Bush Admin. to blame for prison abuses

[QUENTIN]

Sorry Chomsky would be the premier pseudo intellectual of the last fifty years.

Almost anytime the man speaks outside of his field - linguistics- you are all but guaranteed to be listening to balderdash.

He's the most cited living source in academic, scientific, and historical journals, books, and papers of the last 50 years (according to the comprehensive Arts and Humanities Citation Index).

That doesn't mean he's right by any means, but it does mean he is the "premier intellectual" of that time.

An intellectual is just "a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level." and/or "a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher."

He's authored dozens of books, is a professor at MIT, and has devoted his life to matters of intellectual theory and practice.

You may think he's completely wrong or an ass or whatever, fair enough. But he is an intellectual and he's the most cited and referenced one of the last half-century.

 

[garyd]

On linguistics he is very good on history he is borderline incompetent, people are often cited in rebuttal as well as for support.

 

[DiamondDave]

Oh...and this is rich... QUENTIN has the gumption to try and NEG REP for "no substance"... LMAO

His posting history here, short as it may be, and him being obliterated when his arguments are picked apart, point by point, are the clues to show his lack of substance...

Like the guy with a 65 IQ calling someone "retarded"

LMAO

 

[QUENTIN]

Oh...and this is rich... QUENTIN has the gumption to try and NEG REP for "no substance"... LMAO

His posting history here, short as it may be, and him being obliterated when his arguments are picked apart, point by point, are the clues to show his lack of substance...

Like the guy with a 65 IQ calling someone "retarded"

LMAO

You can think I'm an idiot all you want, that my conclusions are wrong or my sources are biased, or whatever justification you can come up with to maintain your ideological bent and ignore logic and facts.

What you can't do is pretend that, even if their viewpoint is "retarded"(lovely word choice said the guy who works with special needs children) my posts lack substance. I provide references, sources, explain the logical train of thought that leads me to arrive at the conclusions I do. I even have frequently had to quote the dictionary to illustrate misuse and inaccuracies when people use the wrong terms. I always offer an argument of substance. I am excellent at and respectful in debate. Just because you disagree with what I say and think I'm a fool for thinking it doesn't mean it isn't presented cogently. No matter how much you may feel it's wrong, and you're free to, you're lying or delusional if you think I don't offer substance in every one of my posts. The personal anger that clearly arises when you read an opinion or fact you don't like seems to cloud your ability to objectively ascertain tone, style, and substance.

DiveCon's repeated 2-line insult posts have no substance. "They could very well be the SAME imbecile!" lacks any substance. So too does "I see 3 jackoffs back to back to back." from the guy seemingly on my side. Any ad hominem bullshit post that distracts from the issues by attempting to ridicule the people presenting them is baseless, substanceless, useless crap. But I don't deal in that nonsense.

Quite unlike you, I don't view this as a dirty playground fight where you try to belittle and deride the individual professing a point-of-view you disagree with. I view it as a debate, as it is intended, in which you try to explain why you disagree and demonstrate the factual inaccuracies and inferior quality of the logic that would arrive at their conclusion. People who disagree are not your enemies and do not need to be treated with childish, unwarranted hostility. But you seem to have zero respect for anything but your own viewpoint, so perhaps it'll be awhile before you recognize that.

 

[QUENTIN]

Oh and by the way, you may find these interesting.

FROM THE RULES & REGULATIONS OF THE USMESSAGEBOARD:

"Posting information gained through private messages, or Reputation Comments is prohibited unless specific permission is granted in a public forum and/or to a USMB staff member from the member who is a participant in the PM conversation or posted the Reputation Comment."

Even more topical, as it pertains to the only tactic of you and nearly everyone "arguing" the same points (frazzled is the only exception I've seen):

"Derogatory statements directed at other members as well as direct or indirect personal attacks are permitted with the stipulation that you generally look like a fool when resorting to these tactics within a serious conversation on real issues. If you're comfortable playing the fool, feel free to do so."

I'd say that's pretty accurate.

 

[DiamondDave]

You can think I'm an idiot all you want, that my conclusions are wrong or my sources are biased, or whatever justification you can come up with to maintain your ideological bent and ignore logic and facts.

