh, and btw pinche...

Your talking points are 2 years stale.

In 2006 Bush allowed Geneva protections to about a dozen Al Qaeda members who had been held in black sites. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed!

Is Bush an unamerican piece of shit for doing this? Does he not understand how to read the Geneva conventions as well as your precious Editorial staff at the national review?

Or are you, as usual, completely fucking clueless and desperate to prove it?(this is rhetorical, sally)

You are adamant in your wanton stupidity, though...I'll give you that.

Pinche immediately goes to plan B when he begins to lose a debate which is question somebody's patriotism. This worked for them until about 2005 when everybody woke up and realized neocons were full of shit.

Having lived through The Cold War with 10,000 hydrogen bombs pointed at America, a rag tag band of terrorists across the ocena don't scare me.

Formerly communist nations in the Soviet sphere and elsewhere looked up to America. When they fell like dominoes they became democracies because they looked up to us, not because we pissed them off unnecessarily as we did in invading Iraq and letting Afghanistan go neglected but for guns.

Pinche-
re: Even a fucker in a cave with a 6th century education knows that a self-loathing American liberal faggot is a greater threat to the U.S. than he could ever be.

And it's nice of you to chime in about the faggots, bin Laden. You can save your batteries now. (Oh...BTW, it seems that your goal of shitting on the US Constitution is gaining just the allies you predicted)

Your talking points are 2 years stale.

In 2006 Bush allowed Geneva protections to about a dozen Al Qaeda members who had been held in black sites. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed!

You're not paying attention...

Even so, President Bush's February 2007 directive required that all prisoners be treated "humanely." Waterboarding, the most extreme tactic employed by the CIA, was limited to three top al-Qaeda captives (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and hasn't been used since 2003.

Again.

You lose.

Your talking points are 2 years stale

What talking points?

The 'terrorists' we know about who were released were innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time. One German citizen, released at the urging of Chancellor Merkel, had been tortured for 5 years. Only because she was aware of his imprisonment was he even known to have been a prisoner.

Military tribunals, civil courts - there were options available all along to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone captured.

At Abu Gharib, 90% were later released as innocent after months of imprisonment and worse.

If we capture someone, there should be a process to determine guilt or innocence. Banana republics in Central America are who imprison people for years without representation or determination of guilt or innocence. America isn't supposed to stand for that.

Pinche immediately goes to plan B when he begins to lose a debate

I think this one's in the bag, dipshit.

Scroll up.

bin Laden-
Look, I know this dude who hates faggots and liberals just as much as you do. He's also a real authority freak, so he should fit right in to your organization. He posts under the name "Pinche Mao" (Yeah, LOL!)

Pinche prefers we act in a manner similar to what we would find in a 3rd world dictatorship.... Until it is his ass being accused then he wants all of his protections.

...really, though...he's totally on board with that whole Abu Ghraib kind of nonsense that both weakened the US moral authority and helped your recruitment so much. You have to understand that he thinks he's a double-agent, so feed him some booze and pretend you're CIA...

Isn't it ironic we used to punish countries who held prisoners without trial?

We called the Soviets and Chinese 'ruthless' for imprisoning political prisoners for years in gulags without due process.

That was while you were still learning to walk, PINCHE, so we don't expect you to have the benefit of modern history on your side.

As I mentioned earlier, those of us who grew up with thousands of megaton hydrogen bombs aimed at our heads don't fear a rag tag band of radicals half a continent away. What are they going to do? Swim here? Rowboat? They can't fly into the country. If they did, I doubt rural TX is where they'd go.

You're safe. Relax.

Pinche just because Bush says something is legal doesn't make it so.

Cheney has gladly fessed up to helping get the CIA's waterboarding torture program started. Cheny has no regrets about personally approving a form of torture for which Japanese commanders were convicted in the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Four decades earlier, the U.S. military court-martialed its own soldiers for the crime of water-boarding prisoners in the Philippines, while putting down the Filipino independence struggle. The historical and legal precedents are clear and indisputable: water-boarding is a war crime. Dick Cheney has made his own prosecution a simple matter, by voluntary confession. There are no mitigating circumstances, since Cheney is unapologetic about his crimes.

