NationStates Jolt Archive

Arguably disclosing techniques used in interrogation could render them less effective. For example, use of swarms of harmless bugs in a box were authorized. Does this method lose its interrogational value if the prisoner knows about this in advance and is prepared and trained for it?

The bug thing capitalized on a phobia. Unless you can deprogram all your phobias, you can't 'train for' that kind of thing.

Fear of cats? Put them in a box with a cat. Fear of spoons, put them ina box full of spoons. See how that works?

The bug thing capitalized on a phobia. Unless you can deprogram all your phobias, you can't 'train for' that kind of thing.

Fear of cats? Put them in a box with a cat. Fear of spoons, put them ina box full of spoons. See how that works?
Fear of idiots? Send them to lunch with George Will.

Fear of idiots? Send them to lunch with George Will.

See? Now there will be no more terrorists. No one is willing to endure that kind of torture.

I am glad that the memos have been released.
But I disagree with Obama's decision not to pursue legal investigations and prosecutions as strongly as I can disagree with just about anything.

Same here.


That old American tradition of sweeping the unpleasant parts of the past under the rug. It is wrong. It has been wrong. It continues wrong.


I must add, as partial excuse to the US, that almost every country does so, and did so, and it is very likely that will continue to do so.

This would be a change I'd be glad to see. The day when people responsible for committing or ordering crimes and atrocities will be tried and jailed if found guilty. Independently from their nationality, citizenship, office, position etc.

Diplomacy the American way.

Oh yes, we're the only country which ignores international pressure when it is expedient to us. :rolleyes:

In a perfect world. In this one there is no shortage of patsies, no shortage of people convinced that they'll be shielded, that they'll be Libby or North and not Englund. But we live in this world, and in this world I want something actually done, I don't want a token move. I don't want symbolic justice, I want real justice. I don't want to treat the sniffle, I want to cure the cold.

But nobody is calling for a token move. It's not a token move to prosecute every single person we can. It's called justice and there is nothing symbolic about it.

The sixth amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial which normally includes the evidence.
Also review by the judge depends on the judge having or being able to get it the relevant clearance to see the information.
Not to mention suppressing of defense evidence is very rare. Almost all your suppressed evidence is prosecution.
In general if the defense wants to bring evidence to the jury they are allowed, or the prosecution fails to meet beyond a reasonable.

Again, you're full of shit. Public doesn't refer to a right to just throw out anything you feel like saying. In almost every trial there is evidence one side or the other wants to present that isn't allowed. You can only present evidence that is relevant to the case. I know you've watched a lot of TV and you think there are these big dramatic reveals, but that has nothing to do with reality.

What you're talking about isn't relevant evidence. At all. A prosecutor could very much surpress evidence if it appears the defense were bringing it up to prejudice the jury, to punish those prosecuting them, or for any similar reason. You're talking about evidence that proves nothing and offers nothing. And, again, if that evidence had the appearance of being relevant, the judge would still review it. There is a reason why a rape victim's name isn't made public. Why is this different?

Now, again, what relevance would this evidence have? What possible relevance would the results of torture provide toward whether or not someone was tortured or whether or not it was legal? Stop listing amendments you clearly don't understand and answer the questions.

Perhaps it should be taken into account. I really think it's ultimately quite a subjective quantifying of who has responsibility. Just because the grunts wont get charged doesn't mean some of the hyperboles about Obama simply 'sweeping it under the rug' is true.



I don't see how this contradicts what I said.

You don't? You don't see how when you keep claiming that we're changing the rules after the fact is contradicted by the fact that it was always illegal? Not sure how I can help you there.

