The Glade 4.0

Don't forget, lib, he also hates gays.

1) What plan?
2) On several occasions the military mistakenly reported tht it HAD found WMD.
3) We don't torture.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Old Bush speech



Now, admittedly, this was pre 9/11... but even at that time, the analysis said it wasn't that simple.



And in 2007, CBS had an article about a similar speech and the national debt or lack of mention about it.

CBS News article





So it's true, there were WMD, but the WMD were not nuclear, there was no WMD program being started/continued, and the smoking gun was not going to be a mushroom cloud. Some of these WMD may have been from the Reagan era, when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking hands with the fool.



Washington Post article (USA Today link)



Washington Times article

_________________
Once, I was a ranger
Then, I was a warlock
And a mage
And a paladin
Now, I seek to be myself

That political cartoon drew Obama with big ears. You know what they say about guys with big ears. You also know what they say about black men. Therefore this cartoon is racist!

_________________

According to which analysts? I'm not impressed with the Washington Post. I'm also not impressed with a cartoon that compares the accuracy of a prediction about a plan with the accuracy of comments regarding what is actually written in one. One is just that, a prediction, the other is a matter of fact in the moment.



1) Whether they were nuclear is immaterial to an announcement they'd been found
2) We're all well aware of what they actually turned out to be. That has nothing to do with an announcement based on an erroneous report. There's no reason to call the President a liar for announcing WMDs have been found when A) they technically have B) the search is ongoing and C) The report is an error on the part of the military.





Yes, I'm well aware that George Bush's political enemies claim what was done was torture, and this judge may feel that way as well. The fact of the matter is that we picked the definition in the statute apart in detail ourselves on this board, and it could not be demonstrated based on that law that anything that has been done is torture. Just because some people feel it is means nothing; some people feel depriving inmates of television is torture.

The bottom line is that this cartoon says far more about the degree to which the left has glossed over uncomfortable details to paint Mr. Bush as a liar than anything else.

For example What if the WMDs were in Syria?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/
The claim that "No WMD were in Iraq" is especially questionable, since A) there were, even if they were pre-1991, B) Saddam Hussein claimed to have destroyed such weapons and clearly hadn't and C) Confusion caused by these weapons almost certainly contributed the the impressiont hat there was an active program

After spending 8 years calling Mr. Bush a liar on such thin justification the left is in no position to complain about Joe Wilson.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't believe you read the articles I tried to summarize. Did you read the USA Today link?

Believe what you want, but, at least answer this:

Did they call him a liar before or after giving him a chance to finish his speech?

_________________
Once, I was a ranger
Then, I was a warlock
And a mage
And a paladin
Now, I seek to be myself

There is no "they" there is "him". He called him a liar for at the very least a willful attempt to distort reality by referring to a plan that only exists in the President's head while making comments on attacks of a plan in existence.

One cannot defend attacks on a plan in existence by saying that they aren't true for a plan of fantasy.

The cartoon itself enforces the idea that Obama lies for it calls attention to the hypocrisy of the one for putting up with Bush's lies but not Obama's. This cartoon would have no effect if it is assumed Obama did not lie.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That isn't why he called him a liar, not with that level of vitriol and hate that he expressed. President Bush lied to his face for years and he sat quietly and never said a word.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Montegue:

I think you're overusing the phrase "hate and vitriol", such that it has become nothing more than a meaningless platitude expressing your sympathy for President Obama.

_________________

You believe incorrectly then. Just because this guy claims these things were done to him doesn't mean they are, especially since AQ manuals and documents tell their personnel to claim they were tortured regardless. The article doesn't indicate that anyone other than he and his lawyer claim that he was tortured.

The article does point out that he was waterboarded, but waterboarding isn't torture, either statutorily or in a common sense. We examined this very carefully, including the wording of the applicable statute, and determiend that waterboarding wasn't torture unless ANYTHING done to a person in custody even a little bit uncomfortable (such as, say being handcuffed) was also. As for the other things he claims, some of them, such as "loud music" aren't torture either, nor do we have any evidence othr than his own claims that they ever occured.

As for the other article, it really reveals nothing except that Mr. Feingold's analysis is that techniques like waterboarding weren't useful. I don't know that Mr. Feingold has any special qualiications on the matter, so I see no good reason to accept his evaluation over Mr. Cheny's.



Who is "they"? I only recall ONE person interrupting him.

No one is trying to claim that Wilson's behavior wasn't rude or boorish.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The article does point out that he was waterboarded, but waterboarding isn't torture, either statutorily or in a common sense. We examined this very carefully, including the wording of the applicable statute, and determiend that waterboarding wasn't torture unless ANYTHING done to a person in custody even a little bit uncomfortable (such as, say being handcuffed) was also. As for the other things he claims, some of them, such as "loud music" aren't torture either, nor do we have any evidence othr than his own claims that they ever occured.[/quote]

Waterboarding isn't torture?

Human Rights Watch



Godwin prevents me from going too far along the 'really? really?' here, but I don't understand how you or Rumsfeld could come to this conclusion.



It's not just Feingold who believes the enhanced interrogation techniques are not effective. He just happens to be someone with access to the same level of classified information as Cheney. Do you want Amnesty International's take on it?



