Satire, and not a real story.

The difference in the rationale in the story above and the Rationale used under Bush of course being that the US was waterboarding non-uniformed operatives that don't belong to a country's standing army, and they weren't necessarily following the Geneva convention themselves to begin with. However our soldiers are uniformed, identifiable, and a member of the US Military. The same legal rationale wouldn't necessarily apply.

Of course if you think the Taliban would worry about legalities anyway you are dumber than a box of rocks.

Not saying you actually believe this story... just saying...

One problem. It doesn't matter who we have in detainment. We have signed onto treaties forbidding it as well as US Laws forbidding the same. NO MATTER WHO IT IS.

Larry

Really, Larry? Like what?

I seem to recall Congress trying to pass a Bill to ban waterboarding and Bush vetoed it.

Can you tell me why, if it was already banned by US Law, that Congress would need to pass a Bill specifically banning it under a separate law?

Larry is just offering support to the gal he wishes was his main squeeze, that's all. He adores the Speaker from San Francisco....figures, doesn't it?

It doesn't matter if "Terrorists" sign a treaty with us or not. We signed them therefore we are beholden to them. There are the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture.

Can you tell me why, if it was already banned by US Law, that Congress would need to pass a Bill specifically banning it under a separate law?

#3 | Posted by moomanfl

The law would have required all gov't agencies to conform to the UCMJ regulations for interrogation.

Legislation was necessary because the executive branch was issuing opinions and directives that allowed definitions to be expanded or circumvented.

Sorry Jestgettingalong. Nancy Pelosi isn't Pauley Perrette. I'm into Goth Chicks and Country/Farmer type of Women. See I want a Woman who isn't afraid to kick My ass and not break a sweat. Nancy Pelosi is to mousy. Blew Your balderdash all out of wack didn't it??

Larry

Country/Farmer type of Women

I had a buddy who called them "wood-haulin' women".

He said it was because they are willing and able to trudge out to the woodpile in the middle of a snowstorm and bring back an armload for their man.

There sure seemed to be plenty of them in Cincinnati.

Legislation was necessary because the executive branch was issuing opinions and directives that allowed definitions to be expanded or circumvented.

Illogical bullshit argument.

If it was already illegal then no further legislation would have been necessary to make it illegal.

The very fact that they needed legislation to limit a power that allowed it meant that congress felt there was a loophole. Therefore it was technically legal. They wanted to plug that loophole.

That also explains why no action will EVER be taken against the Bush administration. Period.

Larry, your quote of the treaty completely ignores the part of the treaty that defines who falls under its protection:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Sorry... here is the link if you really want to try:

Illogical bullshit argument.

If it was already illegal then no further legislation would have been necessary to make it illegal.

The very fact that they needed legislation to limit a power that allowed it meant that congress felt there was a loophole. Therefore it was technically legal. They wanted to plug that loophole.

That also explains why no action will EVER be taken against the Bush administration. Period.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-16 07:37 PM | Reply

No what is illogical is Your bullshit that You spew. You are like a man talking with a paper asshole the shit just keeps spewing forth. Answer Me this God damnit. If it was Legal why the hell did we prosecute those who committed it in the past. bI double dare You Moomanfla. Waterboarding Is Illegal always has been illegal. Why You and OohRah can't face that fact is beyond Me. Just goes to show Me which side of History You two belong on and it's the WRONG side of history as usual for the Right WIngers.

Larry

No what is illogical is Your bullshit that You spew. You are like a man talking with a paper asshole the shit just keeps spewing forth.

so, you are asserting that GWB will be prosecuted.

right?

Why was further legislation needed?

so, you are asserting that GWB will be prosecuted.

right?

Why was further legislation needed?

Posted by eberly at 2009-05-16 08:24 PM | Reply

He should be Eberly. I know You don't give a damn if He isn't however. Just by Your tone with Me on the subject matter.

Larry

Why was further legislation needed?

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2009-05-16 08:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

It wasn't needed because it had already been presedented Illegal By our own Government. But You aren't interested in the truth. You are just a partisan hack. Which is sad.

Larry

I know You don't give a damn if He isn't however.

cry us a river larry. You don't know nor should you give a shit what I "give a damn" about.

It wasn't needed because it had already been presedented Illegal By our own Government.

okay.

Legal why the hell did we prosecute those who committed it in the past.

Larry,

Unlike you, am not going to get so worked up that I start spewing ad hominems.

The answer to your question lies one of the foundations of how law works: definition.

More to the point the governing document provides the definitions. That is why pretty much every governing document includes a section that clearly defines the terms being used... so there is no mistake about what they mean.

Unless the term isn't defined in the document, you can't just apply a definition from another source. You MUST use the definition in the legal document.

The reason it was prosecuted in the past is because one or more of the conditions and terms applied to the governing document in question. As I have previously mentioned for example, during WW2 the Japanese waterboarded our soldiers who were uniformed, clearly recognizable, and part of a regular army.

I understand that you have little clue how what principles the law works under. Consider this an attempt to educate you. Once you understand it certain things become clear and understandable, such as:

a) Why Congress didn't prosecute the Bush Administration from the get-go. (Because what he was doing was technically legal and they knew it.)

b) Why a separate law was needed. (Because under the governing document defining who was protected, he was operating legally so a new law was needed to add new protections and restrictions.)

You might consider waterboarding torture, however the many arguments out there are working on different definitions. Under the legal definition as applies to terrorist, it technically isn't since the Geneva Convention doesn't recognize them as protected. That only leaves other, non-legal definitions. Those are more subjective than objective.

For example, is sending my kids to bed without supper as a punishment considered torture? My kids would say it is. Some people would say it is. Many other people would say no. Granted that isn't as powerful as waterboarding, but it does demonstrate that definitions can be fuzzy when not legally defined.

unbelievable sighhhhhhhhhhhhh Later

The Taliban commander asserted that waterboarding is not torture and does not violate the Geneva Convention or U.S. law. He assured everyone that a medical officer monitored all waterboarding sessions to insure that no permanent damage was done to the soldiers. In addition, he said they were careful to follow the directions on waterboarding in a SERE training manual they found posted on the internet.

* golf clap *

Like most good satire that one makes it's points rather effectively thinks Spud.

As opposed to some other people...

The difference in the rationale in the story above and the Rationale used under Bush of course being that the US was waterboarding non-uniformed operatives that don't belong to a country's standing army, and they weren't necessarily following the Geneva convention themselves to begin with...

Whether or not the Taliban/AQ/any other Jihadist outfit follows the GC or not is not a rationale to enable torture (ie EIT).

Whether they wear uniforms and/or are held on American soil or not is also not relevant to the inherent illegality and immorality of torture.

Those aren't rationales so much as they are rationalisations.

And poor ones at that.

Be Well.

Larry,

I just want to clarify. The reason I am not going to get all worked up and call you names like idiot on this, is because I understand where you are coming from. I really do.

Legal logic bears no resemblance to what we would normally consider logical.

In normal logic, if it is torture once then it is always torture. Unfortunately legal logic is nuanced to the point of being arcane. In legal logic, torture isn't always torture if the governing definitions and circumstances are different.

The reason lawyers are needed is because they are trained to understand this. Maybe that sucks, but that is the way of the law.

For example, is sending my kids to bed without supper as a punishment considered torture?

Yer not even trying any more, are ya?

Captives in US custody were mistreated, tortured and some were even killed by so-called EITs.

A full and thorough investigation into the scandal replete with transparency and accountability is completely warranted and, indeed, neccessary in order for the US to regain even a small measure of it's former credibility on issue of human rights on the world stage.

Sad to see Obama reneg on his promise of an open admin by preventing the additional Abu Ghraib pics coming out as well as by maintaining this "look forward not backwards" talk.

Spud to Obama: Torture is NOT off the table.

See also: Criminal charges against all who instituted the policies, carried them out, tried to make them legal and/or covered them up.

Be Well.

Whether or not the Taliban/AQ/any other Jihadist outfit follows the GC or not is not a rationale to enable torture (ie EIT)...

Whether they wear uniforms and/or are held on American soil or not is also not relevant to the inherent illegality and immorality of torture.

Spud,

Please keep up with the discussion. Read my last two comments. Immorality and illegality are two different things.

If you want to argue illegality, you better understand not only the letter of the law (which you obviously don't), but you must also understand the nature of legal logic (which you obviously don't).

The law has nothing to do with immorality. Immorality is subjective. The law isn't.

Besides... aren't libs always saying that nobody has the right to legislate morality?

This is real simple Moomanfla if we were dealing with a logical President then we would only need to talk in logical rhealms. Dubya is Illogical so Logical discussions are out.

Larry

Captives in US custody were...

What legal document defines their status and classification as prisoners? Please show the legal definition that classifies them as prisoners of war as protected under the Geneva Convention.

Define mistreatment, and please include the legal source that shows unequivocally who is protected and what defines "mistreatment". You must also show how the detainees conform to the definition of who is protected.

Sorry Spud, but this is how a court of law works.

tortured

The same as above.

some were even killed by so-called EITs.

The law would only focus on the death, not on the method of death since undergoing EIT doesn't necessarily nor normally result in death.

Legally speaking that makes the few deaths mere homicide. Those have already been addressed under the law with the individuals directly involved.

Maybe not to your satisfaction, but that is a separate issue.

This is real simple Moomanfla if we were dealing with a logical President then we would only need to talk in logical rhealms.

Actually, he was VERY logical in the legal sense.

That is what has everyone's panties in a wad. He was also very smart in the sense that he navigated the fine line of the law like a master on this one.