You don't see how when you keep claiming that we're changing the rules

I never said that, though I can understand how one could misinterpret what I said to mean that by my possible misuse of the word retroactively. When I say retroactively, I mean it more in a sense of saying something with hindsight. I didn't say they ever changed the rules, I said they were re-assured by the highest sectors of the government that it was fine even though it apparently wasn't. I explicitly said it wasn't technically ex post facto. I'm just saying that the spirit of the idea may still apply somewhat

I never said that, though I can understand how one could misinterpret what I said to mean that by my possible misuse of the word retroactively. When I say retroactively, I mean it more in a sense of saying something with hindsight. I didn't say they ever changed the rules, I said they were re-assured by the highest sectors of the government that it was fine even though it apparently wasn't. I explicitly said it wasn't technically ex post facto. I'm just saying that the spirit of the idea may still apply somewhat

Those sectors of government don't make the law. They are expected to follow it, as is everyone below them. Those lawyers don't even interpret the law. It's the courts that do that.

So there is nothing retroactive. See, what happens when you commit a crime is that afterwards you get prosecuted for it. You don't get prosecuted before you do it. See, time doesn't work that way. So all prosecutions are in hindsight.

The people who did this know power changes hands in this country and they should have realized that just because the people giving them the orders wouldn't prosecute doesn't mean no one would.

Those sectors of government don't make the law. They are expected to follow it, as is everyone below them. Those lawyers don't even interpret the law. It's the courts that do that.

So there is nothing retroactive. See, what happens when you commit a crime is that afterwards you get prosecuted for it. You don't get prosecuted before you do it. See, time doesn't work that way. So all prosecutions are in hindsight.


I guess hindsight doesn't convey exactly what I mean either. Look, you don't have to tell me what I already know and have already stated, for the billionth time, I know it's not technically ex post facto. I'm not sure how I can articulate what I'm saying. I think the reasoning behind concepts like ex post facto still apply, even if that concept specifically doesn't. If you're assured that it's legal, all the way up to the presidency, although not actually legal, the only distinctions making it not is technical and somewhat arbitrary - if law is defined by decree by authority, and the presidency is about as authoritative as you can get in the US, then it's not completely meaningless to say that it was in some senses legal, or at least 'allowed'. At the very least you have to take this into account, I'm not saying this alone means they get off scot free. Ahh, this doesn't really convey what I'm saying properly.

I guess hindsight doesn't convey exactly what I mean either. Look, you don't have to tell me what I already know and have already stated, for the billionth time, I know it's not technically ex post facto. I'm not sure how I can articulate what I'm saying. I think the reasoning behind concepts like ex post facto still apply, even if that concept specifically doesn't. If you're assured that it's legal, all the way up to the presidency, although not actually legal, the only distinctions making it not is technical and somewhat arbitrary - if law is defined by decree by authority, and the presidency is about as authoritative as you can get in the US, then it's not completely meaningless to say that it was in some senses legal, or at least 'allowed'. At the very least you have to take this into account, I'm not saying this alone means they get off scot free. Ahh, this doesn't really convey what I'm saying properly.

Which gets back to "I was only following orders", which isn't a valid legal argument. Once again, I showed a legal precedent for someone being held accountable for following the illegal orders of the President. In that case, unlike this one, it was an honest mistake on the part of the President, but that doesn't change that you are responsible for following the law, even if someone told you not to and assured you that you weren't actually committing a crime.

The President DOES NOT make law and DOES NOT interpret law. He is not the authority on what is legal or not. You keep saying that like repeating it will make it true. The President does not set the law. He is part of the Executive Branch. Bush may have pretended this wasn't the case, but that does not make it so.

Moreso, there is simply no excuse for people who are meant to be experts on torture, and they are, to not know what is and isn't torture.

It's utter crap to claim that they didn't know what they were doing was torture. They did. They knew it was illegal. They figured it's allowed so let's use it and that's precisely why they NEED to be punished.

"I was only following orders", which isn't a valid legal argument.that doesn't change that you are responsible for following the law, even if someone told you not to and assured you that you weren't actually committing a crime.


Does 'is' imply 'ought'?