Waterboarding, the most extreme tactic employed by the CIA, was limited to three top al-Qaeda captives (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and hasn't been used since 2003. At the Pentagon in 2002, Donald Rumsfeld echoed the president's insistence on humane treatment and declined to approve waterboarding and other aggressive tactics, such as exposure to temperature extremes. When military lawyers objected to his approval of mildly coercive techniques, such as grabbing, poking, and pushing, Rumsfeld withdrew the authorization, ordered a study, and issued spring 2003 guidelines that rejected all tactics involving physical contact. Repeat: No physical contact. Hardly the stuff of torture.

American-
Oh, but Bush kept us safe after he totally blew it before 9/11. Any toenails he extracts or tens of thousands of people he kills for a total destruction and incompetent botching of the entire middle east while he ruins us with debt and scraps the last tiny shred of our dignity as a nation was all for you.

Ingrate!

This is getting boring.

'Night.

*kiss*

Pinche Mao is still quoting an editorial without even footnotes as to where the bullshit he laps up came from. LOL, what a douchebag!

Pinche you still haven't addressed why some are being held with no charges and no right to counsel. Should we just house these people forever with no trial? Would you like Americans treated in this manner?

Waterboarding, the most extreme tactic employed by the CIA, was limited to three top al-Qaeda captives (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and hasn't been used since 2003.

This, for example. Where did you (LOL, sorry - the National Review editorial page) get that information?

Goodnight, Pinche

Sleep easy. If 10,000 hydrogen bombs didn't get us, the terrorists won't either. They won't be targeting cows anyway. You're safe. But, by God if you see 'em you've had all that target practice on road signs.

Pinche Mao is still quoting an editorial

Because you're still incapable of refuting the simple timeline produced therein.

It doesn't matter that its an "editorial".

Its a very straightforward and factual deconstruction of this fucking stupidity that you base so much of your worldview upon.

Again.
You lose.

Again.

You can't think.

Does Bush NOT understand the conventions as well as your little right wing rag, or does your source suck donkey balls?

PS- Waterboarding simulates death. Mock executions are banned by international law.

Pinche you still haven't addressed why some are being held with no charges and no right to counsel.

Because they're not entitled to it.

I told you to scroll up.

This is getting boring.

'Night.

*kiss*

#132 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-12-19 03:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Awww. Let's pretend you won the debate with boyd, as you claim: The best you accomplished tonight was to defend an inhuman practice with legal semantics you couldn't even get yourself, but from a right wing rag.

I'm sure Mommy and Daddy are proud of the moral Christian man you have become.

It doesn't matter that its an "editorial".

Well, when it's your solitary data set, one begins to wonder. Especially when it's transparent bullshit.

But, then, I'm a "liberal", a "faggot" and a "traitor" who actually read the senate report and who doesn't latch on to a single editorial in a propaganda rag as if it was his long lost blankie.

Pinche you still haven't addressed why some are being held with no charges and no right to counsel.

Because they're not entitled to it.

I told you to scroll up.

#139 | Posted by Pinche_Mao

Because a corrupt Admin said they weren't entitled to it?

Get a brain man. Do you think this is what America really stands for?

If 10,000 hydrogen bombs didn't get us, the terrorists won't either

I dunno.

Communism was a fairly rational doctrine whose utopian outcome depended upon survival of the human race.

Muslim terrorists who detonate themselves in pizza parlors to kill 5 jews aren't operating from the same playbook.

PINCHE

Again, before you hit the sack, those of us who've lived through the Cold War aren't afraid of someone 10,000 miles away.