That is why he hasn't, nor will he EVER, be prosecuted. What he did was technically legal.

That was a really lame response from you, and I am forced to conclude it was because you neither understand legal logic, nor could you refute my explanation of it.

Ummmmmm no He wasn't logical in the legal sense cause if He was logical in the legal sense He would have taken the time to research the fact that we have held that Waterboarding is torture and that it was illegal. He would not have asked Yoo Bybee et al to make believe it was legal or draft memorandums declaring it was legal to do.

Larry

...He would have taken the time to research the fact that we have held that Waterboarding is torture and that it was illegal.

LArry, this point by you has already been addressed. Simply posting the equivalent of a "nuh uh" response doesn't refute me.

I already explained why, according to the law, you are comparing apples to oranges.

In other words, Larry, either actually show how my explanation doesn't work on legal principles or:

What legal document defines their status and classification as prisoners? Please show the legal definition that classifies them as prisoners of war as protected under the Geneva Convention.

Th "technically legal" aspect you refer to is the designation of "enemy combatent" dreamed up by hacks like Yoo and Gonzales.

Legally defining them as something other than a POW when in fact that's what they were and are is an integral part of the scandal and not a good reason to avoid an investigation.

Yoo and Gonzales need to be brought up on charges here in Spud's rarely humble opinion.

In Nazi Germany the final solution of tossing people into ovens was declared legal by Hitler but that did not make it so.

Sorry Spud, but this is how a court of law works.

Sorry, Moo, this aint a court of law.

It's the court of public opinion.

And this is how it works.

Be Well.

Sorry, Moo, this aint a court of law.

Nope. The DR isn't... but if you are suggesting that what was done was illegal and should be prosecuted you must discuss the law.

If you can't make the argument for prosecutions on... you know... the law and legal principles, then you are just blowing hot air.

In Nazi Germany the final solution of tossing people into ovens was declared legal by Hitler but that did not make it so.

Because un-armed, non-combative civilians are covered under the Geneva Convention.

The law would only focus on the death, not on the method of death since undergoing EIT doesn't necessarily nor normally result in death.

Legally speaking that makes the few deaths mere homicide. Those have already been addressed under the law with the individuals directly involved.

Maybe not to your satisfaction, but that is a separate issue.

The law did focus on the deaths to the exclusion of the larger picture. The one in which the abuse and torture were dreamed up and instituted by orders from on high and then "legalised" after the fact by BushCo's politically biased lawyers and a few ass-covering spooks.

That was the "few bad apples" part of the whitewash.

That may be to your satisfaction but not to Spud's.

Be Well.

Because un-armed, non-combative civilians are covered under the Geneva Convention.

Mistreating any captives by any government is considered uncivilised behaviour and has been for well over a century now.

You can't simply rename evil as good or up as down and think you have made a case.

You can try, of course, but sane and civilised individuals will always be around to call shenanigans on yer loathsome, illogical tactics.

Be Well.

The one in which the abuse and torture were dreamed up and instituted by orders from on high and then "legalised" after the fact by BushCo's politically biased lawyers and a few ass-covering spooks.

Sorry, but Bush never said "make sure the EIT's kill them". He also never said "EIT them and if they die... oh well."

Legally speaking, to connect Bush to the deaths, you have to show that he authorized continuing EIT's in such a matter that death was likely, or that he defined a procedure that didn't take the proper precautions, or that the soldiers didn't fuck up the proper procedure thereby causing a death themselves.

In otherwords, for example, the guy that died because nobody checked on him for four days. Did Bush authorize leaving them shackled upright for 4 days without medical supervision?

If you can't prove that, then you can't prove that Bush was responsible. Instead it becomes the fuck up of the personnel involved directly in the situation.

Mistreating any captives by any government is considered uncivilised behaviour and has been for well over a century now.

Uncivilized doesn't equate to illegal.

Again, for the purposes of prosecution, your argument is irrelevant.

Don't like the law? Work to get it changed.

Regardless it will be to late to prosecute Bush for it.

Spud, Larry, and anyone else that reads this,

I am not suggesting that Bush was RIGHT to authorize EIT's. I am simply saying it is LEGAL.

Right and wrong is a matter of morality... and also tends to be subjective and heavily debated.

Legality is strictly defined.

If you want to say it was immoral then I won't argue with you based on legal logic. That is a whole different debate.

But if you are advocating prosecution, you had better be familiar with the Law and legal logic.

In otherwords, for example, the guy that died because nobody checked on him for four days. Did Bush authorize leaving them shackled upright for 4 days without medical supervision?

In a sense yes he did.

The man's name was Dilawar, btw.

Yer post makes it sound like he was ignored to death.

That is not the case.

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days [the muscles of his legs "pulpified" by the concomitant "blunt force injuries" of over 100 "peroneal knee strikes"], could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

Guess part of the reason Spud is so vehement on this issue is because Spud knows that Bush will never see the inside of a courtroom over any of this.

Not because what he did wasn't legal but simply because no American president has ever been prosecuted successfully for a crime of that magnitutde despite considerable precedent.

At the very least Spud hopes to make a few more people more aware of the true nature of the BushCo regime and of the broader implications of turning torture into an instrument of statecraft.

Special thanx to the rtard set who are keeping the issue front and center with their current attempts to deflect blame to Pelosi.

Good werk!

Be Well.

If you can't prove that, then you can't prove that Bush was responsible. Instead it becomes the fuck up of the personnel involved directly in the situation.

Buck hasta stop somewhere.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

sarc
Oh yeah! Score one for the good guys!
/sarc

Yer post makes it sound like he was ignored to death.

In essence he was. Medical personnel were supposed to monitor the interrogation and supervise what goes on. The manner in which he died showed that they didn't do their job and operated against regulations.

That makes it their fault... not Bush's.

Not because what he did wasn't legal...

So you are saying that he should be prosecuted even if it was legal? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Or did you actually mean: "Not because what he did WAS legal..."? In which case you need to make the legal case to why he should be prosecuted or just stay out of the discussion.

Special thanx to the rtard set who are keeping the issue front and center with their current attempts to deflect blame to Pelosi.

Hahahaha... you actually think it was the REPUBLICAN'S that started that whole mess and keep it going. That is rich.

The matter was all but dropped in the news until Obama released those memo's and brought it back into the news cycle.

After that Pelosi just had to start chiming in.

It was the Republican RESPONSE that put her in her current shit storm and is forcing even Obama to distance himself.

To say the Republicans are trying to pin everything on Pelosi is disingenuous at best. All they are doing is saying, "If you want to accuse Bush of wrongdoing, you better turn yourself in as well."

That is far from trying to pin it all on her. It is just pointing out the political hackery and hypocrisy involved in the accusation itself.

Buck hasta stop somewhere.

Yup... it stopped with the people that ignored regulations and caused a death. No need for it to go higher.

Spud, Larry, and anyone else that reads this,

I am not suggesting that Bush was RIGHT to authorize EIT's. I am simply saying it is LEGAL.

Right and wrong is a matter of morality... and also tends to be subjective and heavily debated.

Legality is strictly defined.

If you want to say it was immoral then I won't argue with you based on legal logic. That is a whole different debate.

But if you are advocating prosecution, you had better be familiar with the Law and legal logic.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-16 09:49 PM | Reply

Damn You it's not legal. How many bloody times do we have to say it.

Yup... it stopped with the people that ignored regulations and caused a death. No need for it to go higher.

You woulda been a load of laughs at the Nuremberg Trials.

Be Well.

sarc
Oh yeah! Score one for the good guys!
/sarc

Good or bad guys is a moral judgement... again, that is a subjective argument and a separate discussion.

I think the death was wrong and unecessary.

I think the interrogations are justified under the circumstances, as long as the proper procedures are followed. I don't require your approval of my position, nor do I care. Neither do I require your approval, nor care what you think of me because of my position. You have your opinion, I have mine.

You woulda been a load of laughs at the Nuremberg Trials.

Considering that they actually operated under the law, using legal definitions covered by the Geneva Convention... I think your attempt at legal analysis would have been the one getting laughs, even if they agreed with your moral position.

I think the interrogations are justified under the circumstances, as long as the proper procedures are followed.

Spud thinks you mispercieve the efficiancy, productiveness, legality and morality of the "procedures".

Spud also thinks you totally fail to see the down side of lowering oneself to this level.

Be Well.

Good or bad guys is a moral judgement... again, that is a subjective argument and a separate discussion...I think the interrogations are justified under the circumstances,as long as the proper procedures are followed

So no moral judgments... except the ones you make. Unless you want to say that your justification is completely amoral and morality is irrelevant to the "procedures" you're referring to.

I think the death was wrong and unecessary.

I'm glad we agree on that.

You have your opinion, I have mine.

It doesn't count for much if you can't defend it. Or maybe you have, somewhere up above in the thread. I don't feel like reading the entire thing...

Damn You it's not legal.

Larry,

Sorry, but that is that judge's opinion. Other legal experts have other opinions on the matter.

How many bloody times do we have to say it.

You can say it as much as you want. Truth isn't defined by amount of repetition.

So no moral judgments... except the ones you make.

Moral judgements do not equal law. My arguments simply dealt with the legal aspects... not the morality.

I simply said that morality is subjective and I have my opinion and you have yours.

It doesn't count for much if you can't defend it.

I never said I couldn't defend it. I simply recognize that the attempt will be futile because your opinion will not change, and neither will mine. I merely cut through the bullshit and say "why bother?".