The President DOES NOT make law and DOES NOT interpret law. He is not the authority on what is legal or not. You keep saying that like repeating it will make it true. The President does not set the law. He is part of the Executive Branch. Bush may have pretended this wasn't the case, but that does not make it so.


I addressed this in the very post you quoted. I acknowledged that he doesn't make or set the law, I also acknowledged that the distinction between who does and who doesn't is a somewhat arbitrary technicality.


It's utter crap to claim that they didn't know what they were doing was torture. They did. They knew it was illegal. They figured it's allowed so let's use it and that's precisely why they NEED to be punished.

Who's they? If you're talking about the grunts, proof of the bold?

Does 'is' imply 'ought'?

I addressed this in the very post you quoted. I acknowledged that he doesn't make or set the law, I also acknowledged that the distinction between who does and who doesn't is a somewhat arbitrary technicality.

Dude, don't use words if you don't know what they mean. The line between the Executive and the Legislative and the Judicial isn't arbitrary. At all. In fact, you can't really have an arbitrary technicality. It can't be discretionary and a defined technicality. Seriously, it's annoying. If you don't know what a word means, don't use it or look it up.

As far as it being a technicality, it's only a technicality insomuch as the seperation of powers is a technicality. That technicality is the foundation of our system of government. Bush shit all over it. The new administration is doing a major disservice to itself when it doesn't prevent that from continuing and doesn't demonstrate that following our law is a major and important part of that job.

Who's they? If you're talking about the grunts, proof of the bold?

Amusing. I love when people pretend we have to prove people actually know their job. The default is that they know their job. You know when I was in the military and worked with Intelligence for a short time, torture or stressing people out and where the line is was a pretty heavy topic. And we were only discussing theory. None of the people I knew had ever actually interrogated anyone. It's funny that you'd like us to assume that people who actually do interrogations know less about the subject than reservists who have never even seen a person who needed interrogating.

Seriously, it cracks me up how quickly you want to paint interrogators as ignorant grunts. If they really are so ignorant and incompetent, then why the hell did they ever have the control over these individuals necessary to actually execute water torture. Clearly, they're not educated about the practice, right? Doesn't that make the threat of death more than a threat?

Dude, don't use words if you don't know what they mean. The line between the Executive and the Legislative and the Judicial isn't arbitrary. At all. In fact, you can't really have an arbitrary technicality. It can't be discretionary and a defined technicality. Seriously, it's annoying. If you don't know what a word means, don't use it or look it up.

Perhaps it was a bad choice of word, I accept that (although I tend to use the word as a nihilist does, in a very lax way, basically referring to anything that doesn't have inherent value or purpose), that doesn't warrant you acting childish and cocky about it.


As far as it being a technicality, it's only a technicality insomuch as the seperation of powers is a technicality. That technicality is the foundation of our system of government. Bush shit all over it. The new administration is doing a major disservice to itself when it doesn't prevent that from continuing and doesn't demonstrate that following our law is a major and important part of that job.


You're missing the point, the distinction is not so meaningful as it CHANGES everything, it's just a distinction defined by society, not a natural and necessary distinction. When making a moral judgement on fairness, I would find such a technicality to be pretty irrelevant to whether this person 'ought' to be punished or not.


Amusing. I love when people pretend we have to prove people actually know their job. The default is that they know their job. You know when I was in the military and worked with Intelligence for a short time, torture or stressing people out and where the line is was a pretty heavy topic. And we were only discussing theory. None of the people I knew had ever actually interrogated anyone. It's funny that you'd like us to assume that people who actually do interrogations know less about the subject than reservists who have never even seen a person who needed interrogating.

Seriously, it cracks me up how quickly you want to paint interrogators as ignorant grunts. If they really are so ignorant and incompetent, then why the hell did they ever have the control over these individuals necessary to actually execute water torture. Clearly, they're not educated about the practice, right? Doesn't that make the threat of death more than a threat?

