She's just a big talker because she knows another war won't cost her anything.
It's so funny that waterboarding has been in the news for years about how horrible of a torture it is... and here is some chick in the forum acting like it's no big deal. And she calls me uninformed.
Torture????
OK...here's another lesson for you, you dunce.
From “Magnifico: The Brilliant Life and Violent Times of Lorenzo De Medici,” by Miles Unger, p. 227-228.
An incident recorded by the diarist Luca Landucci vividly illustrated the dangers awaiting those who threatened bodily harm to the leading citizens of the regime:
27th September [1481]. A certain hermit came to the house of Lorenzo de’ Medici at the Poggio a Caiano; and the servants declared that he intended to murder Lorenzo, so they took him and sent him to the Bargello, and he was put to the rack.
15th October. This hermit died at Santa Maria Novella, having been tortured in various ways. It was said that they skinned the soles of his feet, and then burnt them by holding them in the fire till the fat dripped off them; after which they set him upright and made him walk across the hall; and these things caused his death. Opinions were divided as to whether he were guilty or innocent.
Understand now, pantywaist?
You're quoting someone from 1481 on torture today? You don't get it do you? You just just equated waterboarding to do a beer chug in college. You've go to be the dumbest person I've ever met.
Face it.
You've been force-fed propaganda and aren't smart enough to question it.
In other words, a reliable Democrat voter.
There has never been any torture by the US government. Never.
Now...watch me ram your words down your throat:
1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at
clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.
Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —
Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2
2.
Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department
[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .
Holder on Waterboarding Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy
You feel really stupid about now, huh?