Our best defense, outside of gathering intelligence, is "soft power" - helping people in the far corners of the world. It kept them from wanting to kill us for decades. Diplomacy has been almost totally ignored for 8 years in regions where radicals come from.

Heal someone's uncle, daughter, son, mother, and you've got an entire extended family with a positive image of America. Kill their uncle, daughter, son, mother, or father and you have an extended family of people who disdain us.

Most Arabs had no beef with the U.S. until we invaded Iraq. They all viewed Afghanistan as a justifiable war.

Just recently, the Marines have started engaging in 'soft power' again. They're doing simple things in North Africa (a hotbed of terrorism) like fit people for eyeglasses, digging wells, and providing medical care. It's working. They don't want to kill someone who's helping them.

Pinche-
I bought some soft cotton paper (100% cotton fiber weave), and if it would make you feel better, or sleep better, I could print your precious National Review editorial on it and send it to you as a snuggle toy. It's a soft blue color, and is quite nice to the touch.

National Review should be used for toilet paper and that is about it.

PINCHE

The Israeli-Palestinian issue has received scant attention from this administration. That issue MUST have some resolution. It's a never ending cycle with enough blame to go around.

The U.S. is the only country who can effect a peaceful resolution. We did it with Egypt and Israel. They've been at peace for 30 years. It can happen again.

The Palestinian-Israeli issue is at the crux of much Arab animosity. Iraq threw gas on the fire.

The single minded focus on Iraq has hurt us tremendously in many ways. The Arab world has seen the footage we aren't allowed to see. If your neighbors were killed right and left because of an occupation I'd figure you for one of the first to take up arms on their behalf.

Rasta-
Printed on the proper paper and arranged just so, and it makes a nice snuggly bed. Right, Pinche?

Well, when it's your solitary data set

Which is exactly the same number of "data sets" you produced.

who actually read the senate report

I read it too.

And like I said, it doesn't change the dynamic of the conversation.

Its the quality of data, Boyd.

You have a problem differentiating between "torture" and "trendy liberal hyperbole".

There's only x number of ways to articulate the fact that you're full of shit and incapable of backing up the kind of mouth-breathing narrative you promulgate regarding the treatment of terrorists.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue has received scant attention from this administration. That issue MUST have some resolution. It's a never ending cycle with enough blame to go around.

Jesus Fucking Christ, Francis.

Its OK to deflect, but have some fucking pride and tact when doing so.

I read it too.

I doubt that, but then I'm a "faggot" and a "traitor", so what do you care? (BTW..the offer for the National Review blue blankie still stands)

Pinche-
Please quote the same fucking editorial from the National Review again, because I'd like to make fun of you once more before I go to bed, if you don't mind.

PINCHE

If you don't know the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is and has been at the root of fanning radicalism for decades, then I can't help you.

Only every intelligence officer in America knows that.

Those of us who were alive during the Munich Olympics, and have lived thorough intervening years all know that.

The issues that fan anti-American sentiment and breed terrorism aren't that hard to grasp.

Where and when do you think all this got started? If you answered "The West Bank" or "Giza" you'd be correct in saying Arab anti-American sentiment started in modern times right there over that one issue.

You have a problem differentiating between "torture" and "trendy liberal hyperbole".

#40 | Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-12-19 01:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hmmmmm...I seem to remember we executed many Japanese for using waterboarding on POW's and now, all of a sudden, you want to pretend that it's not torture? Well, that sure is convenient!

Do yourself a favor and Go google "The Convention Against Torture" pinche:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

The US signed this, pinche.
Do we follow our laws or not?

(or you could call me a "faggot" and a "traitor" ,or you could make crude sexual comments and mention where I and my family live, or you could do all of those things)

The Israeli-Palestinian issue has received scant attention from this administration. That issue MUST have some resolution. It's a never ending cycle with enough blame to go around.

AMERICANUNITy

Jesus Fucking Christ, Francis.

Its OK to deflect, but have some fucking pride and tact when doing so.

