"Torture"???

[Wry Catcher]

Thankfully for all of us, those who will interview/interrogate the surviving bomber are professionals. Their interest is who, what, where, when and how. The why may come later. The pros will build rapport with the subject over time and establish a relationship, in exact contrast to the fiction of the TV series 24.

Those who want to use torture are fools. It does not work.

 

[mamooth]

Leftists have no decency - any female, black, Latino, or Asian who doesn't have the letter "D" by their name finds that out real quick.

Locke here obviously thinks minorities are delicate little creatures who need special protection.

We liberals, being color blind, reject Locke's patronizing racism. We think minorities can take abuse just as well as anyone else, so we give it to them just like we give it to everyone else.

Kudos for Locke for his playing of the race card here in a thread that had nothing to do with race. Like many conservatives, it's always all about race with him. Thus, he's not capable of understanding that liberals don't think like himself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thankfully for all of us, those who will interview/interrogate the surviving bomber are professionals. Their interest is who, what, where, when and how. The why may come later. The pros will build rapport with the subject over time and establish a relationship, in exact contrast to the fiction of the TV series 24.

Those who want to use torture are fools. It does not work.

I'm sure you're right.

Good thing no one has.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I try.

Yes, I generally find you very trying....

See how successful I am.

Grrrrrrr......

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic is admitting that you have won, Kevin_Kennedy.

It is good to see that you are an ethical libertarian, unlike some.

You know you're fibbing.

You know I am not fibbing. Kevin owned you on this discussion.

Do you mind if I use your middle name as my response?

Absurd.


a. There was no torture.

b. He slandered the previous administration by conflating enhanced interrogation with the torture
used by the Japanese.

c. And, of course, having you on his side is subtraction by addition.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One news organization has reported that the second terrorist has been surrouonded.

I sure hope so.



Just yesterday, one of our resident hand-wringers posted that some group claimed Bush had used torture.

If they have this beast.....I fervently hope that every one of the so-called 'torture procedures' used by President Bush is used to track down every member of his cell-network of savages.



Recall this:
[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=[b]2[/b]

Lungren is a wackadoodle, no wonder you find him sane.

What an excellent example of 'the pot calling the kettle black.'

 

[Mad Scientist]

Hey Guise, I just finished torturing my next door neighbor and he's confessed to doing the Boston Marathon Bombing. Case Closed!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know you're fibbing.

You know I am not fibbing. Kevin owned you on this discussion.

Do you mind if I use your middle name as my response?

Absurd.


a. There was no torture.

b. He slandered the previous administration by conflating enhanced interrogation with the torture
used by the Japanese.

c. And, of course, having you on his side is subtraction by addition.

a. You are not an authority on it. The authority says it is torture.

b. Slander is speech, libel is written. There was no slander or liberal in your silly extensio.

c. You, on this issue, are a null factor.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You know you're fibbing.

You know I am not fibbing. Kevin owned you on this discussion.

Do you mind if I use your middle name as my response?

Absurd.


a. There was no torture.

b. He slandered the previous administration by conflating enhanced interrogation with the torture
used by the Japanese.

c. And, of course, having you on his side is subtraction by addition.

A. That's the debate being undergone in this thread.

B. It wasn't slander, and, as I already stated, it applies to the current administration as well. Also, I did not conflate it with the Japanese, considering, as I've demonstrably proven, I did not mention the Japanese at all. I specifically mentioned the Spanish and the Germans. If I mentioned the Japanese then I ask that you prove it.

C. Jake is one of my favorite posters on the board. He brings an interesting perspective. We don't often find ourselves in agreement, but it certainly doesn't bother me when we do. Quite the contrary, actually. Regardless, I bet there are issues you and Jake agree on as well. So this attempted insult fails on several levels.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One news organization has reported that the second terrorist has been surrouonded.

I sure hope so.



Just yesterday, one of our resident hand-wringers posted that some group claimed Bush had used torture.

If they have this beast.....I fervently hope that every one of the so-called 'torture procedures' used by President Bush is used to track down every member of his cell-network of savages.



Recall this:
[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=[b]2[/b]

Lungren is a wackadoodle, no wonder you find him sane.

What an excellent example of 'the pot calling the kettle black.'

Gulp, a glib quip sure put me in my place... lol, not really

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know I am not fibbing. Kevin owned you on this discussion.

Do you mind if I use your middle name as my response?

Absurd.


a. There was no torture.

b. He slandered the previous administration by conflating enhanced interrogation with the torture
used by the Japanese.

c. And, of course, having you on his side is subtraction by addition.

a. You are not an authority on it. The authority says it is torture.

b. Slander is speech, libel is written. There was no slander or liberal in your silly extensio.

c. You, on this issue, are a null factor.

Authority?

Did you say authority?

No prob.


.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


It seems you never tire of being pilloried.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lungren is a wackadoodle, no wonder you find him sane.

What an excellent example of 'the pot calling the kettle black.'

Gulp, a glib quip sure put me in my place... lol, not really

But you are, and remain in your place: to provide comic relief.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you mind if I use your middle name as my response?

Absurd.


a. There was no torture.

b. He slandered the previous administration by conflating enhanced interrogation with the torture
used by the Japanese.

c. And, of course, having you on his side is subtraction by addition.

a. You are not an authority on it. The authority says it is torture.

b. Slander is speech, libel is written. There was no slander or liberal in your silly extensio.

c. You, on this issue, are a null factor.

Authority?

Did you say authority?

No prob.