Spud thinks you mispercieve the efficiancy, productiveness, legality and morality of the "procedures".

Spud also thinks you totally fail to see the down side of lowering oneself to this level.

I can respect your opinion on this, even if I don't agree, simply because it was offered respectfully this time without arrogance or ad hominem.

Geez Moo, can't you just ignore the law and just insist it's illegal because you want it to be illegal like us?

-spudlarryzombie

Moral judgements do not equal law. My arguments simply dealt with the legal aspects... not the morality.

So what happens when different judges, lawyers, and legislators (all of whom play a role in interpreting, debating, or writing the law) say conflicting things about the issue?

Bush's pocket legal team approved the "enhanced techniques".

I never said I couldn't defend it. I simply recognize that the attempt will be futile because your opinion will not change, and neither will mine. I merely cut through the bullshit and say "why bother?".

Okay, cool by me.

But isn't the drudge retort about mindless mutual flagellation... bashing heads together knowing full well that you won't change the other person's mind, just give him/her a headache?

You, my friend, are violating what has to be one of the DR's 10 commandments.

IV: If thou canst argue, thou shalt argue.

I'm all for heresy, though.

You can say it as much as you want. Truth isn't defined by amount of repetition.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-16 10:23 PM | Reply

I can especially when I have FACTS on My side.

So what happens when different judges, lawyers, and legislators (all of whom play a role in interpreting, debating, or writing the law) say conflicting things about the issue?

Then the governing body decides whether to prosecute or not based on the strength of the case or lack thereof.

If they feel they have a strong case, it goes to trial, the arguments are made, and an official verdict is rendered.

I don't think it will ever come to that, because I think they know that they either have no case, or a very weak one at best.

I can especially when I have FACTS on My side.

Blah blah blah...

You have failed to offer up one argument of your own to refute anything I have said.

Instead you rely on other people's words that you have no real understanding of, and "nuh uh" responses.

Sorry, but that is that judge's opinion. Other legal experts have other opinions on the matter.

Judgments set precedent. There is a heck of a lot of precedent. None of it in the favor of your argument.

You have no precedent, you have dubious "legal" opinions - the most egregious examples from Bush's own DOJ.

This attempt to make it seem ambiguous so the guilty have a pretense of cover miserably fails.

It's interesting to note that even the poorly reasoned DOJ opinions were violated, yet you still hide behind some "ambiguousness" that doesn't exist. They letters from Bush's DOJ were explicit. Only authorizing EIT/torture on one Al Qaida member. We now know it didn't end there. By Bush's own DOJ letters, crimes were committed.

But isn't the drudge retort about mindless mutual flagellation...

Sometimes.

Sometimes I prefer a more cerebral discussion... and against all odds, sometimes the DR obliges.

Judgments set precedent. There is a heck of a lot of precedent. None of it in the favor of your argument.

Only official judgments do. That judgment wasn't an official one therefore it carries no legal weight.

Come on! You should understand that one already.

They letters from Bush's DOJ were explicit. Only authorizing EIT/torture on one Al Qaida member. We now know it didn't end there.

Irrelevant.

What would be relevant under legal reasoning is that IF it was legal for one person under a set of circumstances, then it logically follows that it would LIKEWISE be legal under similar circumstances to others.

Then you get into a hassle of a case-by-case slog-fest of evaluating each individual case the techniques were used on.

I don't have the patience for that here... if I was getting paid for this, that might be another story.

Personally I think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded for being a Ron Jeremy lookalike.

Personally I think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded for being a Ron Jeremy lookalike.

Probably a few inches shorter...

What would be relevant under legal reasoning is that IF it was legal for one person under a set of circumstances, then it logically follows that it would LIKEWISE be legal under similar circumstances to others.

One would think, but even Bush's DOJ and OLC chose to draw that line. The number of times legal justification/clarification were requested illustrates how incredibly uneasy people were about the program.

As to precedence, I was speaking generally, not to that one cited case. I could easily cite the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan V Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court, held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applied to the conflict with Al-Qa'ida, contrary to the position previously held by the President.

Waterboarding ended in 2004 and was specifically listed as a "non-approved" tactic with the adoption of the MCA (2006) due to inherent issues with the Fifth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments.

Again, precedent seems to be on my side and the use of waterboarding and other "techniques" was an aberration, brought under control.

Probably why Obama would like to move on. It is now, officially a non-issue. Unfortunately for many some (Cheney) won't shut up. The GOP keeps wanting to spread the blame.

At this point, I'm ready for a full investigation. The defenders of this bad period of American history have made it clear that, if we don't prosecute those responsible, it could very well happen again.

One would think, but even Bush's DOJ and OLC chose to draw that line.

Sorry, but that isn't their line to draw. Lines are drawn by the law, or by legal precedent in a court of law.

The number of times legal justification/clarification were requested illustrates how incredibly uneasy people were about the program.

Of course. When trying to go through a loophole, you have to be careful you don't go past the edges.

I could easily cite the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan V Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court, held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applied to the conflict with Al-Qa'ida, contrary to the position previously held by the President.

Can you show the waterboarding continued after that ruling?

Again, precedent seems to be on my side and the use of waterboarding and other "techniques" was an aberration, brought under control.

All in all, a much better argument than your predecessors on this thread. However, that still precludes Bush being prosecuted, since once a legal ruling was given, he changed policy to conform.

Probably why Obama would like to move on. It is now, officially a non-issue.

Agreed.

Unfortunately for many some (Cheney) won't shut up. The GOP keeps wanting to spread the blame.

For this, read my #39 post when Spud made a similar claim. You can blame Obama and Pelosi that this is back in the news.

At this point, I'm ready for a full investigation.

By all means, since there are quite a few Dems that would go down with the ship on this. I am all for a huge Washington shakeup that would rattle both parties to their core.

Sorry, but that isn't their line to draw. Lines are drawn by the law, or by legal precedent in a court of law.

Yes, and they were doing their best to find a way around all the precedent, treaties and our own Constitution. Which goes to your next point:

Of course. When trying to go through a loophole, you have to be careful you don't go past the edges.

Especially when there's no precedent for the rationalization they were attempting.

Can you show the waterboarding continued after that ruling?

It did not. It ended in 2004, 2 years before Hamdan V Rumsfeld. If the techniques were so effective, so clearly "legal" and we were still capturing high value targets, one has to wonder why they ceased?

By all means, since there are quite a few Dems that would go down with the ship on this. I am all for a huge Washington shakeup that would rattle both parties to their core.

Who gets prosecuted is irrelevant to me.

At this point, I'm ready for a full investigation.

By all means, since there are quite a few Dems that would go down with the ship on this. I am all for a huge Washington shakeup that would rattle both parties to their core.

90% of both Congress and the Senate could be tossed on their asses and Spud would consider it a good job, well done.

Glad to see that some consensus is shaping up round here.

Spud's a big fan of consensus.

So shiny!

Be Well.

Yes, and they were doing their best to find a way around all the precedent, treaties and our own Constitution.

Here you are making a leap of logic that isn't necessarily supported by the facts.

You suggest they KNEW they were in violation. That is a non sequitur. It took a Supreme Court ruling to say so, that doesn't mean they were dishonest in their position on the matter. It simply means the Court's decision was that they were at least mistaken.

This is where the "arrest Bush" crowd loses their argument.

Especially when there's no precedent for the rationalization they were attempting.

There often isn't when riding the fine edge of the law. Lack of precedent doesn't justify the supposition that doing so is illegal. Sometimes a loophole is justified by precedent at a later time by the courts.

You can't get from A to C without going through B as your logic is suggesting.

Can you show the waterboarding continued after that ruling?

It did not. It ended in 2004, 2 years before Hamdan V Rumsfeld.

We have that established then.

If the techniques were so effective, so clearly "legal" and we were still capturing high value targets, one has to wonder why they ceased?

On supposition (not evidence)? Maybe because they didn't deem it necessary in later cases. Who knows?

Their stopping may have had nothing to do with their opinion of the law, but maybe reflects their distaste of having the use the techniques unless they felt it was absolutely necessary.

Conjecture is rather pointless without more information.

Who gets prosecuted is irrelevant to me.

There is nothing to suggest that there would BE any prosecutions. But even an investigation would result in many resignations and loss of office for people in power on both sides of the isle.

That would be worth it alone in my opinion. I would be happy if we had a complete turn-over in the halls of power.

would be happy if we had a complete turn-over in the halls of power.

#67 | Posted by mooma

MooMan, so I assume the election last November made you happy? Right?

90% of both Congress and the Senate could be tossed on their asses and Spud would consider it a good job, well done.

Why stop at 90%? I say get them all out.

Then have a Constitutional Convention and make political parties and caucuses unconstitutional. Maybe something similar to the RICOH law in that it considers political parties and caucuses to be organized crime.

In my thinking, organized parties and caucuses serve only to subvert the will of the people by making the representatives beholden to something other than their constituents.

Also revert the Constitution back to having Senators being appointed by the State's Governors. The House was meant to be the representative of the people. The Senate was meant to be a representative of the States.

The Fed started pulling power away from the States when they took the Senators away from the Governors.

The original idea of the Constitution was to make the local government the most powerful, and power decreases the higher you go. That form of government MAXIMIZES the voice of a single person.

The way it has been twisted to now MINIMIZES and individual voice instead.

MooMan, so I assume the election last November made you happy? Right?

Why would you assume that?

The same two parties are in power with the same idiot practices.

Last election was no change at all except for the cosmetic.

Its a good thing they didn't behead them like they usually do!