What you can't do is pretend that, even if their viewpoint is "retarded"(lovely word choice said the guy who works with special needs children) my posts lack substance. I provide references, sources, explain the logical train of thought that leads me to arrive at the conclusions I do. I always offer an argument of substance. I'm an excellent at and respectful in debate. Just because you disagree with what I say and think I'm a fool for thinking it doesn't mean it isn't presented cogently. No matter how much you may feel it's wrong, and you're free to, you're lying or delusional if you think I don't offer substance in every one of my posts.

DiveCon's repeated 2-line insult posts have no substance. "They could very well be the SAME imbecile!" lacks any substance. So too does "I see 3 jackoffs back to back to back." from the guy seemingly on my side. Any ad hominem bullshit post that distracts from the issues by attempting to ridicule the people presenting them is baseless, substanceless, useless crap. But I don't deal in that nonsense.

The thing was I thoroughly DESTROYED your premises when you posted them... picked them apart bit by bit.... point by point... and while you decided to go and not pick other person's word choice or their decision to call you out.. you did not and could not come back from being shown that your points were baseless, pointless, and filled with a quite obvious partisan bias

You're a moron... and a party biased one at that

 

[DiamondDave]

Oh and by the way, you may find these interesting.

FROM THE RULES & REGULATIONS OF THE USMESSAGEBOARD:

"Posting information gained through private messages, or Reputation Comments is prohibited unless specific permission is granted in a public forum and/or to a USMB staff member from the member who is a participant in the PM conversation or posted the Reputation Comment."

Even more topical, as it pertains to the only tactic of you and nearly everyone "arguing" the same points (frazzled is the only exception I've seen):

"Derogatory statements directed at other members as well as direct or indirect personal attacks are permitted with the stipulation that you generally look like a fool when resorting to these tactics within a serious conversation on real issues. If you're comfortable playing the fool, feel free to do so."

I'd say that's pretty accurate.

Awww.. boo hoo...

You want examples of where I destroyed your supposed 'debate'

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...als-be-tried-for-war-crimes-2.html#post953283
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...als-be-tried-for-war-crimes-3.html#post953315
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...als-be-tried-for-war-crimes-4.html#post953463
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...als-be-tried-for-war-crimes-4.html#post953485

You're a partisan hack.. no better than our infamous idiot, bobo the clown...

 

[QUENTIN]

Awww.. boo hoo...

You're a partisan hack.. no better than our infamous idiot, bobo the clown...

"boo hoo"? I'm not upset, just illustrating how according to internal standards here you BROKE THE RULES and are PLAYING THE FOOL.

 

[QUENTIN]

The thing was I thoroughly DESTROYED your premises when you posted them... picked them apart bit by bit.... point by point... and while you decided to go and not pick other person's word choice or their decision to call you out.. you did not and could not come back from being shown that your points were baseless, pointless, and filled with a quite obvious partisan bias

You're a moron... and a party biased one at that

Awww.. boo hoo...

You want examples of where I destroyed your supposed 'debate'

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...als-be-tried-for-war-crimes-2.html#post953283
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...als-be-tried-for-war-crimes-3.html#post953315
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...als-be-tried-for-war-crimes-4.html#post953463
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...als-be-tried-for-war-crimes-4.html#post953485

You're a partisan hack.. no better than our infamous idiot, bobo the clown...

Except by no objective measure did you remotely "destroy" or even in any way debunk what I had to say. You asked rhetorical questions (like "If they are responsible for murder, where are the charges?" as though charges appear like magic following any murder, rather than they need to be brought by a legal system run by the people in this case guilty), offered a few points, and sometimes resorted to inanities ("FUCK THE ACLU" is NOT an argument, is has no substance, it does not belong in debate. If the ACLU sucks, demonstrate why).

What you fail to note, and in fact directly misrepresent here, is that I responded to every one of your points.