#150 | Posted by Pinche_Mao

We were talking about terrorism, weren't we? Well, PINCHE, that is the foundation and still a cause of a lot of it.

You must have tact and tactics confused. May I suggest you try utilizing some tact?

Pinche-
Oh c'mon...one more quote from the only source you have......pleeease..I want to leave the blog on a final note of harsh ridicule, and who are you to finally realize what a moron you've been at this exact moment when I need you the most?

You have a problem differentiating between "torture" and "trendy liberal hyperbole".

Again: The UN law the US signed and ratified clearly includes waterboarding, if not by name but by outcome, as torture.

We have *admitted* to waterboarding 3 individuals.(god knows how many we haven't admitted to)

The Bush administration broke the law. If the UN definition of torture was "trendy liberal hyperbole" then why did the United States sign it?

And if it REALLY IS "trendy liberal hyperbole" why did the Bush admin decide to break this law instead of pulling out of it law officially? There are legal ways to changing or withdrawing treaties. There are procedures. But you don't get to cherry pick what laws you feel like following and then label any grunts of disapproval "hyperbole" when called on it.

Similarly, I disapprove of the arcane marijuana laws in this country. But If I'm caught smoking it, my defense can't be "that law is trendy BS." It is what it is. There are consequences for breaking laws, even stupid laws.

Unless you're the #1 military might in the world, that is. Which is basically the ONLY reason W has gotten away with this. "Might makes right"

Cheney has gladly fessed up to helping get the CIA's waterboarding torture program started.

???

So? I could 'fess up to helping too. But since the CIA doesn't take orders from me or Cheney (they report to the president) neither I nor Cheney can be prosecuted for anything.

Goatman-
I guess that just leaves the President. (aside from the enlisted patsies who are currently serving time)

Yeah, the CIA doesn't take orders from the Vice President. Are you really this dense, goatman?

Why the hell do you think cheney ran to the CIA so many times to get the intel he wanted?

Who do you think sent him? Who do you think he works for?

Well, legally speaking you're correct: The VP doesn't order the CIA around. Just as the mob didn't order businesses to pay them a protection fee. See...they couldn't legally order it so it never happened right?

Ya gotta love the literalists...can't find their butts with two hands and a butt atlas...but their naivete and semantics games sure are cute.

Until they use them as a means to attack people arguing against torture. Then it's not funny anymore.

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering...

I have to chuckle heartily at the lefties who quote the Geneva convention yet revel gleefully that an object was thrown at the president which had he not ducked would have caused severe pain.

What hypocrites. No wonder no one takes y'all seriously.

But since the CIA doesn't take orders from me or Cheney (they report to the president) neither I nor Cheney can be prosecuted for anything.

Golly gee, keep quiet...the next POTUS could use this as a legal loophole to make the CIA do whatever he wants through the VP he appointed. Like torture. God knows this one would never do that.

SHHHHH!

Sadly, you're all too serious about this.

I guess that just leaves the President.

Leaves the president what?

Goatman-
If it did not defy credulity that a few "bad apples" at abu Ghraib would take it upon themselves to strip prisoners naked and humiliate them like dogs and beat some to death, does the senate report (which I'm sure you've read) shed any light on the affair?

Ya gotta love the literalists...

yes, ya gotta. The law is very literal.

Goatman-
I see. You haven't read the report:

I have to chuckle heartily at the lefties who quote the Geneva convention yet revel gleefully that an object was thrown at the president which had he not ducked would have caused severe pain.

What hypocrites. No wonder no one takes y'all seriously.

#164 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 04:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Quote me. Where did I say it was a great thing the POTUS was attacked and the secret service sucked. Maybe I was drinking that night. Remind me.

Oh, and having a shoe bang against your forehead is EXACTLY like a mock execution via simulated drowning, isn't it goatman?

For such a literalist on CIA/VP law, you seem really full of shit on that comparison.

Seems you're literal ONLY when it helps your cause of attacking left wing targets.(your sole targets that is) What a hypocrite...no wonder no one takes you seriously.

The law is very literal.

#168 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 04:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

So Cheney broke the law by telling the CIA what to do.

OR

Cheney lied his balls off to the American public in an interview.

Still proud you voted for this pond scum twice? I bet you are.

BTW- Law bein literal and all, the US broke it. Busted the very quote you threw in someones face, and admitted as much on TV. No, I don't mean cheney this time...

BUSH admitted that we've waterboarded 3 people.

3 war crimes by the LITERAL LAW you just quoted a bit ago. A law we signed.

How now brown cow?

Where did I say it was a great thing the POTUS was attacked and the secret service sucked.

???

Show me where I said 'alex'. I said 'lefties'. You have told me in the past you are not a leftie. You seem quite upset tonight, alex. No need to put words in my mouth, though.

I don't recall anyone saying it was a good thing the reporter threw shoes at Bush.

The game was funny though.

Goatman-
I think that was me. I think I said something to the effect that Bush deceived us into a war he fought incompetently based on the lie that Iraq was a threat to us and somehow tied to 9/11.

Since then, we have over four thousand dead and and tens of thousands wounded, with over 100,000 dead Iraqis with several million displaced, plus a resurgence in al Qaeda in territories and entire countries where they were not present before, and now we are the worlds largest debtor nation with a reputation for torture and lawlessness, or something like that.
My bad.

Oh, and having a shoe bang against your forehead is EXACTLY like a mock execution via simulated drowning, isn't it goatman?

???

I've been hit in the head with an object. It causes severe pain. The GC you quoted said, "severe pain" not mock executions and simulated drownings.

Or are you allowed your own interpretations when you put forth an argument? If so, may I have the same privelege?

Goatman-
I think that was me. I think I said something to the effect that Bush deceived us into a war he fought incompetently based on the lie that Iraq was a threat to us and somehow tied to 9/11.

Since then, we have over four thousand dead and and tens of thousands wounded, with over 100,000 dead Iraqis with several million displaced, plus a resurgence in al Qaeda in territories and entire countries where they were not present before, and now we are the worlds largest debtor nation with a reputation for torture and lawlessness, or something like that.
My bad.

#175 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-12-19 04:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Damn. I forgot the punch line:

and you get your panties in a wad over some loser throwing shoes at Bush!

Still proud you voted for this pond scum twice?

The old, "you voted for him twice" routine. Once, Alex. Get a grip, dude.

I've been hit in the head with an object. It causes severe pain. The GC you quoted said, "severe pain" not mock executions and simulated drownings.

Wow. We are sooo alike. I've been "hit in the head with an object" too:

Goat I applied for an ET position with a company called transocean

Goatman-
re: The old, "you voted for him twice" routine. Once, Alex. Get a grip, dude.

Well, did ya?

Hey goatman-

Top Bush officials admitted that 3 people were waterboarded.

This is illegal according to the convention you quotes. Literally.

So is bush now a war criminal?

BTW- I apologize for misreading your shoe comment. My bad.

I am left of center on most views, but independent voter. When did I say I was NOT a leftie?

The Vice President Can be Impeached. It says so in the US Constitution.

rigzone has a ton of good jobs listed.

Goatman-
OK, so you voted for him only once? So what's your excuse now?

Well, did ya?

You've asked me that before. I've answered it before. Several times. If it is such an important question to you, I guess should've taken notes, boyd.

So Cheney broke the law by telling the CIA what to do.

Not possible. He doesn't have that authority.

"But judge -- my passenger is the guilty one. He's told me to drive over the speed limit"

Have you read the senate report?

I don't really care what your votes were in the past.

How do you vote on this?

Oh, and as to your "Cheney can't order the CIA" crapola...

So is bush now a war criminal?

That would be up to a court of law to decide, I reckon.

Seriously, how does a literalist feel about this:

"We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it,"

Hmmm, legal opinions that let us obviously break a very clearly written law.