Mooman-
re: Then have a Constitutional Convention and make political parties and caucuses unconstitutional. Maybe something similar to the RICOH law in that it considers political parties and caucuses to be organized crime.

Sure, let's do that right now. Obama can kick the Constitutional Convention off on Monday, first thing!

(No?)

Their stopping may have had nothing to do with their opinion of the law, but maybe reflects their distaste of having the use the techniques unless they felt it was absolutely necessary.

183 times.
83 times.

Nothing says "distaste" like those numbers.

No imminent threat, no ticking time-bomb. No Al Qaida link to Iraq. No WMDs. No Prague meeting. Nothing to support the excuse to go to war with Iraq.

They bet the farm on it being "effective" and it wasn't. It put the U.S. in a terrible light and gave our enemies another recruiting opportunity. It was on such shaky legal ground the U.S. Military spoke out vehemently against it, the FBI pulled their people from it and barred any participation. The CIA walked out until they had the cover of the MCA 2006 and delineated approved techniques.

Good night - time to hit the sack!

Sure, let's do that right now. Obama can kick the Constitutional Convention off on Monday, first thing!

(No?)

Do you normally put a fox in charge of the chicken coop?

I want REAL change. Not cosmetic change.

The Fed started pulling power away from the States when they took the Senators away from the Governors.

The popular democratic election of Senators took power AWAY from the individual voter, and created a LESS democratic method of choosing Senators?

Please explain.

183 times.
83 times.

Nothing says "distaste" like those numbers.

Out of how many detainees?

Maybe distaste is what kept it from being more.

Again, you are taking conjecture as fact.

Mooman-
re: OK, so you're not for a "Constitutional Convention" right now, what with the current political landscape and all. When do you think you might be for it?

Mooman-
(sorry)
"re: #75"....

Night

Back in a few.

The Fed started pulling power away from the States when they took the Senators away from the Governors.

The popular democratic election of Senators took power AWAY from the individual voter, and created a LESS democratic method of choosing Senators?

Please explain.

Easy... some people got power hungry and ignored why our system was set up the way it was. It was expedient to do so.

The popular democratic election of Senators took power AWAY from the individual voter

Boyd,

Why do you ignore the fact that the people already HAD a representative? They had the House of Representatives.

The Senate was there to protect State's rights by giving the Governors a direct voice.

The voice of the people is diluted by the Senate because each Senator represents a HUGE amount of people compared to the Representatives. Your individual voice counts for less with a Senator. Period. In addition there is no protection for the rights of a State now. This upends the balance of power intended by our founders.

Its funny to keep reading about whether anyone will be held accountable for water-boarding because it would certainly have element from both major parties as well as the place the buck checks into and is then referred to our former P & VP. It would make my heart glad to see those two bastards get what they deserve. But if you remember how both our government and the count system function, they will either be 110 years old or dead first.

one last thing

OK, so you're not for a "Constitutional Convention" right now, what with the current political landscape and all. When do you think you might be for it?

Boyd,

Can you for one moment try to honestly represent someone's stated opinion?

I am not in favor of our government representatives of any branch or party being in charge of a Constitutional Constitutional convention. They are all for the status quo, or for things that increase their power. They don't want a thing that will actually take power away from them. My fox and chickens comment was directed at this... not at a particular party affiliation.

Not to mention you said "Obama can kick" it off. Which actually violates the Constitution since the President isn't in charge of calling a Constitutional Convention... so Obama can do no such thing, even if he were inclined to do so.

Mooman-
Your explanation (re: Senators) involves taking power away from the states, but your original comments involved taking power away from the individual voter.

One position is arguable, but the other is ridiculous.

"torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

Define the legal term "prolonged mental harm" as it applies.

That is rather vague. Does "mental harm" refer to being scared? Is yelling "Boo!" suddenly considered torture? How long is considered "prolonged"? Five minutes? Ten? An hour?

This is how a loophole works. It then takes a court case, usually after the fact, to define the terms that were left undefined.

This is what Clinton meant by "depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

Mooman-
re:"I am not in favor of our government representatives of any branch or party being in charge of a Constitutional Constitutional convention.""

Of course. You want a "Constitutional Convention", but only if it turns out the way you want it. Given the current political winds, your little states' rights peddlers would lose if a "Constitutional Convention" were held today. Do you not understand that obvious fact?

By all means, since there are quite a few Dems that would go down with the ship on this. I am all for a huge Washington shakeup that would rattle both parties to their core.

#62 | Posted by moomanfl

I completely agree

Last election was no change at all except for the cosmetic.

#70 | Posted by moomanfl

Again I agree.

"Last election was no change at all except for the cosmetic."

Only if you've never heard of the Supreme Court.

Not to mention you said "Obama can kick" it off. Which actually violates the Constitution since the President isn't in charge of calling a Constitutional Convention... so Obama can do no such thing, even if he were inclined to do so.

#86 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-17 12:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Who would be in charge of calling a Constitutional Convention, according to the Constitution (stifled laughter)?

I think 2/3 of the states have to call for one.

OK. So, two thirds of state legislatures in a nation that is now overwhelmingly Democratic/Independent would have to vote for a Constitutional convention.

I'm all for it.

Could we outlaw torture (again) as item #1?

Your explanation (re: Senators) involves taking power away from the states, but your original comments involved taking power away from the individual voter.

One position is arguable, but the other is ridiculous.

No it isn't.

The Senator's before the appointment was taken from the Governor, were more interested in how a particular Legislation would effect the State and it's rights. They were simply there to protect the State they represented as appointed by the Governor of that state. If the governor was voted out after one term, the new governor could appoint new Senators.

The people's Representatives, were in charge of the people's rights and their number was supposed to adjust so that they always represented a relatively small number of people. This made them accessable, and easier for one person to have a voice.

The ratio of Representatives to people has changed so that one Representative has a much larger number of constituents, so the individual voice is reduced there.

In addition, State and local governments have lost much of their power, further removing the ultimate power from the people.

Divide and conquer has also been used. Now to have your voice truly heard, you have to not only get your Representative to hear you, but also your Senator... who represents an entire State of individuals. Your voice counts for less than nothing with them as they only have to get enough people to agree to get re-elected. That being said, they answer to no one but the fraction of voters in the state that actually agree with them and vote.

Local politics has been decimated. Before, local politics could effect your Federal Government... and your voice could certainly be heard locally enough to influence it.

That is not the case now. Most people don't even know who their local government officials are, never mind participate. The reason is, most of the meaning and importance has been sapped out of it by that one change to the Constitution.

Mooman-
You present a decent argument that the popular election of Senators diminished the power of the individual states/governors, but your point that the popular election of Senators minimizes "the voice of a single person" is contortionist nonsense.

Not to mention you said "Obama can kick" it off. Which actually violates the Constitution since the President isn't in charge of calling a Constitutional Convention... so Obama can do no such thing, even if he were inclined to do so.

#86 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-17 12:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Who would be in charge of calling a Constitutional Convention, according to the Constitution (stifled laughter)?

#92 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-05-17 12:44 AM

Congress does. I can understand why you would stifle your laughter... since it would have been at yourself for suggesting the President does it.

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

but your point that the popular election of Senators minimizes "the voice of a single person" is contortionist nonsense.

Then you and I disagree. I can accept that.

Define the legal term "prolonged mental harm" as it applies

Think we can safely go with the "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" thing here.

Anything a nations dems appropriate treatment for prisoners of war should de facto be permissable to do unto captured American service men and women.

You cool with sleep deprivation for days?

How about extended sensory deprivation?

/Do you have a clue wot that does to a human brain over time?

A constantly lit cell with air conditioning and no blanket?

Shackling in stress positions for hours of days?

Not letting prisoners use the toilet for so long they soil themselves and then are used as human mops to soak up the waste and then not allowed to change clothes?

Sexual humiliation?

Being forced to get nekkid and form human pyramids?

Being dforced to masturbate in fornt of female guards who laugh and take pictures?

Beatings?

Threats of rape and torture?

Actual torture like waterboarding?

All the above was done to prisoners in American custody.

Spud doesn't think any of it should have been.

Spud certainly wouldn't want American servicemen and women subjected to similar mistreatemnt.

How about you?

Be Well.

The very reason Senators were not originally popularly elected was due to a fear of the power of the electorate ("the mob", in the vernacular of the day), plus a determination to restrict federal power regarding the states. How you have managed to turn this on its head and stick it somewhere personal in a defense of "the individual voter" is a true feat of blind ideological determination coupled with a complete misunderstanding of US history.

Notice that the President isn't mentioned at all there.

#98 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-17 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

OK. Let's have President Obama call for the state legislatures to vote on a Constitutional Convention this Monday.

Where do you stand on that?

Could we outlaw torture (again) as item #1?

#95 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-05-17 12:50 AM

Sure, as long as what constitutes torture is clearly defined with no wiggle room and who is protected by such a law is also clearly defined with no wiggle room.

Is my word choice better, Mooman, in #102?

Sure, as long as what constitutes torture is clearly defined with no wiggle room and who is protected by such a law is also clearly defined with no wiggle room.

#103 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-17 01:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

What sort of son of a bitch would use "wiggle room" to justify torture?

(oh, nevermind...)

American service member get blown up with roadside bombs filled with nails and get their heads cut off, or burned alive and hung from birdges.

Where the fuck is your tears for them?

If you cry for the serial killer criminal terrorists, there is something fucked up in your head.

Canada just sends off terrorists to other countries to get their dirt/wet work done, get off your high fucking horse.

Speak of the devil, lol...

