Obama v. Cheney

[il Padrino Ute]

How about this 'evidence':



Notice... the tapes were recorded in 2002.

Ok, that one mentions that the CIA director admitted to destroying the tapes - tapes that could have exposed the families of the interrogators to harm. You ought to tell the guy from Salon.com that his article would be more credible if he offered proof.

It would be 1 point to you for offering proof, but it was after the buzzer so it's been waived off. But for the sake of fairness, we'll call this a Poppinga victory of sort.

[RobinFinderson]

According to who?

DUDE! Mock executions are one of the most BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL examples of torture. It isn't debatable, and the fact that you even have to ask 'According to who?' demonstrates that you are supporting positions about which you know very little.

Here is the US definition of 'torture.'

Get smart!

[il Padrino Ute]

DUDE! Mock executions are one of the most BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL examples of torture. It isn't debatable, and the fact that you even have to ask 'According to who?' demonstrates that you are supporting positions about which you know very little.

Here is the US definition of 'torture.'

Get smart!

According to that, if the mock execution isn't intended to cause harm, then it isn't torture. IOW, if it's to get information from the detainee, it is not meant to inflict physical or mental pain and/or suffering.

The intent of the action is the key.

(Dang, I can parse words with the best of them.)

[The Wankster]

Was Jesus Christ a 'liberal pussy?'

If you want to bring Christ into the conversation, how about Allah, or whatever entity these people profess to have belief in, does Allah or whomever tell these POS to go out and murder innocent Americans without reason?

Seems like I heard Islam was a religion based upon peace, not so?

Pulling Christ back into the post, what about justice? Are there no demands for justice, at the same time as mercy?

Care to try again, with some other attempt to drag being christian into the conversation?

[RobinFinderson]

According to that, if the mock execution isn't intended to cause harm, then it isn't torture. IOW, if it's to get information from the detainee, it is not meant to inflict physical or mental pain and/or suffering.

The intent of the action is the key.

(Dang, I can parse words with the best of them.)

Your reading comprehension needs work.

[il Padrino Ute]

Your reading comprehension needs work.

No, I have selective reading skills. I only looked at Rule #1. Perhaps you skipped that rule?

[RobinFinderson]

I only looked at Rule #1.

Then that explains why you don't know what you are talking about.

[il Padrino Ute]

Then that explains why you don't know what you are talking about.

It also explains that you ignored rule #1.

[RobinFinderson]

It also explains that you ignored rule #1.

(1) “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;

What am I missing?

[il Padrino Ute]

What am I missing?

If the intent is to inflict pain and suffering, it is torture. But if the intention is to gain information, it's not torture. That's what happened at Gitmo.

[RobinFinderson]

If the intent is to inflict pain and suffering, it is torture. But if the intention is to gain information, it's not torture. That's what happened at Gitmo.

Wow. You suck.

[il Padrino Ute]

Wow. You suck.

Why? Because you ignored the intent part of the definition?

[RobinFinderson]

Why? Because you ignored the intent part of the definition?

I didn't ignore it. But your interpretation would allow ANYTHING to be done, as long as the intent is to 'get information.' I could put someone's head in a vice and clamp it down to the point where the melon is just about to burst, as long as my intent is to get information. You interpretation is absurd.

[il Padrino Ute]

I didn't ignore it. But your interpretation would allow ANYTHING to be done, as long as the intent is to 'get information.' I could put someone's head in a vice and clamp it down to the point where the melon is just about to burst, as long as my intent is to get information. You interpretation is absurd.

I can play the hyperbole game too.

Your interpretation would cause millions of innocents to die.

[YOhio]

YO, I'm only somewhat interested in what the parties actually do. I agree with you that there is rampant politicizing of issues on both sides, there is opportunism, probably some corruption, and a lot of 'cover-your-ass-ism' taking place all up and down the political food chain. Neither party, on the whole, is standing up for the Rule of Law. I'm not that interested in partisan politics.

I am interested in what CUF people think. Within these digital walls we can take sides, either for the Rule of Law or for Corner Cutting. Collectively we form a small drop in the ocean on which the political parties float. So let's make some waves here. Let's take a stand for the rule of law. Forget Code Pink. Let's be Code Blue (and red, you filthy Utes).

YO, are you a Rule of Law person or are you a Corner Cutter?

Everyone is a Corner Cutter, we just differ on degrees.