So what's your excuse now?

???

For what, troll?

Goatman-
The senate report clearly states that the president authorized war crimes. We won't do anything about it, of course. That would be "divisive" and unseemly; partisan and distracting from the need to "move forward".

rigzone has a ton of good jobs listed.

Send me an email. Set up a throwaway address if you want.

That would be up to a court of law to decide, I reckon.

#190 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 04:42 AM | Reply | Flag

Pffft. Like you need them to form an opinion of your own.

Read the convention line you quoted. Then read what bush and co admitted to.

Do I think he should be sent to jail without a trial? Hell no, but it's pretty fucking obvious he broke the law. He admitted it to millions of people on television.

Sorry, but a legal brief by yoo or gonzales does not change what treaties we signed, and what is contained in those treaties, regardless of how stupid or arrogant the POTUS is.

The only way I could see bush wiggling out of his ABC interview were it used in a court of law...is if he said he lied in the ABC interview.

Goatman-

You haven't read the report. My advice is that you shouldn't read it. That way, you can just call me a troll. Better yet, you can not read it and just quote the National Review editorial on it that suits you best. That's the Pinche Mao option. But I figure you as someone who wants to go for the facts, bones and cartilage of life.

Maybe I'm wrong.

See you guys later...I've got a beer and a date with a pillow. It's a work night, ya know.

Seriously, how does a literalist feel about this:

"We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it,"

Hmmm, legal opinions that let us obviously break a very clearly written law.

My feelings? It would be up to a court of law. If I sat on the jury, I would have much more data. Your quote is only one side obviously. I'd like to know where he got his 'legal opinions' and judge for my self

"We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it,"

I should use that next time I get caught speeding. Give em a piece of paper from my lawyer stating that his legal opinion trumps how the law is actually written, and how multiple courts have ruled said law.

Sorry, but the executive is supposed to enforce the laws, not interpret them. If Bush thought the laws he seemingly broke were wrong, he had legal means in which to change them, or withdraw from treaties.

Instead, he chose to do whatever the fuck he wanted, and now he's admitted to it since it's too late for him to be impeached(as you love to point out, goat)

You haven't read the report.

This is why I don't answer many of your posts, boyd. I don't need people to tell me what I have or haven't read, who I have or haven't voted for, what I think and don't think.

My bad. Here's the senate report, before I go:

I'd like to know where he got his 'legal opinions' and judge for my self

#198 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 04:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

*sigh*

How can you NOT know where he got these opinions from and google them yourself?
Christ, half this board could do it.

Look up "yoo" and "gonzales" and "torture memos".

Were you an OJ juror in 1994? Is life under a rock any fun?

Hell no, but it's pretty fucking obvious he broke the law.

By reading one side, yes, it would appear so. As I said, I would like to see the 'legal opinions' he had before him.

I'm sure you are aware that seemingly mutually exclusive laws exist. That is why we have courts -- so that both sides can be seen. I've seen only one to date.

Give em a piece of paper from my lawyer stating that his legal opinion trumps how the law is actually written, and how multiple courts have ruled said law

If the legal opinion can be shown in an existing statute e.g. "speeding is legal in the case of an emergency", then yes, legal opinion is valid.

How can you NOT know where he got these opinions from and google them yourself?

Because the law is containted in thousands of volumes. How could I, a layman, possibly pretend to know all the laws that Bush's teams of lawyers have pored over?

If it was a court of law, they would present them.

How would I google this, Alex? "laws used by bush to justify actions during war"? I'm pretty good with google, but I can't figure out how to do this one.

Even John Ashcroft objected to the Use of Torture and said something to the effect History will not look kindly upon us in the future. Funny dat Be.

Larry

Yoo Memorandum

If the legal opinion can be shown in an existing statute e.g. "speeding is legal in the case of an emergency", then yes, legal opinion is valid.

- Goatman

Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.