OK. Let's have President Obama call for the state legislatures to vote on a Constitutional Convention this Monday.

Most of them have.

So far it has been ignored. Congress changed the criteria (unofficially) to avoid it. The reason given is that the States called at different times for different reasons... even though there is no time restriction or need to have identical reasons stated in the Constitution.

Notice also that the Constitution doesn't say the Legislature has to approve the amendments... that can be done by individual Conventions within the States themselves. That would take Congress out of the equation... which is EXACTLY why they don't want one.

Moo-
Notice also that the Constitution doesn't say the Legislature has to approve the amendments...

What you are talking about is revolution.

You whiny liberals make me want to fucking puke....

You cry for mass murdering terrorist criminals who would cut your throat, murder your whole family, and do it with a smile on their faces.

Why don't you save your big crocdile tears for the 10's of 1000's of victims these sick fucks killed?

Think we can safely go with the "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" thing here.

I would agree if the people in question were likewise operating under the same rule. A courtesy given is a courtesy owed IMHO.

However, given that much maligned "ticking time bomb" scenario, all bets would be off as far as I am concerned.

At to hell with the people that claim it wouldn't work under those circumstances. If you think they are just waterboarding why asking "what do you know?!?!" you are nuts.

Interrogations are designed such that the person being questioned winds up fearing telling a lie because they aren't sure WHAT the questioners already know. Interrogations are ALWAYS laced with questions to which the answers are already known, or to which the information received is easily checked on, specifically to weed out a liar.

What you are talking about is revolution.

#109 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-05-17 01:17 AM

Only in one sense. I am not talking about VIOLENT revolution. Nor am I talking about doing anything other than what the Constitution already provides the right to do.

If you want to call it revolution, then it is a revolution that is already defined as proper by our very governing document as it was written by our founders.

They didn't WANT the Fed to be the be-all and end-all power. That is why they put that in there. They foresaw that government power might corrupt and grow to big for it's collective britches.

Mooman-
What I find most odd about people who are for the "enhanced interrogation" techniques we now are known for using on prisoners is their fear of the word "torture" (Rex Zeitgeist excluded). Their arguments generally justify torture, but they also claim we would never torture, as if by some magic nothing we do could be considered torture by virtue of the fact that we are we, a moral people.

"I would agree if the people in question were likewise operating under the same rule"

My mom disabused me of that logic at a very young age. For some reason, she never believed my morals should be set by any one else's bad behavior.

American service member get blown up with roadside bombs filled with nails and get their heads cut off, or burned alive and hung from birdges.

Where the fuck is your tears for them?

Spud mourns the American lives cut short or lessened by this unneccessary war in Iraq.

Spud also mourns for the millions of refugees caused by the planned incompetence of Cheney, the hundreds of thousands of dead, mostly innocent civilians.

The maimed, the tortured, the disappeared.

All of them.

That's the difference between Spud and you, Rex.

Also, the guys on the bridge weren't servicemen but mercenaries.

One step below a terrorist in Spud's book.

Terrorists, no matter how fucked their ideas are, are at least fighting for a cause.

The lawless and oft times merciless mercenaries only fight for money.

Also, the beheading thing?

Other than Daniel Pearl, a journo, how many servicepeople have met there end this way?

IEDs?

Versus wot?

Mass tonnage of bombs that sometimes don't even leave corpses just a fine bloody mist and enough depleted uranium dust to fuck the country up fer the next couple million years?

Consistency and the avoidance of blatent hypocrisy are all part and parcel of being able to call oneself a moral being.

Be Well.

Don't misunderstand yourself, Mooman. When you speak of groups changing the constitution outside of the electoral process, you are speaking of revolution/insurrection, however often you may wish to repeat the mantra that you are against violence.

Gotta go.

I would agree if the people in question were likewise operating under the same rule. A courtesy given is a courtesy owed IMHO.

Wrong.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

However, given that much maligned "ticking time bomb" scenario, all bets would be off as far as I am concerned.

Justifiably maligned in Spud opinion.

Are you one of those people who hold to the notion that if Bush had started waterboarding earlier then 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

Cos you'd be wrong again.

At to hell with the people that claim it wouldn't work under those circumstances. If you think they are just waterboarding why asking "what do you know?!?!" you are nuts.

First, the standard interrogation techniques allowed under the Army Field Manual were wot garnered pretty much all of the best intel.

Trouble with breaking someone upon the rack, so to speak, is that when you get them to that stage then their mouths start writing cheques that the facts can't cash.

Then you start getting garbage intel which will lead to further bad arrests and even more innocent people being abused and tortured.

Interrogations are designed such that the person being questioned winds up fearing telling a lie because they aren't sure WHAT the questioners already know. Interrogations are ALWAYS laced with questions to which the answers are already known, or to which the information received is easily checked on, specifically to weed out a liar.

Known through torture?

You don't see the problem there, do you?

* deep sigh *

Horse meet water.

Be Well.

I don't think it's 'moral' to cry like a baby over serial mass murderers.

I know in your ideal fantasy world Saddam and his two demon children would still be raping, murdering, gassing their own people, invading other countries, committing genocide, and running the worlds largest criminal organization.

Now go ahead and have a good cry for the death of Saddam and the hair washings of three serial mass murdering terrorists......You'll feel better after you empty a tissue box of tears.

And don't worry, after you've had your good long cry, the US will still be doing the worlds heavy lifting, allowing you to live in a liberal fantasy play land.

Yo Rex whats the haps. I'm in texas apartment hunting for my new job that starts next month. I need something luxurious and cheap

Their arguments generally justify torture, but they also claim we would never torture, as if by some magic nothing we do could be considered torture by virtue of the fact that we are we, a moral people.

Well mistakes in the debate on BOTH sides.

For example, I see people mixing legal and moral definitions. That is a big mistake. Both sides do this, and it is responsible for the incongruity you note there. It is also the most wide spread mistake on both sides.

In your example, the statements that you say contradict are ambiguous as to the context the words are used. Unfortunately this leads to misunderstandings... never mind the moral arguments on both sides.

Personally, I deplore the use of torture under either definition. However, under a VERY SMALL set of circumstances I think the individuals right to comfort and saftey is overridden when greater good can be accomplished.

Isn't "the greater good" something we always hear from liberals? It doesn't only apply to the things
they like you know.

For example, while I may deplore torture, if someone kidnapped one of my children and I caught one of the kidnappers... I would be the first in like with the red hot pokers trying to get my kid back safely.

Maybe you don't agree, but I would gladly face the law after I retrieved my kid or at least made sure the bastards that took them regretted the day they were born.

Good luck JA......Try the job board at the Unemployment office.....it has the best links available to local jobs

Imagine the police using waterboarding Moonmoron to extract confessions. You would probably admit to anything to get the waterboarding to stop.

BTW, Spud, those 'mercenaries' as you so callously put it, were US citizens, military veterans whose job was to protect convoys of American soldiers....

Maybe your tear ducts have run dry from crying over Saddam and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and don't have any moisture left for American citizens and military veterans, who were murdereed, burned alive, and then hung like dogs from a bridge for savages to jeer at......But I do.

So take you 'mercenary' comment and stick it up your stupid ass.

Don't misunderstand yourself, Mooman. When you speak of groups changing the constitution outside of the electoral process, you are speaking of revolution/insurrection, however often you may wish to repeat the mantra that you are against violence.

You evidently have no idea what is in this nation's Constitution despite having the relevant part printed out for you above.

How is it insurrection when the Constitution specifically says:

when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof

Get your definitions correct. If it is in the Constitution then it is legal. That, by definition can NOT be insurrection since the Constitution IS our civil authority and established government.

Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

moonmoron thinks torture is legal as long as it isn't him getting tortured is all Im hearing him say. He is still a coward though.

So take you 'mercenary' comment and stick it up your stupid ass.

Before they were reigned in slightly the mercenaries were unaccountable to either Iraqi Law, American Civil Law or US Military Law.

They were literally beyond the law.

In many cases they went too far.

Under those circumstances where else did they have to go?

There are good reasons why the Iraqis want them out of their country before first before the real troops.

If you don't wanna acknowledge those reasons then fine but don't come crying to Spud.

Still no empathy for the Iraqi people, Rex?

Are they all terrorists who deserved wotever happened to them?

Its nice to note that you aren't a total psychopath unable to feel empathy fer anybody but Spud also finds that yer selective outrage is very telling indeed.

Be Well.

Spud,

First of all, you divided my argument up into out of context pieces.

Known through torture?

No, not if you are smart. If you think that was their only method of getting intel then you really aren't putting much thought into the argument at all.

For example... when questioning a suspect, do the police only rely on information from other people they have questioned? No they don't. They also lace their interrogation with questions they already know the answer to... for exactly the same reason: it helps trap the liar.

The difference being, of course, if the police catch a them in a lie there is little they can do if the person still refuses to give the truth.

In the EIT's they can make it an uncomfortable experience when lies are told. Combine this with the uncertainty of how much your captors actually know, and which lies will put you worse off... well, you will certainly get more truth unless the person cares nothing for themselves. Those kinds of people are few and far between when push comes to shove.

Don't mix up my arguments though... this only addresses whether the methods could work, not whether they should be used.

I see bad arguments being made by both sides... and the idea that "torture never works" and "all they have to do is lie" were a couple of those bad and over-simplified arguments meant to fool an unthinking idiot.

I am assuming you aren't an idiot, otherwise I wouldn't bother to point this out to you.

On the mercenary subject, Spud, you and I are in total agreement. They had no business being in Iraq. That was a VERY bad move on Bush's part.

Where is your outrage at terrorists Spud?

You spend all day insulting my ex-President and VP, you laugh at the deaths of my fellow citizens, you criticize the way we reacted after the worst terrorist attack in world history.

At the same time you act like as attorney for the very savages that helped plan and commit terrorist attacks in the US and all around the world.

Terrorist who chop off heads, bomb girl schools, indiscrimiantly murder at will, and use Islam as a death cult.

How did you get to a world view that sees terrorists as 'heroic and worthy'?

How did you get to a point where you would take up their terrorist causes, yet castigate and insult those who would stop them from continuing their murder?

Bullshit Mooman.......Blackwaters employees are almost all ex US military veterans, are you saying you are glad they were killed?

Bullshit Mooman.......Blackwaters employees are almost all ex US military veterans, are you saying you are glad they were killed?

They might have been veterans (some of them, not all), however they were not under US military authority.

They also did alot more than just "protect convoys" and were involved with several things that put a real bad name on our presence there.

No, I don't wish anyone was dead, so get your head out of your ass. That doesn't mean though that I thought bringing them into it was a good idea.

Blackwater is a private company, with private company rules. You all should be glad they are around fighting battles most pussy latee coffee drinkers would be too affraid to fight.

First of all, you divided my argument up into out of context pieces.

Now that's a bit of disingenuousness, right there.

Spud retorted yer post point by point and did no out of context shenanigans to misrepresent yer arguments.

At least be that honest.

Don't mix up my arguments though... this only addresses whether the methods could work, not whether they should be used.

Can torture be used to garner intel that is true?

Yes, it can.

Can that same intel (and more besides) be garnered through other less morally reprehensible methods?

Yes, it can.

Has torture historically been used primarily to instill fear into a population and to force false confessions rather than to garner intel?

Yes, it has.

Does the use of torture enable extremism and reduce the influence of moderates in the overall battle for hearts and minds?

Yes it does.

The question of "Should we use it?" comes before "Does it work?".

Answer to the first question is "No, you cannot justify the unjustifiable" and thus the second question becomes moot.

K?

Be Well.

Blackwater is a private company, with private company rules.

Which means they answer to their company... not to the US people.

I don't have to be thankful the were fighting anyone.

Sorry, but supporting Blackwater != patriotism. I don't have a problem saying I don't like them.

You're an idiot Moo, tell me how many US personnel have been killed or captured while being protected by Blackwater?

Who else would have done that work and done it that well?

The French? The Canadians?

Blackwater is the cream of the crop, professional US soldiers that have doctorates in warfare and asset protection.

You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

In case you were wondering..

!= means "not equal". It is a conditional operator used in programming. I could have also used which also means "not equal.

You're an idiot Moo

Funny... I was just thinking the same about you.

Let me put this plain and simple for you, Sparky.

You are just as bad as the "hate Bush" crowd. In reality you are two sides of the same extremist coin.

While they can't admit he did anything right, you can't admit he did anything wrong.

Me... I am in the middle somewhere. I think he was generally Ok, but I had some serious problems with some of his positions.

You... well, you have your nose so far up his ass that an MRI would mistake you for a colon polyp.

Blackwater is a private company, with private company rules. You all should be glad they are around fighting battles most pussy latee coffee drinkers would be too affraid to fight.

Blackwater is an overpaid, under watched corporate entity who's main purpose in life is to make profit out of war for the people who work for them and mostly for the rethug shit-heels who enabled them in the first place.

They got three to five times the pay of the grunts in Iraq thus undermining morale. They had their own whorehouses and bars built for them that enlisted men were not allowed into. They got the cushiest gigs and they had little to no oversight.

They were and are a bad idea.

One that should never have been made legal.

Some of them are as bad if not worse than some terrorists.

If you think it was all Americans who comprised these groups then you weren't paying attention.

Again.

Qu'elle farkin' surprise!

Be Well.

They answer to you Moonfly...As a government contrator.

Too bad you don't agree with what they do. Contact your local congressman to whine and bitch about how they keep your country clean.

I would agree if the people in question were likewise operating under the same rule. A courtesy given is a courtesy owed IMHO.

However, given that much maligned "ticking time bomb" scenario, all bets would be off as far as I am concerned.

At to hell with the people that claim it wouldn't work under those circumstances. If you think they are just waterboarding why asking "what do you know?!?!" you are nuts.

Interrogations are designed such that the person being questioned winds up fearing telling a lie because they aren't sure WHAT the questioners already know. Interrogations are ALWAYS laced with questions to which the answers are already known, or to which the information received is easily checked on, specifically to weed out a liar.

#111 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-17 01:18 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

WHAT UTTER AND COMPLETE POPPYCOCK.

How did you get to a world view that sees terrorists as 'heroic and worthy'?

Where the fuck did you get THAT from?

Quit making shit up, Rex.

Is annoying.

You already got credibility issues, to say the least, around here.

Don't put yer zero standing there into the negatives.

K?

Be Well.

"...an MRI would mistake you for a colon polyp"

No...no mistake....

sup Rex

Larry,

You listen to your "expert". I will listen to common sense (not the DR poster).

As I said, his argument was over-simplified for the idiot masses of which you are evidently a member.

Which by the way, to go back briefly to an earlier argument of mine, is the advantage of local politics being the most powerful. The public collective are idiots and easily riled and confused. On an individual basis they are usually quite intelligent.

The government has a vested interest in keeping politics controlled on a macro scale rather than a more local scale. Easier to stir the pot and do what they want while the collective turns in circles.

You listen to your "expert". I will listen to common sense (not the DR poster).

As I said, his argument was over-simplified for the idiot masses of which you are evidently a member.

Which by the way, to go back briefly to an earlier argument of mine, is the advantage of local politics being the most powerful. The public collective are idiots and easily riled and confused. On an individual basis they are usually quite intelligent.

The government has a vested interest in keeping politics controlled on a macro scale rather than a more local scale. Easier to stir the pot and do what they want while the collective turns in circles.

#145 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-17 02:38 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I'll stick to My MANY experts over Your balderdash all day long Moomanfla. For they know more than You and I put together.

Larry

Contact your local congressman to whine and bitch about how they keep your country clean.

The point being, of course, that Blackwater doesn't answer to Congress.... they answer to their Board of directors. My complaint to my Congressman would be futile.

Blackwater doesn't do shit to keep my country clean, BTW.

I'll stick to My MANY experts over Your balderdash all day long Moomanfla.

Ahhh... you mean like all the experts that say AGW is real? Gee... I guess maybe I better start listening to those guys then. The "experts" are always right... especially when in large numbers.

Point taken. Idiot.

The point being, of course, that Blackwater doesn't answer to Congress.... they answer to their Board of directors. My complaint to my Congressman would be futile.

Blackwater doesn't do shit to keep my country clean, BTW.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-17 02:40 AM | Reply

If the government hired them then Yes they DO answer to congress. For they are the ones who write the checks to them(The House)

Larry

Me... I am in the middle somewhere.
#138 | POSTED BY MOOMANFL

No you aren't. You are a far right troll

Point taken. Idiot.

#148 | POSTED BY MOOMANFL

Talking to yourself I see.

Ahhh... you mean like all the experts that say AGW is real? Gee... I guess maybe I better start listening to those guys then. The "experts" are always right... especially when in large numbers.

Point taken. Idiot.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-17 02:42 AM | Reply

Since AGW is a theory and not something that is concrete it's just a strawman. Unlike Historical documents and experience with regarding Torture to gain information. That is documented and it doesn't work.

Larry

Larry's many experts include Bug's Bunny, While I whack my Pud, and Fog Horn Leg horn...and a large peperoni pizza to go.

You are a far right troll

Says the person who's only posts were to flame me.

1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Larry's many experts include Bug's Bunny, While I whack my Pud, and Fog Horn Leg horn...and a large peperoni pizza to go.

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-05-17 02:46 AM | Reply

Sorry I do not watch cartoons and I rarely eat pizza anymore since My GI Bleed/Ulcers. So that blows that shit all out of whack.

Larry

Guess I struck a nerve.

Blackwater...

Since AGW is a theory and not something that is concrete it's just a strawman.

Funny, many "experts" say it isn't a theory at all. Are experts always right or not?

Later. You are about as useful as a lint trap on an outside clothes line. Stick to Your balderdash Moomanfla. I'll stick to the truth.

Larry

Mooman-
You left out a bit:

...or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

The point being, Mooman, that one can't Constitutionally merely assemble a gang of partisans unhappy with the last election and call it a "Constitutional Convention".

Not much Stir, just went and got some movies.....

I drove past this nightclub called 'Masa' and there are at least 100 people waiting to get into it....

Moo-
re: The government has a vested interest in keeping politics controlled on a macro scale rather than a more local scale....

Which, of course, is why you believe the popular election of US Senators is among the worst anti-democratic moves in US history?

I find it difficult to even entertain the idea that you argue that seriously and repeatedly without being paid by someone (The Onion, perhaps?)

It's incredible how ignorant people are, I bet Mooman has no idea what function Blackwater served and serves in Iraq.

Tell us Mooman, who would do the functions that Blackwater does?

Where else are you going to get 30,000 ex US military veterans that have held security clearances, that know and speak they language of the military, that can co-ordinate with the US military in troop movements and in the movement of US politicians?

Most of Blackwaters personnel were career military, they understand what they are supposed to do and they do it with fantastic proficiency, better then any other private contracting company in the world.

Tell us Mooman, since you are such an expert, who would do that job other then Blackwater?

