Its pretty sad when the justifications for torture used by Yoni boil down to his twisting semantics in any way he can towards his side. If that doesn't show you how flimsy the ground you stand on is well nothing will.
Printable View
Its pretty sad when the justifications for torture used by Yoni boil down to his twisting semantics in any way he can towards his side. If that doesn't show you how flimsy the ground you stand on is well nothing will.
No shit.
Look at this first story that Yoni keeps parroting:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...e-cia-bro.htmlQuote:
The al Qaeda mastermind, known as KSM, stubbornly held out for about two minutes -- far longer than any of the other "high-value" terror targets who were subjected to the technique, the harshest from a list of six techniques approved for use by the CIA and Bush administration lawyers, sources said.
Then KSM started talking, in idiomatic English he learned as a high school foreign exchange student and polished at a North Carolina college in the 1980s, sources said.
"It was an extraordinary amount of time for him to hold out," one former CIA officer told ABCNews.com. "A red-headed female supervisor was in the room when he was being water-boarded. It was humiliating to him. So he held out."
"Then he started talking, and he never stopped," this former officer said. KSM was never water-boarded again, and in hours and hours of conversation with his interrogators, often over a cup of tea, he poured out his soul and the murderous deeds he committed.
Two minutes?
That's barely enough time to be waterboarded once if the claimed methods were used.
Is this the story you are sticking with, Yoni?
I call bullshit on you. Panetta didn't retract his memo saying it's up to Congress to sort out what really happened. He just said his bureau is staffed by professionals who value the truth, and that he has confidence in them to the utmost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
That's what you call a non-denial denial.
I'm not the one playing semantic games. I've already stated I didn't care if it was 183 or 5, it was effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
If one session required 35 pours and another 17 and another 63 to get the information, so be it.
How effective could it be if it had to be done 183 times after you claimed it only had to be done for only one two minute session before?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Pelosi soon will be out of work because she is a liar.
I thought so too, but Bob Graham's second, plus Panetta's weaselly disclaimer on the the briefing summaries, make this unclear.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
You can execute a lot of pouring in one to two minutes. How much water was poured each time? For what duration?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I bet I could pour water over your face 183 times in two minutes.
I'll keep going back to the words of former Vice President Cheney; if we were in the torture business, we would have bother seeking guidance from the Justice Department. I'll go one further. We also wouldn't have bothered with meticulously documenting the sessions -- such as how many fucking times we poured water on their face during a waterboarding session.
Bob Graham is trying, that's true but, Pelosi's made enemies in the Democrat party, not least of which is Harman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Panetta's thrown her under the bus today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth
If she's lost Panetta, Graham isn't going to do her much good.
Note also that Rockefeller is awful quiet.
Charles Duelfer and Lawrence Wilkerson confirm that waterborading was ordered before any legal opinion was sought, to establish operational links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
And, the White House is trying to wash its hands of the whole affair, too.
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
This is somewhat contrary to your citation above, that EIT were regularized and that appropriate legal guidance was sought.
And, I'm okay with that. It appears the prior use (taking your claim at face value) was okay under the guidance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
How generous of you. You demand others cite and conform to law, but for yourself the eyeball test is good enough. You're such a bullshitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Under these circumstances, absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Pelosi changes her story...again...
So, did the CIA lie to you in the 2002 briefing or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelosi
I think she realized how back she fucked up yesterday but, this doesn't even come close to explaining the original question of the 2002 briefing and what she knew and when she knew it.
She's just trying to put the CIA dogs back on the chain now.
:corn:
when did Pelosi say the CIA lied? I see where she stated they misled Congress but haven't seen her claims they lied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
We need to waterboard Cheney to get to the bottom of this!
Ends justify the means. This is the way fellow travelers justified Lenin and Stalin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
What, conservatives believe in situational ethics now? Pathetic.
Fuck postmodern conservatives. They got no values. It all gets sacrificed to expediency.
For what? For a bunch of terrrorists who have no chance of beating us.
Fucking bedwetter crybabies. They'd sacrifice our republic to protect us against a bunch of cowards who can't beat us. Not in 1000 years. Fucken doubters. They care more about their own puny existence than American values. Fuck em. They don't know what's worth living and dying for. They can kill Americans, but they can't kill America, unless we lose our fucken minds like Yoni wants us to.
If you're being accused of misleading, you're being accused of lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
She was answering a specific question of whether or not the CIA lied to her and she began the answer with, the word, "yes."
If the means are legal -- even if they make you uncomfortable -- and the ends are saving thousands of American lives, yep; I'm okay with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
As it stands now, the Bush administration is saying they've committed no crimes in the interrogations.
I believe them, you don't; no one has proven a crime.
So if Bush misled us with bad information to the run up of the Iraq war then, by your logic, he lied. OK then Bush is a liar. Still think a liar belongs on Mt Rushmore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
If I am hitting on a chick and she tells me that she will sleep with my if Im not married. She then asks me if I am married and I say no then she bangs me. Of course I have had a girlfriend for almost 10 years and we live together, would that make me a liar? Since she didn't ask me specifically if I had a girlfriend did I lie or mislead her?
You are such a hypocrite.
well you didn't lie. she specifically asked if you had a wife. if that were to happen, it really shows how much of an ass you are because you solely know what your status is. pretty stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Well, he would have to know the information was "bad."Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Yes, I believe the man still belongs on Mt. Rushmore. I also believe the further into history he presidency travels, the more it will be realized just how successful his presidency was.
You all will be laughing stocks. And, Nancy Pelosi appears to be first in line.