- US Military ME

Look at it, goatman. Make it yours.

By reading one side, yes, it would appear so. As I said, I would like to see the 'legal opinions' he had before him.

Then turn on a fucking TV once in a while. Read an article. God, it's been on this website so much for the past few years it makes me sick thinking about it.

That is why we have courts -- so that both sides can be seen.

The same courts that keep ruling against Bush over and over again when it comes to detention? Those courts?

You came in here to bust balls over a cheney quote, Then revealed that you knew way less about the situation than anyone else. I guess you've never heard of the '6 principals' either, right?

Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.

???

What's this? A nighttime encounter at a Los Angeles ATM? A fall down a mountainside? A car wreck? Surely you're not suggesting that Bush ordered this person beat up? If so, let's see the proof of that.

How would I google this, Alex?

I told you. "john yoo" "GOnzales" "torture memos"

That will find you enough to find everything. The same everything we've all read HERE over the years. Where have you been?

Basically, the argument was that bush could pretty much do anything he wanted since we were in a war on terror.

And that, of course, this is a war that has no defined ending, so it can continue forever. Bush, in effect, could do whatever he wanted for as long as he felt like.
I'll grant you, that's my biased interpretation...but it aint really much different than anything yoo wrote. I'm serious.

The guy was straight up asked if bush could crush a kids testicles legally, and he replied "it would depend on why the President would want to do that" (then came the crowds booing)

All of this is why we have people just getting out of gitmo after 7 years of imprisonment without charge, counsel, or anything else.

And THAT is only because

1-the SCOTUS keeps kicking bushs ass

and

2- he's not going to be president in less than 2 months.

Here again is the senate reeport, tracing a clear line from Bush's "speeding" and the deaths of our dreams of justice, along with the actual deaths of human beings in the path of your speeding car:

"So? I could 'fess up to helping too. But since the CIA doesn't take orders from me or Cheney (they report to the president) neither I nor Cheney can be prosecuted for anything.

#160 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 04:07 AM | Reply | Flag:"

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

AND

KARL: Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?(including waterboarding)

CHENEY: I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.

BUt it didn't happen because it wasn't legal, right?

the "(Including waterboarding)" was mine, bTW.

The "program" used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been revealed to include waterboarding by top Bush admin officials.

Just In case you didn't know, goatman.

What's this? A nighttime encounter at a Los Angeles ATM? A fall down a mountainside? A car wreck? Surely you're not suggesting that Bush ordered this person beat up? If so, let's see the proof of that.

#210 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 05:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is your gov't under Bush/Cheney.

Read the senate report:

Betel- I forgot to comment earlier, but since im going to bed now...

Read the report. Makes me fucking sick. If Obama doesn't investigate the shit out of this administration in the next 4 years(and he probably won't) I will never forgive him.

What's this? A nighttime encounter at a Los Angeles ATM? A fall down a mountainside? A car wreck? Surely you're not suggesting that Bush ordered this person beat up? If so, let's see the proof of that.

#210 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 05:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure it's just a few "bad apples".

Oh, and in case you think i'm making shit up, goatman....

Conclusion 6: The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) interrogation program included at least one SERE training technique, waterboarding. Senior Administration lawyers, including Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and David Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, were consulted on the development of legal analysis of CIA interrogation techniques. Legal opinions

xxvii

subsequently issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpreted legal obligations under U.S. anti-torture laws and determined the legality of CIA interrogation techniques. Those OLC opinions distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws, rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody and influenced Department of Defense determinations as to what interrogation techniques were legal for use during interrogations conducted by U.S. military personnel.

From betels PDF I saved a few hours back.

alexandrite-
He probably won't, and if he doesn't you should never forgive him. Sad as that is, there it is.

And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.