Frankly, I don't believe you. No amount of condescending rhetoric and anecdotes will convince me, I want proof that these interrogators knew that the Bush admin was wrong and that it was in fact illegal.

The bug thing capitalized on a phobia. Unless you can deprogram all your phobias, you can't 'train for' that kind of thing.


I disagree. In fact in the memos that were just released, it talked about 10 specific things they were authorized to do and it said right below them to use them sparingly because each time you repeat each method on a prisoner, it loses some of its effectiveness. So if you can "train" on a technique it seems the government feels that you can mitigate some of its effectiveness.

Perhaps it was a bad choice of word, I accept that (although I tend to use the word as a nihilist does, in a very lax way, basically referring to anything that doesn't have inherent value or purpose), that doesn't warrant you acting childish and cocky about it.



You're missing the point, the distinction is not so meaningful as it CHANGES everything, it's just a distinction defined by society, not a natural and necessary distinction. When making a moral judgement on fairness, I would find such a technicality to be pretty irrelevant to whether this person 'ought' to be punished or not.

We're talking about our rule of law. By definition, it's defined by society.

So in your opinion, the President is above the law, eh? Because as soon as you say it's okay to do something provided the President told you to do it, because the fact that he doesn't make law does not matter, then you've placed him above the law.

Fortunately, that's not legal in the US. Because once you declare that as so, a President can quite honestly declare himself dictator if he's popular enough. Because he's above the law.

Frankly, I don't believe you. No amount of condescending rhetoric and anecdotes will convince me, I want proof that these interrogators knew that the Bush admin was wrong and that it was in fact illegal.

I want you to prove that I know that stabbing someone in the heart will cause their death. Go ahead.

Fortunately, that's not legal in the US. Because once you declare that as so, a President can quite honestly declare himself dictator if he's popular enough. Because he's above the law.


The President doesnt even need to be popular. 27% support and enough friends in Congress appeared to be sufficient.

The President doesnt even need to be popular. 27% support and enough friends in Congress appeared to be sufficient.

Yeah, no shit. That's why the rule of law is so important. It was a dangerous road we were on, and it continues to be so long as we ignore justice.

as soon as you say it's okay to do something provided the President told you to do it


I'm not saying that, stop trying to derive absolutes from what I think should be taken into account in one specific situation. The situation is a hell lot more nuanced than merely 'the president telling you so'.


I want you to prove that I know that stabbing someone in the heart will cause their death. Go ahead.

You're not going to provide any proof are you?

I'm not saying that, stop trying to derive absolutes from what I think should be taken into account in one specific situation. The situation is a hell lot more nuanced than merely 'the president telling you so'.

I'm deriving absolutes. This is the law.


You're not going to provide any proof are you?

You're asking for unnecessary proof. Again, prove to me that I know that stabbing someone in the heart will kill them. Go ahead. Prove it. You're not going to provide any proof are you?

Proving what people know is impossible. That's why we go by what they reasonably should know.

The issue here isnt about what the President tells you. The ultimate arbiter here isnt the President its the Department of Justice. Its their ultimate responsibility to determine what is legal or illegal pretrial. The President on down has to bow to their decisions. If that organization was corrupted by politics, it is those people that should be forced to pay. The decision isnt nor should it even be up to the President to prosecute. Its up to the US Attorney and if there was neglect or malfeasance in his office it should be punished as you would anywhere or anytime else.

I'm deriving absolutes. This is the law.


I'm not trying to make a legal precedent here, at the moment, but if I was, I would be taking a lot more into account than just that.


Proving what people know is impossible. That's why we go by what they reasonably should know.

So you don't actually know that they knew it was illegal. You're making it seem like it should have been as obvious to them as stabbing someone in the heart will kill them, but I don't think that's obvious either. I think the situation is completely different, the deception, the reassurance from the highest sectors of governance, the ambiguity and the Milgram experiment like conditions etc..., can lead to a great deal of confusion for individual people. Not only is there no actual proof that they knew it was illegal, I've yet to see anything compelling to lead me to think that it was very likely that they did either.

