Torture: Still doesn't work

[ChumpDumper]

And I provided quotes from Clarke, contemporaneous to the events (and prior to the quotes you posted), that has him saying otherwise. I can't help that he took up company with the rest of the Democrats that chose to start lying and change their stories for political expedience.

You really don't pay attention, do you?

"Clarke praises Bush while still working for Bush"

Wow.

So how many times did Bush and the principles meet about terra before 9/11? How often did the Clinton principals meet about it?

Why was Clarke's position reduced from cabinet level?

What was the main foreign policy issue according to Bush when he entered office?

[Yonivore]

"Clarke praises Bush..."

There you go, the rest is irrelevant.

[ChumpDumper]

There you go, the rest is irrelevant.

Nah, it's pretty much the most important part. Had you read his book you'd know Clarke do ented how he would spin his public pronouncements.

It's how people stay employed.

[Yonivore]

Nah, it's pretty much the most important part. Had you read his book you'd know Clarke do ented how he would spin his public pronouncements.

It's how people stay employed.

For another 3 months?

He made those statements in October 2002 and resigned in January 2003.

And, what allegiance did Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller owe to the Bush administration?

[ChumpDumper]

For another 3 months?

He made those statements in October 2002 and resigned in January 2003.

So he was still working for Bush.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[Yonivore]

So he was still working for Bush.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Sure, don't know what that has to do with anything.

Has Clarke actually admitted he was lying in his October 2002 interview? Or, like other Democrats, did he just start saying something different and pretend the public record of his previous statements didn't exist?

[ElNono]

This is a strictly legal issue for me.

No, it's clearly not. That's not what your posts reflect at all.

I'm not excusing them, I'm trying to determine the truth.

You *are* actively making excuses for them. We can all read your posts.

Well, you're still in the minority.

Incorrect.

[ElNono]

And, speaking of foreign relations; the Senate Report has (as has much of the partisan nonsense perpetrated by Democrats over the past decade) done real damage to our relationships with allies and others that cooperated with the U.S. in the Detention and Interrogation program.

I'm more concerned with the damage caused by unilaterally breaching international accords we're signatories of.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure, don't know what that has to do with anything.

Because you're either stupid or disingenuous.

Has Clarke actually admitted he was lying in his October 2002 interview? Or, like other Democrats, did he just start saying something different and pretend the public record of his previous statements didn't exist?

He explained it all very thoroughly.

Don't you read anything? It's a book.

[Yonivore]

Because you're either stupid or disingenuous.

He explained it all very thoroughly.

Don't you read anything? It's a book.

I read his statements contemporaneous to the events.

[ChumpDumper]

I read his statements contemporaneous to the events.

And nothing else.

Ever.

Stupid or disingenuous.

[Yonivore]

I'm more concerned with the damage caused by unilaterally breaching international accords we're signatories of.

What damage has it caused other than turning us into a laughing stock for our enemies and destroying the trust we built with our allies who participated in the program with the understanding we wouldn't throw them under the bus.

[ChumpDumper]

What damage has it caused other than turning us into a laughing stock for our enemies and destroying the trust we built with our allies who participated in the program with the understanding we wouldn't throw them under the bus.

Shouldn't have done it in the first place.

That'll teach us.

[Yonivore]

And nothing else.

Ever.

Stupid or disingenuous.

So, did he say he was lying when he gave that interview in 2002 or did he just change his story? I don't want to have to wade through his book to find the answer that you surely know.

[ChumpDumper]

So, did he say he was lying when he gave that interview in 2002 or did he just change his story? I don't want to have to wade through his book to find the answer that you surely know.

It's a really good read. Self-serving sure, but so is every memoir. Takes more responsibility than anyone else in the Bush administration for sure.

He clearly states everything that was on the table from the Clinton administration; pretty much every suggestion about what to do about terra was adopted after 9/11.

Basically the spin comes down to what is your definition of a plan.

You can Google it. There are plenty of high profile interviews out there. Be a big boy now and find it yourself.

[Yonivore]

It's a really good read. Self-serving sure, but so is every memoir. Takes more responsibility than anyone else in the Bush administration for sure.

He clearly states everything that was on the table from the Clinton administration; pretty much every suggestion about what to do about terra was adopted after 9/11.

Basically the spin comes down to what is your definition of a plan.

You can Google it. There are plenty of high profile interviews out there. Be a big boy now and find it yourself.

I just want to know if he admitted to lying in the October 2002 interview.

People say a lot of in a memoir, I mean, look at Lena Dunham.