You also fell back on a bunch of inaccurate information, clearly wrong, to further your argument. The idea for instance that the detainees were not subject to the Geneva Convention or U.S. law is the argument proferred by the Bush Administration's War Council lawyers that was REJECTED by the Supreme Court. Officially adjudicated as illegal nonsense. Or that only enemy communication/foreign communication is being intercepted and transcribed despite mountains of evidence that this is not the case. You ignore a list of autopsy reports that detail the murder of detainees NOT from individual Ghraib-scandal abuse, but from the every day abuse sanctioned by the government as "harsh interrogation techniques" like extreme heat, extended sleep deprivation, threat of dogs, beatings, food and water denial, etc. I showed that legally waterboarding hasn't changed one bit, it's always been illegal. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, it is LEGALLY TORTURE and has been officially adjudicated as such. Therefore those that approved it approved of torture, ergo broke the law. The fact that they had lawyers come up with pseudo-legal mealymouthed justifications doesn't mean squat, it was illegal.

Also, I made all of these replies and retorts, addressed all of your points, without ever resorting to namecalling. Without ever claiming you were an idiot, a mouthpiece for the GOP (despite the fact that much of what your argument was based on was their talking points and legally dismissed justifications), never treated you with disrespect or hostility. You jumped around crying "partisan hack" (a partisan by the way is someone with an allegiance to a person, place, party, or cause so EVERYONE ON EARTH who isn't a complete nihilist is by definition a partisan, it has no meaning and is not an insult in the manner you and your ilk keep throwing it around).

Only in your own mind could it be considered "destroying" my arguments and only in a delusion could my arguments be seriously considered lacking in substance. Right or wrong is another matter altogether that we're of course going to disagree on, but to claim they lack substance is disingenuous and petty.

 

[QUENTIN]

and a party biased one at that

This idea is also a fucking joke that keeps getting repeated no matter how many times I point out and demonstrate that I have no party affiliation, do not like democrats or republicans, do not vote democrat or republican, want to and openly advocate the prosecution many democrats and republicans, can count on one hand the amount of politicians from either party I like or support, and in fact want the vast majority of both parties booted out for corruption, negligence, and a failure to fulfill the duties and represent the people they were elected to. Yet because I'm not right wing, you and your ideological allies continue to recite the mantra -- like mindless, programmed zombies wholly unaffected by external stimuli -- that I'm biased by party rather than actions.

I oppose the entire current manifestation (current meaning the last 232 years, not the last 8) of American government because it denies true liberty and practical equality. I don't believe there's an established political party in this country that lines up with that, but if there is it certainly isn't Democrat or Republican.

 

[JimH52]

Is this the Twilight Zone?

 

[garyd]

Yet Quentin the case you have made is so irredeemably laden with holes that were it a boat it would sink so quickly that you couldn't loose the mooring lines before it went down.

 

[DiamondDave]

Swiss cheese has substance.. and it has less holes than your supposed points, QUENTIN... I have, and others have, pointed out successfully that your arguments have numerous holes, let alone a faulty basis to begin with

You have been pwned... but are so blinded, like bobo the clown, that you refuse to see it because your faulty arguments are all you have to stand on to prop up your preconceived bullshit

 

[Old Rocks]

The Raw Story | Andover law school dean convenes Bush War Crimes Conference


Andover law school dean convenes Bush War Crimes ConferenceStephen C. Webster
Published: Saturday September 13, 2008




Update: Massachusetts School of Law dean Lawrence Velvel tells RAW STORY that video of the conference will be available on the Internet by Friday, Sept. 19, 2008.

Saturday morning, the dean of Massachusetts School of Law at Andover will convene a two day planning session with a single focus: To arrest, put to trial and carry out sentence on criminals in the Bush Administration.

The conference, arranged by Lawrence Velvel, cofounder of the Andover school, will focus on which of Bush's officials and members of Congress could be charged with war crimes. The plan also calls for "necessary organizational structures" to be established, with the purpose of pursuing the guilty "to the ends of the Earth."

"For Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Yoo to spend years in jail or go to the gallows for their crimes would be a powerful lesson to future American leaders," Velvel said in a media advisory.

In a published document entitled "The Long Term View" (PDF link), Vevel argues, at the very least, "there is no question" George W. Bush is guilty of conspiracy to commit torture, a war crime.