Is giving support illegal? I don't think so. I said that Cheney has no legal authority to give orders to anyone. Nor do I. If I give the CIA orders and they follow them, who is to blame? If a school board member, mayor, governor, congressman or the VP gives the CIA orders and they obey them, who is to blame? The CIA reports to the president and no one else -- not even Cheney. So what can he be guilty of? Support? Yes, it appears so. Is 'support' an illegal act? I'm no legal scholar, but I don't think it is.

Goatman-
Read the senate report. Bush signed off on everything. That's your argument, that only the president has the power to authorize torture and the abrogation of the rules of war?

Here it is:

Goatman-
You, like Oorah and KG Beekeeper are a few of those people on this blog who I can count on to disagree in matters of opinion, but I sometimes expect the facts to overwhelm opinion.

I'm sometimes wrong.

I'm sorry that, by not reading it...

See post 200

So what can he be guilty of? Support? Yes, it appears so. Is 'support' an illegal act? I'm no legal scholar, but I don't think it is.

#220 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 05:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

He signed off on it. He helped the process along, by his own admission, and by admin sources.

Period.

I said that Cheney has no legal authority to give orders to anyone.

And a rapist doesn't have the LEGAL right to strip a woman naked when he has a gun in her face.

He's the 2nd most powerful man on Earth. Whether he had a legal right or not, he SIGNED OFF on it, and admitted it.

When the VP tells someone to do something, legal or not, they tend to fucking do it.

But then, I'm trying to explain this to a guy who compares cheney's power as the 2nd in command of the most powerful nation on earth...

to a mayor or school board member.

Your dishonesty is beyond contempt.

Goatman-

I looked up post #200.

I'd like to think you haven't read the report, and your non-statement lends credulity to my desire.

If you have read the report and your position is the the same as it was a few hours ago, I really don't know what to say to you.

Maybe, have a good night, and I'll see you around. It's getting early, and I'm on in seven hours.

Here is an argument where Cheney can be charged with a crime if You believe Cheney can't order the CIA to do something. If Cheney supports and has knowledge of a criminal act perpetrated by Dubya and supports it and does not try and stop it He is just as guilty as Dubya is for Ordering it done. Just like if John Smith declares He is going to murder someone and someone knows about it before time and does not try and stop it by calling the authorities can't He be tried for the murder just the same as the murderer Himself?? I declare that He can be for He had prior knowledge of John Smiths desire to murder someone. Why can't Cheney with regards to Torture?? Remember ignorance of the Law is no defense

Larry

...and your non-statement lends credulity to my desire.

Which is? To form baseless opinions?

You are right.

If Cheney supports and has knowledge of a criminal act perpetrated by Dubya ...

You know about it, Larry. What are you doing to stop it?

Guilty as charged

You know about it, Larry. What are you doing to stop it?

Guilty as charged

#229 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 06:20 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I am not an officer of the executive Branch Goatman. Please do try again for You know not what You speak about. You are a trool(Spelt correctly) and a deflector. PERIOD

Larry

Larry, in a court of law, Cheney cannot be held guilty because someone followed orders from him. Yes, he may have influenced the president, but if any laws were broken, they were broken by the president, not by the VP. I do indeed know of what I speak.

If you as a teenage driver break the speed limit because a man of authority (your dad, say) told you to -- who is guilty? How would the traffic court judge rule?

If you as a teenage driver break the speed limit because a man of authority (your dad, say) told you to -- who is guilty? How would the traffic court judge rule?

Posted by goatman at 2008-12-19 06:43 AM | Reply

Both because He is the one who authorized the Teenager to operate the motor vehicle.

Larry

Wow, who'd a thunk it?

A 400 year old Swiss ring watch guilty of torture?

This could be the Best Hijacked Thread of '08.Or the Worst.

I don't know why they are shocked to see this watch.
There is so much evidence in the world that time travel is possible and happens frequently

This reminds me of a novel (can't recall the author) about modern archaeologists, who time travel to the Middle Ages. They left a modern artifact as sign of the presence in the Middle Ages that was discovered centuries later.

The novels by Michel Chricton