.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

It seems you never tire of being pilloried.

And it seems you love imitating that paragon of logic, bigrebnc1775.

Your evidence does not support your point of view.

Water boarding is torture under the law. You can't prove differently.

You fail.

 

[Jroc]

Leftists have no decency - any female, black, Latino, or Asian who doesn't have the letter "D" by their name finds that out real quick.

Locke here obviously thinks minorities are delicate little creatures who need special protection.

We liberals, being color blind, reject Locke's patronizing racism. We think minorities can take abuse just as well as anyone else, so we give it to them just like we give it to everyone else.

Kudos for Locke for his playing of the race card here in a thread that had nothing to do with race. Like many conservatives, it's always all about race with him. Thus, he's not capable of understanding that liberals don't think like himself.

Color blind?...That was a joke right?..That's almost too comical to even respond to, as much as liberals use race to divide people, that's says a lot about you and your IQ level.... Jake agrees with you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Leftists have no decency - any female, black, Latino, or Asian who doesn't have the letter "D" by their name finds that out real quick.

Locke here obviously thinks minorities are delicate little creatures who need special protection.

We liberals, being color blind, reject Locke's patronizing racism. We think minorities can take abuse just as well as anyone else, so we give it to them just like we give it to everyone else.

Kudos for Locke for his playing of the race card here in a thread that had nothing to do with race. Like many conservatives, it's always all about race with him. Thus, he's not capable of understanding that liberals don't think like himself.

Color blind?...That was a joke right?..That's almost too comical to even respond to, as much as liberals use race to divide people, that's says a lot about you and your IQ level.... Jake agrees with you?

Jroc says he criticized Bush, which is a lie. Jroc says I have said that liberalism is "color blind", which is a lie.

Liberals play the race card, so do reactionary neo-cons like Jroc. The invasion of Iraq was based on racism to a certain extent but much more on oil.

It's fun to watch Jroc run around like his hair is on fire.

 

[Jroc]

Locke here obviously thinks minorities are delicate little creatures who need special protection.

We liberals, being color blind, reject Locke's patronizing racism. We think minorities can take abuse just as well as anyone else, so we give it to them just like we give it to everyone else.

Kudos for Locke for his playing of the race card here in a thread that had nothing to do with race. Like many conservatives, it's always all about race with him. Thus, he's not capable of understanding that liberals don't think like himself.

Color blind?...That was a joke right?..That's almost too comical to even respond to, as much as liberals use race to divide people, that's says a lot about you and your IQ level.... Jake agrees with you?

Jroc says he criticized Bush, which is a lie. Jroc says I have said that liberalism is "color blind", which is a lie.

Liberals play the race card, so do reactionary neo-cons like Jroc. The invasion of Iraq was based on racism to a certain extent but much more on oil.

It's fun to watch Jroc run around like his hair is on fire.

You thanked the person for the post, so you approved fraud. I'm sure you can point out where racism had anything to do with Iraq? Leaving aside the fact that Iraqi Arabs are of the white race

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. You are not an authority on it. The authority says it is torture.

b. Slander is speech, libel is written. There was no slander or liberal in your silly extensio.

c. You, on this issue, are a null factor.

Authority?

Did you say authority?

No prob.


.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

It seems you never tire of being pilloried.

And it seems you love imitating that paragon of logic, bigrebnc1775.

Your evidence does not support your point of view.

Water boarding is torture under the law. You can't prove differently.

You fail.

You know what your problem is?
Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Color blind?...That was a joke right?..That's almost too comical to even respond to, as much as liberals use race to divide people, that's says a lot about you and your IQ level.... Jake agrees with you?

Jroc says he criticized Bush, which is a lie. Jroc says I have said that liberalism is "color blind", which is a lie.

Liberals play the race card, so do reactionary neo-cons like Jroc. The invasion of Iraq was based on racism to a certain extent but much more on oil.

It's fun to watch Jroc run around like his hair is on fire.

You thanked the person for the post, so you approved fraud. I'm sure you can point out where racism had anything to do with Iraq? Leaving aside the fact that Iraqi Arabs are of the white race

I can thank any post, which does not mean ipso facto I approve of the entire post.

Quit being silly. Of course the invasion had to do with race among other issues. That is how neo-cons think: the White Man's Burden.

 

[Jroc]

Jroc says he criticized Bush, which is a lie. Jroc says I have said that liberalism is "color blind", which is a lie.

Liberals play the race card, so do reactionary neo-cons like Jroc. The invasion of Iraq was based on racism to a certain extent but much more on oil.

It's fun to watch Jroc run around like his hair is on fire.

You thanked the person for the post, so you approved fraud. I'm sure you can point out where racism had anything to do with Iraq? Leaving aside the fact that Iraqi Arabs are of the white race

I can thank any post, which does not mean ipso facto I approve of the entire post.

Quit being silly. Of course the invasion had to do with race among other issues. That is how neo-cons think: the White Man's Burden.

Iraqi arabs are white...Come again?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You thanked the person for the post, so you approved fraud. I'm sure you can point out where racism had anything to do with Iraq? Leaving aside the fact that Iraqi Arabs are of the white race

I can thank any post, which does not mean ipso facto I approve of the entire post.

Quit being silly. Of course the invasion had to do with race among other issues. That is how neo-cons think: the White Man's Burden.

Iraqi arabs are white...Come again?

Tell that to the Italians, the Spanish, the French, and the British who happily divided up "white" Arab speaking lands. Quit being silly.