"He is a former drunk, was a serial failure in business who had to repeatedly be bailed out by daddy's friends and wanna-be-friends, was unable to speak articulately despite the finest education(s) that money and influence can buy, has a dislike of reading, so that 100-page memos have to be boiled down to one page for him, is heedless of facts and evidence, and appears not even to know the meaning of truth," said Velvel.

The conference will focus on:



# What international and domestic crimes were committed, which facts show crimes under which laws, and what punishments are possible.

# Which high level Executive officials -- and Federal judges and legislators as well, if any -- are chargeable with crimes.

# Which international tribunals, foreign tribunals and domestic tribunals (if any) can be used and how to begin cases and/or obtain prosecutions before them.

# The possibility of establishing a Chief Prosecutor’s Office such as the one at Nuremburg.

# An examination of cases already brought and their outcomes.

# Creating an umbrella Coordinating Committee with representatives from the increasing number of organizations involved in war crimes cases.

# Creating a Center to keep track of and organize compilations of relevant briefs, articles, books, opinions, and facts, etc., on war crimes and prosecutions of war criminals.


And, addressing the conference will be:


# Famed former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, author of the best-selling "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder" (Vanguard).

# Phillippe Sands, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College, London. He is the author of "Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values" (Penguin/Palgrave Macmillan), among other works.

# Jordan Paust, Professor of Law at the University of Houston and author of "Beyond The Law."

# Ann Wright, a former U.S. Army colonel and U.S. Foreign Service official who holds a State Department Award for Heroism and who taught the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare at the Special Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg, N.C. She is the coauthor of "Dissent: Voices of Conscience."

# Peter Weiss, Vice President of the Center For Constitutional Rights, which was recently involved with war crimes complaints filed in Germany and France against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others.

# Benjamin Davis, Associate Professor at the University of Toledo College of Law and former American Legal Counsel for the Secretariat of the International Court of Arbitration.

# David Lindorff, journalist and co-author with Barbara Olshansky of "The Case for Impeachment: Legal Arguments for Removing President George W. Bush from Office"(St. Martin’s Press).

# Colleen Costello of Human Rights USA.

# Christopher Pyle, a professor at Mt. Holyoke and author of several book on international matters.

# Lawrence Velvel, a leader in the field of law school education reform, who has written numerous internet articles on issues relevant to the conference.

 

[Old Rocks]

Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday Dec. 24, 2008 12:44 EST
Torture ambivalence masquerading as moral and intellectual superiority
(updated below)

Behold the now-solidified Smart, Reasonable American Consensus on torture: the agreed-upon method for dismissing away -- mitigating and even justifying -- the fact that our leaders, more or less out in the open, instituted a systematic torture regime with the consent of our key elite institutions and a huge bulk of the American citizenry, engaging in behaviors which, for decades, we insisted were inexcusable war crimes when engaged in by others:

Sure, it was wrong. OK, we "crossed some lines." Yeah, we probably shouldn't have done it, etc. etc. etc. (yawn). But . . . . when American leaders did it, it was different -- fundamentally different -- than when those evil/foreign/dictator actual-war-criminals did it. Our leaders had good reasons for doing it. They were kind and magnanimous torturers. They committed war crimes with a pure heart. They tortured because they were scared, because they felt guilty that they failed to protect their citizens on 9/11, because they were eager -- granted: perhaps too eager -- to keep us, their loyal subjects, safe from The Murderous Terrorists.

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

 

[Old Rocks]

JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON

UNIVERSITY: Hi, Rachel.

MADDOW: So the White House says now, at least to the "Wall Street Journal," that they are not likely to pardon anyone who might have implemented or taken part in these torture policies because they believe that their Justice Department memos excuse them, so there's no need to pardon anyone. Are you buying their reasoning?