The issue here isnt about what the President tells you. The ultimate arbiter here isnt the President its the Department of Justice. Its their ultimate responsibility to determine what is legal or illegal pretrial. The President on down has to bow to their decisions. If that organization was corrupted by politics, it is those people that should be forced to pay. The decision isnt nor should it even be up to the President to prosecute. Its up to the US Attorney and if there was neglect or malfeasance in his office it should be punished as you would anywhere or anytime else.

That's only partially true. They decide what to prosecute. They do not decide what is illegal or legal.

I'm not trying to make a legal precedent here, at the moment, but if I was, I would be taking a lot more into account than just that.

There is a legal precedent already. What your saying has nothing to with what the law is. And since we're talking about illegal versus legal, the law has a lot more relevance than your rants.

So you don't actually know that they knew it was illegal. You're making it seem like it should have been as obvious to them as stabbing someone in the heart will kill them, but I don't think that's obvious either. I think the situation is completely different, the deception, the reassurance from the highest sectors of governance, the ambiguity and the Milgram experiment like conditions etc..., can lead to a great deal of confusion for individual people. Not only is there no actual proof that they knew it was illegal, I've yet to see anything compelling to lead me to think that it was very likely that they did either.

Of course you do, because obviously, you've been trained in waterboarding, yeah? See, under the law, they actually expect you to have reasonable knowledge about a field you're listed as an expert in. Among that reasonable knowledge is very much whether or not something is torture and whether or not it's previously been outlawed. It's not like Bush took office and fired everyone in the CIA that was there before 2000.

Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the actual precedent for this. The President has violated the law before and people have been prosecuted for following the President. This occurs because the President does not decide what is legal and illegal. It is not their role. They may choose what to enforce, as is their role, but that is not the same thing. Bush chose not to enforce the rule of law, but that doesn't change that it was illegal and that the relevant information as to its illegality is and always was available to the people who are supposed to be experts on the subject.

Again, I refuse to believe that people know that stabbing someone in the heart will kill them. Show me something compelling to prove otherwise. (See, you keep claiming there is a difference, but my request of you is just as impossible as your request of me.)

1) Kindly explain precisely how you imagine that information about how war crimes were committed is going to increase the risk for troops in the field. I really want to hear that one.

would some of the information be classified? Yes. Then its release poses a threat to national security and troops in the field.
Perhaps legitimate intel was gotten before torture and is in the same report.
And soldiers in the field are using that intel in the fight agaist insurgants in Iraq. The problem with classified infor is we dont know what it says. We jsut have to assume those who have read all the information (in this case Obama) make the right choice about risking it being brought to the surface in a trial.



2) Kindly also explain how there is no such thing as a court-issued gag order to keep information away from the public until a trial is over, or no such thing as proceedings in closed chambers, or no such thing as a sequestered jury, or no such thing as a special tribunal for special crimes, particularly dealing with sensitive/classified matters, or no such thing as any of the other exceptions to the public trial mandate that exist because reality sometimes demands that information be controlled for periods of time. I'd really like to hear all about how none of those things exist, thus guaranteeing that any information testified to at a war crimes trial is going to become public in a way that will endanger troops as you imagine. Don't forget to explain how that will happen, too, or else, this explanation won't make any sense.
List one example of a court issued Gag order over the objections of the Defense.
List one example of a Tribunal trying someone when the Us citzen defendant has insisted on a jury trial.
A sequestered jury is to protect the defendant from media bias, not to protect the national security of the country, besides you going to sequester them for 6 years until the information is no longer classified?
AS for information being withheld that is fine and dandy if it is the prosecution having their information limited. For the Defense on the other hand that is called suppression of Defense evidence. Name one single case law where Suppression of defense evidence is a good thing ?
Almost always suppression of evidence is grounds for a mistrial, and is often grounds for disbar of the one who suppressed the evidence.

would some of the information be classified? Yes. Then its release poses a threat to national security and troops in the field.
Perhaps legitimate intel was gotten before torture and is in the same report.
And soldiers in the field are using that intel in the fight agaist insurgants in Iraq. The problem with classified infor is we dont know what it says. We jsut have to assume those who have read all the information (in this case Obama) make the right choice about risking it being brought to the surface in a trial.