[ElNono]

What damage has it caused other than turning us into a laughing stock for our enemies and destroying the trust we built with our allies who participated in the program with the understanding we wouldn't throw them under the bus.

It set a bad precedent that the US will not honor it's commitments. The US lost any authority to go into the proper forums (UN, WTO, etc), which it often does, and point fingers at any other nation for breaching a signed treaty. It has caused a lot of damage in foreign relations, something the US is still recovering from.

[Yonivore]

It set a bad precedent that the US will not honor it's commitments.

Thanks to the Democrats it demonstrated to our allies that we can't be trusted to not throw them under the bus.

The US lost any authority to go into the proper forums (UN, WTO, etc), which it often does, and point fingers at any other nation for breaching a signed treaty.

As if any other nation takes their commitments to the UN and WTO seriously. They're just echo chambers that likes to talk high ideals and demand the nations that have implemented good governments that prosper to hand over their treasure to bad governments that can't seem to keep their monetary system afloat.

As happy as I would be to see Washington D.C. shuttered for a few years, seeing the U.N. kicked out of New York and forced to set up shop in one of the countries they seem to hold in higher esteem than the U.S. would really make my day.

Any body that would elect Libya as Chair if its Human Rights Commission is a farce.

And, when the preachy Europeans start abandoning their UN IPCC commitments you have to wonder, is the UN really even relevant anymore.

It has caused a lot of damage in foreign relations, something the US is still recovering from.

With who specifically? I don't recall anyone ejecting our diplomats and cutting off ties over anything we've done with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS, ISIL, al Qaeda, or the Taliban. Except of course, other countries that sympathize with those groups.

[ElNono]

As if any other nation takes their commitments to the UN and WTO seriously.

The US disputes breach of treaties on both forums consistently, ie:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/..._e/ds478_e.htm
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/..._e/ds465_e.htm
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/..._e/ds456_e.htm
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/..._e/ds450_e.htm

so do other countries:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/...u_status_e.htm

Through action, the United States and other countries disputes your contention.

Furthermore, the US Code specifically makes a crime severe breaches of both the Geneva and Hage treaties (18 U.S. Code § 2441).
Our own laws holds ourselves to a higher standard (as they should).

With who specifically? I don't recall anyone ejecting our diplomats and cutting off ties

We entered all sorts of diplomatic problems over the rendition program with allies and non-allies alike:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraor...al_governments

[ElNono]

Then again, I'm pretty sure you don't really care what other countries think.

[RandomGuy]

So, the UN or ICC has rendered an opinion on whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques, used by the CIA in the aftermath of 9/11, cons uted torture, under their convention? I'd like to see that.


But, may not be torture. And, is certainly not more evil or immoral than murdering 3,000 innocent people.
Actually, all it would take is an honest hearing in a court of competent jurisdiction completely rebutting the Department of Justice's opinion on how the enhanced interrogation techniques did not cons ute torture.


Wow, you are easily moved.

All I've ever said is that in the context of the time, the United States did their due diligence in crafting a set of interrogation techniques they believed would elicit (and did elicit) information crucial to the protection of their country. The CIA developed the techniques, the Department of Justice exhaustively vetted the techniques against existing law and international conventions and found them to be legal.

In different time and under different cir stances, I might not be so forgiving. You're obviously not moved by the context in which these acts were developed and used.

However, the fact remains, the enhanced interrogation techniques and the legal opinions that kept the on the good side of torture have yet to be challenged anywhere but in the court of public opinion. Forgive me if that doesn't carry much weight with me in the current climate of our body politic.

The fact remains, apologizing for torture is a symptom of the moral decay of the modern right.

The kind of mental and ethical gymnastics you need to perform to believe this reminds me so much of those who try to make the case that the god of the bible is a moral authority.

I do not give up my principles for personal safety, and remain aghast at people who think that a country that should be a model and example for others to follow should walk the walk.

SMH, moral relatavism.

[Yonivore]

The fact remains, apologizing for torture is a symptom of the moral decay of the modern right.

The kind of mental and ethical gymnastics you need to perform to believe this reminds me so much of those who try to make the case that the god of the bible is a moral authority.

I do not give up my principles for personal safety, and remain aghast at people who think that a country that should be a model and example for others to follow should walk the walk.

SMH, moral relatavism.

Except it's never been proven or conceded what was done cons uted torture.

[Yonivore]

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/UN-Turn...endgame-384912

To my point about the UN and its "Human Rights Commission."

[ElNono]

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/UN-Turn...endgame-384912

To my point about the UN and its "Human Rights Commission."

What's the point?

[Yonivore]

What's the point?

That the UN is an irrelevant farce.