They in this context is 'the left.' You excuse his rude and boorish behavior by saying the left did the same thing for 8 years.

Do we want to get into the right accusing the left of treason for calling Bush a liar? Should we hold Wilson up for trial on treason or sedition?

Have you seen this?

The new liberals

The right is flip-flopping on what is allowed and what isn't acceptable in a democracy more than Kerry ever did.

_________________
Once, I was a ranger
Then, I was a warlock
And a mage
And a paladin
Now, I seek to be myself

Yes, it does. Aside from the fact that the part about "if uninterrupted it will casue death by suffocation" and being "mock execution" being nonsense (both defeating the purpose of doing it) we do it to trainees in a numebr of venues. If it were legitimately torture, we couldn't use it on trainees, regardless. The fact that they're there voluntarily is no excuse since pressure to pass training is a form of coercion. Then there's the "suffering mental trauma for years afterwards". Well, yes, when it's done along with a lot of other things that really ARE torture, they'll likely suffer something afterwards, but they would have anyhow.

Finally, Human Rights Watch doesn't define torture statutorily or otherwise. They're simply an activist group with an agenda that involves inventing human rights abuses on the part of those whose political positions they don't like.



I'm aware of that, but for every person with access to that who agrees with Feingold, there's one who agrees with Cheny, and I don't see any reason to take Feingold's side. Just because he has access doesn't mean he has the abilities to analyze it. I also don't care what AMnesty International has to say; they have no access to such information and are another agenda-driven group.



I did no such thing. I said the left called George Bush a liar for 8 years (no mention of interruption was made), and while they didn't interrupt him they did do things like cause a ruckus by getting Cindy Sheehan into the State of the Union address with a protest T-shirt as if it were her forum to air her views. I also did not excuse Wilson's rudeness at all. I excuse him from the absurd accusation of racism.



I don't know of any case of the "right" accusing the "left" of treason for doing anything. In fac, I can't even recall an incident of a specific individual doing that, and while I'm sure something similar was said by someone I'm fairly certain that it's not a simple matter of "you're a traitor for calling bush a liar."



No, the left is simply throwing a hissy fit that the right is using the same tactics it did when it didn't have the Presidency. I'm not going to waste eight and a half minutes watching a comedy central video.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Gee, Diamondeye...

If only I could trump your opinion and Cheney's... without using a liberal opinion...

Without relying upon someone with a Anything But Bush agenda...

Without turning to pacifists and NGOs...

OH WAIT!!!



Here

So... is waterboarding torture? Do you know more about torture than John McCain?

_________________
Once, I was a ranger
Then, I was a warlock
And a mage
And a paladin
Now, I seek to be myself

Actually I'm sort of amazed that it took you this long. In any case, read back what you said very carefully. You don't want to accept Mr. Cheny's opinion over that of Feingold or HRW. Why is it legitimnate to cricticize me for doing the reverse? We're both just going with the position we find more believable.



I certainly don't know more about being tortured than John McCain. However, I would point out that A) Waterboarding someone for the sheer hell of it is abusive, regardless of whether its torture or not. B) Senator McCain had a lot of other, far worse things, done to him at the same time as he was being waterboarded. This speaks directly to the justufucation you provided earlier that "waterboarding subjects have mental trauma years later" or wors to that efffect. John McCain is a perfect example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" error of that assumption. I doubt Mr. McCain has such superhuman psychological detachment as to be able to separate his waterboarding experiences from all others. While his experience with waterboarding is significant, it is somewhat colored by the fact that it happened to him A) in violation of the Law of Armed Combat and B) in conjunction with other activities about which there is no questin there is torture.

Really, as far as I'm concerned the fact that it can be safely used for training ends the debate. Period. Anything that can be safely used on highly trained pilots, SF personnel and others and leave them able to still engage in their duties is not torture. Really, we're going to risk killing people whose training is extremely expensive or leaving them with psychological trauma before entrusting them with fighter planes or delcate missions? I don't think so, and the fact that it's "voluntary" doesn't change that because A) that doesn't change its effects and B) it isn't entirely voluntary, any more than a teenager "consenting" to have sex with their coach is.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We called it torture when it was done to us. It causes great suffering. I don't really see any reason to invent a legal definition and pretend that new definition lets us off the hook and reinvent what is torture and what is not because we really want to use it.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

We called it that because it was done to lawfully captured prisoners of war for the sadistic pleasure of their captors. In any case, that may have been a misnomer at the time, and abuse was probably the proper term for waterboaring in particular, although since those people were also being tortured it probably was simply lumped in there. It's certainly not below the United States (or anyone else) to have exaggerated the severeity of some actions of enemies in wartime.

In any case, no one's talking about "inventing a new legal definition." The current legal definition doesn't define it as torture without it being sometimes torture and sometimes not, unlss we're going to start prosecuting people for conducting SERE classes.

If we want to create a new defenition where it clearly is torure, fine, but that's not "letting anyone off the hook", it's recognizing that we can't create ex post facto laws, and that it's hardly fair to condemn people morally based on an opinion we arrived at after the fact. It also requires that we either explicitly state that "torture is ok for training purposes" or stop using practices like waterboarding for SERE.