You have NO idea what you are talking about.

The point being, of course, that Blackwater doesn't answer to Congress.... they answer to their Board of directors. My complaint to my Congressman would be futile.

That's an odd statement, as Blackwater is in business due primarily to gov't contracts (tax dollars, in case you need a reminder), and congress ostensibly controls spending, unless I missed something in third grade.

Mooman-

Regarding Rex's statement: Where else are you going to get 30,000 ex US military veterans that have held security clearances, that know and speak they language of the military, that can co-ordinate with the US military in troop movements and in the movement of US politicians?

Remove the "ex" and the profit margin of mercenary corporations like Blackwater, the political bullshit, and what sorry fodder are you left with?

The US Military, which Rex doesn't seem to hold in much esteem.

BTW Spud, I care about my credibility to you, as I do Osama Bin Ladens.

If you think 4 guys (4 US citizens) that were delivering food to US soldiers in Fallujah, deserved to get get burned alive and hung up like meat, then I give less half a fuck what you think about anything.

If you applaud the murder of my fellow citizens, you are no friend of mine.

Rex Zeitgeist-
re: Tell us Mooman, since you are such an expert, who would do that job other then Blackwater?

You have NO idea what you are talking about.

#163 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-05-17 03:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Like, maybe the US Army, Marine Corps, Navy, or Air Force? (I know it seems odd, Rex)

I'm not a big fan of colored Baptist preachers, but this guy is amazing and dead-on.

Mooman-
Or should our wars be fought by for-profit corporations? (You obviously don't think so, Mooman, but how vigorously will you defend that?)

Except Blackwater's not "fighting our wars", you ignorant little prick.

Do you understand the concept of a "support role", Boyd?

If you think 4 guys (4 US citizens) that were delivering food to US soldiers in Fallujah, deserved to get get burned alive and hung up like meat, then I give less half a fuck what you think about anything.

Point out where Spud sed they "deserved" to die horribly and you might have a point. As it is? Not so much. Yer just misrepresenting Spud's position again.

Nobody deserved such a horrible death.

/Okay, maybe Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot and that guy on PBS who teaches people how to paint, but that's it!

Be Well.

How about the people who prepare meals at FOBs, Boyd?

Are they "mercenaries", too because they're not active military?

You're a dumbass Boyd. You have no idea what you are talking about, you have no idea what functions Blackwater serves, you have no idea who cut the contracts or why they did or why they do it in every conflict.

You have no idea what purpose Blackwater serves, or why the US government hires them, you're talking out your ass, like you always do.

You have no idea what function the US military serves, you have no idea what a soldiers does or the difference between the functions of a private miliatary contractor and a foot solider.

If you had a modicum of understanding of the situation or who the players were, you would be able to answer that question yourself.

Or maybe you should ask President Hussein, because right now he is the biggest customer of Blackwater XE and he is hiring thousands more.

You stupid douche.

Jak-
re: Except Blackwater's not "fighting our wars", you ignorant little prick.

Of course not. Corporations such as Blackwater are merely paid US tax dollars to roam around in war zones armed to the teeth with the ability and imprimatur of the US gov't to engage the enemy.

What specific, logistical roles in the conduct of overseas military operations are exempt from your chickenshit labeling and contempt as "mercenary", Boyd?

You called them 'mercenaries, no better then terrorists'.....

Own your sick words Spud.

Engaging the enemy with live rounds while being paid by the taxpayer is nothing like fighting a war.

Lots of those evil "corporations" are paid lots of money to do many things in war zones.

I'm not quite sure you have a point.

Engaging the enemy with live rounds while being paid by the taxpayer is nothing like fighting a war.

They're not being "paid by the taxpayer", they're being paid by the entity that secured a contract with the U.S. government.

And even if they were, in what role do they engage the enemy with live rounds while being paid by the taxpayer?

Lots of those evil "corporations" are paid lots of money to do many things in war zones.

Isn't that so. I truly love the argument of capitalism and a fair return on investment, guaranteed by gov't contract, carried into the war zone.

It's a winner for you. Please carry on, Rex and Jak...

God I fucking despise stupid liberal fucks.

Put your fucking Mother Jones down and live in the real world, you fucking ignorant sacks of shit.

Boyd, I've seen the list of Drudge veterans that Chris has compiled many times.

I've never seen your name on it.

Tell us how you acquired your vast knowledge of military affairs and the functions of a soldier (sailor/marine) vs. a military contractor.

Particularly since you have no idea what Blackwater and other contractors actually do.

Jak-

Re: They're not being "paid by the taxpayer", they're being paid by the entity that secured a contract with the U.S. government.

If you'll note, I only referred to the mercenary corporate entity, which is paid by the taxpayer, you fucking idiot. If you wish to claim otherwise (as you have, because it's clear that you have no other crutch to lean on), you may rot in hell for being a liar.

Isn't that so.

Yes, it is "so".

The goverment hires private contractors to fulfill certain roles it chooses not to perform itself.

It's kinda the premise behind this stupid fucking "stimulus" package your High Yellow God just fucked our nation with.

Deal with it, prick.

Jak and Rex's position is that wars should be fought for profit by corporations whenever it is most convenient to outsource, and I tend to disagree.

Hahahahaha, Blackwater is compopsed of ex-Seals, ex Army Rangers/Air Assualt, ex-Cav and ADA soliders, marines, ex-officers and and career NCO's.

99.9% of these guys are were cream of the US military crop, who served the United States bravely and selflessly, but Boyd and Spud see them as 'mercinaries, no better then terrorist's who drive around like Mad Max, indiscriniately killing innocent civilians for fun.

Is there no god above profit, even in war? I find this argument evil, for lack of a better word (there is no better word). Wars should not be a business. They should be a somber recourse of last resort.

High Yellow God

That's a new one to me. Does it have any meaning?

Actually Boyd, that is the position of the US military and our Commander in Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama, the largest employer of Blackwater personnel in the world.

They're not being "paid by the taxpayer", they're being paid by the entity that secured a contract with the U.S. government.

I had to quote that again.

You are an extremely witty person, Jak.

Jak and Rex's position is that wars should be fought for profit

No, dumbass.

Backwater isn't "fighting a war".

You were told this at 3:20am.

Work on your fucking retention.

Actually Boyd, that is the position of the US military and our Commander in Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama, the largest employer of Blackwater personnel in the world.

#190 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-05-17 03:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think I understand you, but the picture I get is soooo fucked up I guess I have to ask for confirmation:

You think that my moral and ethical stance is determined by who is in office, as yours is?

I had to quote that again.

Good.

You might want to incorporate it into your responses and overall understanding of the point of contention.

No, dumbass.

Backwater isn't "fighting a war".

Right. They are just armed, in the war zone, are being funded and facilitated by taxpayer dollars, and have the right to engage with even less oversight than the military, and are doing it as a private corporation for profit.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jak

You think that my moral and ethical stance

What is your "moral and ehtical" stance, Boyd?

That the federal government has no business hiring contractors?

Because I don't see you bringing much more to the table than that....

You are an idiot Boyd.

You, Spud, and Mooman spouted off about something you know nothing about.

You have no idea what Blackwater does, who works for them, or why they are employed.

Shame on you for your ignorance.

Do you know what Blackwater is hired to do, Boyd?

You stupid, anti-American liberal fuck?

Holla back?

Of course he does Mao, they drive around like methed out gangbangers shooting innocent iraqi children for fun and profit.

Isn't that what the top US military veterans do in their spare time?

'merceniaries, no better then terrorists'

It's a strange time when apologists for war profiteering by corporations(or anyone) are the patriots.

Is there no god above profit, even in war? I find this argument evil, for lack of a better word (there is no better word). Wars should not be a business.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

That's the most lofty and noble thing I've ever read.

Unfortunately, wars require logistics---the feeding, clothing, transportation, security, sanitation, etc. of everyone involved.

That requires contractors.

Welocme to reality.

You stupid, anti-American liberal fuck?

#199 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-05-17 03:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

?

I'm against outsourcing war to private entities for profit on the taxpayer dime and I'm a "stupid, anti-American liberal fuck?"

If that's where we are, then I don't wanna see what's next: justifying torture of prisoners by contractors, too?

Nah...even you would never sink so low....

Profiteering? Why, anyone knows corporations are in business as non-profit liberal organizations, and all our jobs are provided by liberal weenies, not evil businessmen.

Boyd, since you are the resident military affairs expert, tell us who protected Nancy Pelosi last weekend when she was in Iraq.

I'm done with this trash for the night Mao.....See you on the flip side man.

It's a strange time when apologists for war profiteering by corporations(or anyone) are the patriots.

People don't do shit for free, Boyd.

The federal government outsources tasks it knows can be done more effectively by private entities.

Many of those tasks include activities inherent to a war zone.

Get over it, you stupid, left-wing, anti-American pussy.

Profiteering? Why, anyone knows corporations are in business as non-profit liberal organizations, and all our jobs are provided by liberal weenies, not evil businessmen.

#205 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2009-05-17 04:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm beginning to see the light. Why let a nuisance like a war fought by others upset the applecart? If a company has a good business plan, and they can sell that to you, the taxpayer, why should war be any different from selling widgets or lip balm?

I'm done with this trash for the night Mao.....

Me too.

How truly fucking sad it exists and expresses itself.

I feel bad for my kid.

See you on the flip side man.

10/10 on the side....

People don't do shit for free, Boyd.

The federal government outsources tasks it knows can be done more effectively by private entities.

No. Once upon a time, we did it for self-defense and as a last resort. I'm sure the founding fathers would cringe at my "stupid, left-wing, anti-American pussy" attitude that war is not a for-profit capitalist enterprise of a democratic republic.

BG - have you EVER worked for a living? Did a non-profit pay your salary? DUH....

People don't do shit for free, Boyd.

Was that Jefferson or Washington, or maybe Thomas Paine speaking of war?

BG - have you EVER worked for a living? Did a non-profit pay your salary? DUH....

#211 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2009-05-17 04:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

You folks are fucked-up. You look at war as private enterprise.

BG is avoiding the obvious....the thousands of suppliers to DOD are PROFIT-making entities, paying employees, not whiney dreamland liberals.

BG is avoiding the obvious....the thousands of suppliers to DOD are PROFIT-making entities, paying employees, not whiney dreamland liberals.

#214 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2009-05-17 04:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

No. I'm not "avoiding the obvious". I am merely pointing out the obvious, which you defend, and which would make any of the founding fathers recoil in horror.

"founding fathers recoil in horror."

So you believe all our wars, starting with 1776 were supplied and supported for free? How naive.

I was raised during the WW2 era of the Greatest Generation, true patriots, and everyone either fought for their country, or worked for a PROFITABLE firm on government contracts. No antiamerican, undermining politicians and lib whiners then. What a contrast.

I was raised during the WW2 era of the Greatest Generation, true patriots, and everyone either fought for their country, or worked for a PROFITABLE firm on government contracts. No antiamerican, undermining politicians and lib whiners then. What a contrast.

#216 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2009-05-17 04:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes. What a contrast to that era of the "lib whiner" or "undermining politician" like FDR.

So you believe all our wars, starting with 1776 were supplied and supported for free? How naive.

No. Don't be stupid, if you ever have the occasion to notice and stop it, which is highly unlikely.

good night

Despite being implicated in several controversial killings, [Blackwater] is the Pentagon's most favoured contractor and has effective diplomatic immunity in Iraq. Referred to as "the most powerful mercenary army in the world", both the US ambassador to Iraq and the army's top generals hold it in regard. The company, based near the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina, was co-founded by Erik Prince, a billionaire right-wing fundamentalist. At its HQ, Blackwater has trained more than 20,000 mercenaries to operate as freelancers in wars around the world. Prince is a big bankroller of the Republican Party - giving a total of around $275,550 - and was a young intern in the White House of George Bush Sr. Under George Bush Jr, Blackwater received lucrative no-bid contracts for work in Iraq, Afghanistan and New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. His firm has pulled down contracts worth at least $320 million in Iraq alone. Jeremy Scahill, who wrote the book Blackwater: The Rise Of The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, says when Bush was re-elected in 2004, one company boss sent this email to staff: "Bush Wins, Four More Years!! Hooyah!!" One Blackwater employment policy is to hire ex-administration big-hitters into key positions. It hired Cofer Black, a former State Department co-ordinator for counter-terrorism and former head of the CIA's counter-terrorism centre, as vice-chairman. Robert Richer, a former CIA divisional head, joined Blackwater as vice-president of intelligence in 2005. Scahill says the firm is "the front line in what the Bush administration views as the necessary revolution in military affairs" - privatisation of as many roles as possible. Scahill went on to call Prince a "neo-crusader, a Christian supremacist, who ... has been allowed to create a private army to defend Christendom around the world."

Be Well.

Yes. What a contrast to that era of the "lib whiner" or "undermining politician" like FDR.

#217 | Posted by BetelG

??? Any lib whiner in 1942 got his ass kicked before or after being drafted, unlike now. FDR, congress and all Americans intended to win, not run.

Employees of Blackwater USA have engaged in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq since 2005, in [the] vast majority of cases firing their weapons from moving vehicles without stopping to count the dead or assist the wounded, according to a new report from Congress. In at least two cases, Blackwater paid victims' family members who complained, and sought to cover up other episodes, the Congressional report said. It said State Department officials approved the payments in the hope of keeping the shootings quiet. In one case last year, the department helped Blackwater spirit an employee out of Iraq less than 36 hours after the employee, while drunk, killed a bodyguard for one of Iraq's two vice presidents on Christmas Eve. The report ... adds weight to complaints from Iraqi officials, American military officers and Blackwater's competitors that company guards have taken an aggressive, trigger-happy approach to their work and have repeatedly acted with reckless disregard for Iraqi life. But the report is also harshly critical of the State Department for exercising virtually no restraint or supervision of the private security company's 861 employees in Iraq. "There is no evidence in the documents that the committee has reviewed that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater's actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting episodes involving Blackwater or the company's high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation," the report states. Based on 437 internal Blackwater incident reports as well as internal State Department correspondence, the report said Blackwater's use of force was "frequent and extensive, resulting in significant casualties and property damage." The State Department ... has paid Blackwater more than $832 million for security services in Iraq and elsewhere, under a diplomatic security contract it shares with two other companies, DynCorp International and Triple Canopy.

Be Well.

They are protected by Order 17, implemented in June 2004 by the Coalition Provisional Authority (the US administration then running Iraq), which exempts all foreign contractors from Iraqi law.

Be Well.

The row over CIA torture flights' using British airports has deepened following fresh evidence that a plane repeatedly linked to the controversial programme landed in the UK just days ago.

The plane was logged arriving at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk last weekend, and watching aviation experts said the aircraft, piloted by crew clad in desert fatigues, was immediately surrounded on the runway by armed American security forces.

Its registration number, clearly visible on the fuselage, identifies it as a plane which the European Parliament says has been involved in ghost flights' to smuggle terrorist suspects to shadowy interrogation centres abroad. Records show the plane is owned by Blackwater USA, a CIA contractor described as the most secretive and powerful mercenary army on the planet'.

Be Well.

The federal government outsources tasks it knows can be done more effectively by private entities.

Many of those tasks include activities inherent to a war zone.

America beat the Nazi, the Japanese and Mussolini during WWII in less time and with less money than has been spent in Iraq to date.

One of the reason for that is the use of private contractors for jobs the military used to do.

There's a big difference between Helliburton ripping off the US taxpayer by doing servicemen's laundry at a hundred dollars a pop and Blackwater flying renditioned prisoners to ghost sites to be tortured and possibly killed.

They are both abhorent to the sane mind but one is merely greed run wild and the other is nazi-esque evil.

Sticking up for these guys and this practise is purely fucked up.

Be Well.

Oh and in case you think Blackwater is old news in Iraq, think again.

Blackwater Remains in Iraq Despite Contract's Expiration

In Iraq, the Baghdad contract of the private military firm once known as Blackwater has officially expired. The company, now calling itself "Xe", will continue to work elsewhere in Iraq. The firm Triple Canopy is taking over for Blackwater in Baghdad and is widely expected to rehire many of its guards. The Iraqi government refused to renew Blackwater's license following the 2007 mass killing of seventeen Iraqis in Baghdad's Nisoor Square. Five Blackwater guards face charges for the attack. In a new development in that case, two government informants are claiming Blackwater operatives gave their weapons to another contractor now charged with smuggling them out of Iraq. The informants say the Blackwater guards wanted to get rid of the weapons before they were investigated for the Nisoor massacre.

Unfortunately, wars require logistics---the feeding, clothing, transportation, security, sanitation, etc. of everyone involved.

That requires contractors.

No, it doesn't.

War Profiteers are neither neccessary nor desirable.

Welcome to insanity.

FTFY.

If you believe that people should go to war for profit and not neccessity then yer a cowardly, pants pissing, anti-American, neo-nazi, fuckstain.

In Spud's rarely humble opinion.

Be Well.

99.9% of these guys are were cream of the US military crop, who served the United States bravely and selflessly, but Boyd and Spud see them as 'mercinaries, no better then terrorist's who drive around like Mad Max, indiscriniately killing innocent civilians for fun.

Really?

Last month (Jan 2004) Blackwater USA flew a first group of about 60 former commandos, many of who had trained under the military government of Augusto Pinochet, from Santiago to a 2,400-acre (970-hectare) training camp in North Carolina

"We scour the ends of the earth to find professionals - the Chilean commandos are very, very professional and they fit within the Blackwater system," he said.

The dudspud calls men of war cowards and yet he hides behind his puppet like a whore hides behind her makeup and mascara.

Given the loss of blue collar jobs many a young man joined our military to support a family. Most of those contractors are doing the same thing. They wouldn't have gotten involved without paycheck, and that doesn't diminish their love of America, or soil their soul. For some it's in their blood to stand and fight.

But it is funny when the turgid tuber spews his rants about anti-Americanisms...because he's a canuckistani and obviously knows nothing about actually BEING an American.

Just another cultural leach who has nothing to say about his own backyard - because apparently there really isn't much to talk about. We hear nothing about canuckistan and the liberal "fuckwots" up there. And maybe that's a good thing given the perverts that haunt the place.

**********

On point, it would seem that this actually marks an improvement in disposition of the Talibs. They used to cut off appendages and slit throats. Who knows, another 7 years they might get civilized. Hell, they might even emigrate to canuckistan. They should blend right in with he rest of the assholes.

"The dudspud calls men of war cowards and yet he hides behind his puppet like a whore hides behind her makeup and mascara."

DeadPud is irrelevant. He's just a pitiful wannabe who isn't recognized as a prophet (or literary genius) in his own land so he has chosen to spew bullshit all over the DR seeking adolation. Pity him...and unless you are a masochist, refrain from reading his trash.

Pity him...

or pillory the prick.

The masochism is all his.