TURLEY: No. I don't believe that anyone seriously believes in the administration that what they did was legal. This is not a close legal question. Waterboarding is torture. It has been defined as a war crime by U.S. courts and foreign courts. There's no ambiguity in it. That's exactly why they have repeatedly tried to stop any court from reviewing any of this. And so what's really happening here is a rather clever move at this intersection of law and politics, that what the administration is doing is they know that the people that want him to pardon our torture program is primarily the Democrats, not the Republicans. Democratic leadership would love to have a pardon so they could go to their supporters and say, "Look, there's really nothing we could do. We're just going to have this truth commission. We'll get the truth out but there really can't be indictments now." Well, the Bush administration is calling their bluff. They know that the Democratic leadership will not allow criminal investigations or indictments. And in that way the Democrats will actually repair Bush's legacy because he'll be able to say there's nothing stopping indictments or prosecutions but a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House didn't think there was any basis for it.

MADDOW: If the Democrats - if we could wave a magic wand and say that the Democrats would decide to indict officials for the torture policies, is there any reason to believe that the John Yoo memos, the torture memos, the Bybee memos - all of these legal reasoning that the Justice Department produced under Bush in order to sort of paper their way to these policies. Is there any reason to believe that would afford them any reasonable defense?

TURLEY: Not in my view. I think those memos are really devoid of any meaningful arguments that would carry weight in a court of law. What Bush did is he went and got fairly extreme individuals from the academy and from the bar that would ratify his absolute view of executive authority. There is a very small number of people, I believe, on the courts or in the bar that would support that view. And so there's not a question, at least in my view, whether there could be an indictable and a prosecutable here. There's no question about that. The question is the intestinal fortitude of the Democrats to stand with the rule of law. And unfortunately, we have many people who campaign on principle but they govern on politics. And I think we're seeing that with the Democratic balloon they're floating by saying, "Let's have a commission, another commission, like the 9/11 commission. And maybe if we find something that can be prosecuted in four or five years, we might do it." Well, everyone in Washington knows that that commission is being proposed so that there would be no serious criminal investigation or prosecution. And now, the White House is calling their bluff.

Turley Says Democratic Leaders Oppose War Crimes Investigations | Democrats.com

 

[Old Rocks]

By Mark Yannone | From the KPHX radio station in Phoenix, Arizona, Colonel Joe Abodeely told his worldwide radio audience on Saturday exactly how and why he expects George W. Bush to be prosecuted for the war crimes he committed as president of the United States. Drawing on his considerable expertise in criminal law and his accomplished military career, Colonel Joe helped those of us who want the Bush crime family held accountable to see the distinct possibility on the horizon. [Listen] [MP3] 17:57

JAG: Judge Advocate General. Attorneys in the JAG Corps provide the legal services for each branch of the military.
Arizona JAG officer wants Bush tried for war crimes

____________

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO...

I, PubliusInfinitum, hereby DARE the ideological left to try and charge the Bush administration with war crimes...

LOL... In so doing you will be making the official declaration that you are what I and so many others have said you are... which is the advocates of the enemies of the US; thus establishing you OFFICIALLY AS The Enemy of the US.

So PUHLEASE! Just do it already... I AM BEGGIN' YA!

 

[Old Rocks]

ROFLMNAO...

I, PubliusInfinitum, hereby DARE the ideological left to try and charge the Bush administration with war crimes...

LOL... In so doing you will be making the official declaration that you are what I and so many others have said you are... which is the advocates of the enemies of the US; thus establishing you OFFICIALLY AS The Enemy of the US.

So PUHLEASE! Just do it already... I AM BEGGIN' YA!

Oh sure, and you are going to get out your popgun, and go hunting. What is moron you are. You will just sit there, bitch and scream, as things go through the proper courts. All yap-yap and Rambo fantasy. People like you are a joke.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh sure, and you are going to get out your popgun, and go hunting. What is moron you are. You will just sit there, bitch and scream, as things go through the proper courts. All yap-yap and Rambo fantasy. People like you are a joke.

ROFLMNAO...

Just shut up and DO IT ALREADY... Enough of the talk... enough of your collective cryin' about 'war-crimes' committed against the enemies of the United States... Enough of the implicit little threats... GET ON WITH PROVING YOURSELF FOR WHAT YOU ARE, IN FINALITY... so you can finally be held accountable for it.

I AM BEGGING YA!