I don't really have any problem with saying "ok, we're going to consider waterboaring torture from now on, and that's the end of the debate" as long as we don't try to apply that definition to past actions either legally as an ex post facto matter, or morally under the justification that some people are outraged about it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I am continually amazed by the lengths that DE goes to attempt to defend waterboarding.

How is having an informed opinion "defending waterboarding"? His assessment of the legal situation is correct. Congress either needs to man-up and make a clear anti-torture statute, or the issue is moot and precedent stands. If you feel waterboarding is torture, then appeal to your lawmakers to explicitly make it so, as our current anti-torture law is vague, subjective, and inherently unenforceable.

_________________

I'd also amend that to add that when said law is made, remember that we're protected against ex post facto laws by the Constitution and people need to give up trying to hang Cheney and any of his lackeys because it then became illegal.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I'm not in Mr. Wilson's head, and neither are you, so it is difficult to ascribe motive. That said, is it possible for "enough to be enough" in your mind? Is it possible for one to become so tired of being lied to by the powers that be, regardless of which party, and finnaly reach a breaking point?

Must we endlessly accept bullshit from administration after administration because we ignorantly tolerated it from one administration, or is it OK to put our foot down at some point?

Or is it only acceptable to reach that point when a guy you dislike is in office?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Really? It's amazing that I point out when people lie about how the procedure works, like when they claim it actually involves pouring water into the lungs? (If it did it would cause permenant damage) It's amazing when I point out that we had a vested interest in calling it torture after WWII? It's amazing to point out that when people are subjected to it in conjunction with things far far worse that their evaluations may be colored by that, as may the after effects?

Or how about the fact that it's not only safe to use for training but for publicity stunts as well? Is that amazing? Are all these facts somehow irrelevant because some people are morally outraged? Is pointing out that the statutes are vague, subjective and unenforcable, or that the opinions of HRW are nothing more than anothe subjective opinion somehow amazing?

I've made it pretty clear that I don't think you can just waterboard any prisoner you want any time you damn well please. I don't even have a problem with declaring it torture and making it illegal, as long as its clearly acknowledged that it's that way from this point forward, and that we aren't using any ex post facto justification to prosecute anyone under either the current law (which I think is unconstitutionally vague since it could expose even SERE trainers, or possibly anyone who ever applied handcuffs to prosecution) or the new one unless they do it after a new law is passed.

No, what's amazing is people who think the legal system flies out the window, and that it's ok to use a moral definition to prosecute people, even when the legal definition is unclear or hasn't been met. I frankly don't give a **** if the government follows moral definitions or not, as long as they follow the legal definition. We can make the legal definition correspond to the moral definition if its that important that we do so. I suppose I shouldn't be amazed since people think normal legal protecions fly out the window in cases of alledged rape, child abuse, domestic violence, or child support.

Really, you shouldn't be amazed by the lengths I go to, since I don't go to any great length at all. But that's not really the point is it? If it were just about waterboarding people would be ok with "We need to make a new law that makes it clearly illegal and creates clear exceptions for training, etc.". But that's not what it's about. IT's about prosecuting one's political opponents, because it isn't enough anymore to disagree with the action politically. No, we need to criminalize opposition actions. After all, we don't want any traitors to the Motherland to do anything like waterboard someone, do we, tosvarisch?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Pravda Diamondeye. Pravda.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I am talking about our government inventing a legal position that it was not torture after our government had said it was.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Our government didn't "invent" any such position. Based on the existing statute, it is either A) not torture, or B) it is torture, so is practically everything else relating to taking someone into custody, such as handcuffing them and putting them in a cell. The statute is completely unclear, and therefore unconstitutional regardless. Not only that, but the legal definitions of things change all the time; it's called "changing the law".

I've already pointed out that we should not have classified it as torture in the past, and we had a vested interest in doing so. Those events, however, were part of the post-WWII fallout, and weren't really based on any normal legal proceedings. It was pretty much a "the victors make the rules" situation (which I really have no problem with). In any case, that still doesn't make it torture under current law, and its highly disingenuous that because one administration classified it as torture for postwar matters that every other administration has to hold the same opinion and act on it. I really don't give a **** if that's somehow "inconsistent"; that's why we elect new people to office; in order to get new views in there.

I also don't give a **** if the government has used 2 different moral definitions. The only thing that matters to me is the legal definition at the time the time the acts were committed, which is the current law. "The government" doesn't do these things; individuals do, and they, not "the government" are not the ones who get charged with crimes. Individuals should not be prosecuted under laws that are so vague that no one can really tell what they prohibit, they should not be prosecuted based for the political benefit of another party, and they certainly should not be prosecuted based on the moral outrage of either citizens or NGOs. What's really being asked for now is to crucify these guys to appease the mob.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes they did. The existing statute did not spring fully formed from some god's head. It was created by humans in government.

I don't give a **** what the law says. The law does not equate with morality. In years you have yet to learn this and continue to defend the law as if everything in the law is moral because it is the law - very circular.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville