Sure you don't need to.
But your refusal tells me volumes.
You're a parrot who relies on others to do the thinking for you. You wouldn't dare even potentially disagree with those you are following simply because of who hired them.
It's not a refusal, I've already paraphrased a couple of times the rationale behind the Bybee and Yoo memos, merely referring back to that and them should be sufficient for most people but, I realize you're special. Sorry, I'm not a Special Education teach, Chump.
You dodged the question. You simply rehashed where they were used. You're afraid to say whether you would approve of their use in any other situation or not.
I realize I asked far too much of you to have your own opinion. You couldn't teach anyone anything -- copy and paste is not education, yoni.
Not a dodge; I specifically stated I would be comfortable with them being used again under the same cir stances; which I believe to be unique.
I don't pretend to be an educator, Chump. Having an opinion which I support with already published material is fairly common.
My opinion is the EITs were warranted, legal and justified. That opinion is based on a whole body of information beginning with the Bybee and Yoo memos and ending, so far, with the Senate Committee report.
So, those are the only and exclusive cir stances under which you would approve the use of those methods?
Yes or no.
State your opinion.
Why only those?
Why would you exclude the use of these techniques you consider to be safe and completely effective?
I'm sorry, you restricted my answer to yes or no but, if you'll look back, I've already qualified the answer.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Exclude them from where?
humor me and answer this question as asked:
Why only those?
Exclude their use under any other cir stances like you said.I'm not sure what you're asking. Exclude them from where?
Of course, there isn't a blog to tell you what to think here.
I understand.
Read this and you will...
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...7/02.08.01.pdf
Is your personal opinion in someone Berto's pdf?
I'm always amused in this forum when people pretend their position is derived from some personal knowledge of the cir stances.
Your opinion is no more based on a direct knowledge of the cir stances or the law than mine. You've based your opinion on information you've consumed from other sources; as have I.
I said earlier my general opinion is the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques were warranted, legal, and justified. I based that opinion on a lot of information I've read over the years but, the Bybee memo to Attorney General Gonzales is the place where much of it is formed, yes.
This conversation between you and I long ago devolved into another of your ankle-biting, strawman strewn, annoying threads. Unless you want to start defending your position that the EIT's cons uted torture and can cite specific law or legal opinions that validate that -- so we can actually discuss the merits of our arguments -- don't continue to waste our time with your pedantic nonsense.
I simply asked your opinion.
You posted not your opinion.
It's OK. I did not expect you to have an opinion of your own. No need to be pissy about it. Rather than getting upset at me why not try actually thinking for yourself?
I had previously posted my opinion and I just did it again.
And, again, you're misreading emotions. Perhaps you should give it up.
So, on what is your opinion the EITs cons uted torture based?
You didn't give any reasoning why you personally have that opinion and why you think it shouldn't be used in any other cir stances.
Yes, I did.
But, it's your turn. So, why do you hold the opinion the EITs cons uted torture and that they shouldn't have been used in these specific cases?
US legal precedent.
You know, actual case law and real court decisions.
No you didn't give any reasons why you wouldn't waterboard in other situations.
Why lie?
Cite the specific cases and law.
Again?
Are you sure you remember no cases involving waterboarding in the history of the US?
I thought you were well versed in this subject.
Besides, I could just use the Bush administration's own definition of torture post 9/11:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18315.htm
Anything look familiar to you?
What was the intent of the abuse noted in the State Department release?
No. Not as it relates to the CIA's use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques to obtain information on imminent terrorist attacks and the whereabouts of key terrorist leaders. None whatsoever.
Irrelevant, but thanks for characterizing the methods as abuse. Doesn't help your team much though.
Exactly the same.No. Not as it relates to the CIA's use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques to obtain information on imminent terrorist attacks and the whereabouts of key terrorist leaders. None whatsoever.
Too bad for your team, but hooray for your team in this case. It's nice they took a stand against such methods of torture as those the CIA put into use.
Good for them.
They were right to speak out against them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