List one example of a court issued Gag order over the objections of the Defense.
List one example of a Tribunal trying someone when the Us citzen defendant has insisted on a jury trial.
A sequestered jury is to protect the defendant from media bias, not to protect the national security of the country, besides you going to sequester them for 6 years until the information is no longer classified?
AS for information being withheld that is fine and dandy if it is the prosecution having their information limited. For the Defense on the other hand that is called suppression of Defense evidence. Name one single case law where Suppression of defense evidence is a good thing ?
Almost always suppression of evidence is grounds for a mistrial, and is often grounds for disbar of the one who suppressed the evidence.

I can name an instance where there was evidence used in a trial that was not publically available. The rape shield. Go ahead, my friend, address that.

See, you're made up bullshit doesn't address that we actually have laws built around protecting people and information relevant to a trial. We already have means to evaluate evidence and it's relevance. You have yet to offer up ONE reason why the infromation you're talking about would be relevant.

Go ahead, list ONE example of why the information you're talking about is relevant. Give ONE example of how it makes the turture not a crime or changes who committed it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/us/politics/20CIA.html?_r=1&hp

Former C.I.A. Director Defends Interrogation
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who served as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, said Sunday that the Obama administration’s recent release of memos detailing harsh interrogation techniques would limit the agency’s ability to pursue terrorists in the future.

The C.I.A. used harsh techniques like waterboarding on detainees from 2002 through 2005, before General Hayden became director. He told a Congressional committee in 2008 that the technique was explicitly dropped from the agency’s authorized methods in 2006 and that he believed its use was likely to have been illegal.

But speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” General Hayden said that the descriptions gave Al Qaeda a tactical advantage by allowing them to prepare for specific practices used by the C.I.A., even if those practices are not in use now.

“It describes the box within which Americans will not go beyond,” General Hayden said. “To me, that’s very useful for our enemies, even if, as a policy matter, this president at this time had decided not to use one, any, or all of those techniques.”
The Obama administration has said that it opposes prosecuting agents involved in interrogations using techniques that they had been told were legal, although some Democrats have raised the prospect of prosecuting senior Bush administration officials and Justice Department lawyers who authorized the harsh interrogations.

Mr. Ensign and Gen. Hayden also argued that the prospect of prosecution would give C.I.A. agents pause when accepting legal advice about the practices they use.

“The basic foundation of the legitimacy of the agency’s action has shifted from some durability of law to a product of the American political process,” he said. “That puts agency officers in a horrible position.”
Mr. Axelrod said that the president’s ban on enhanced interrogation techniques was more important that the release of the C.I.A.’s memos.

“We’re moving past all of that,” Mr. Axelrod said on “Face the Nation.” “And to revisit it again and again and again isn’t, in the president’s view, in the country’s interest.”

Mr. Axelrod reiterated that harsh interrogation techniques are ineffective. This view was bolstered by the disclosure in the memos released last week of a debate within the C.I.A. about whether the brutal treatment of Abu Zubaydah, a detainee captured in Pakistan in 2002, yielded any real intelligence. According to the documents and former intelligence officials, the first use of waterboarding and other rough treatment against Abu Zubaydah was ordered despite the belief of interrogators that he had already told them all he knew. The harsh treatment led to no breakthroughs, according to one intelligence official with knowledge of the case.

Gen. Hayden on Sunday questioned this account, saying that Abu Zubaydah had “clammed up,” but then gave up information that led to the arrest of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was later charged with helping coordinate the Sept. 11 attacks.

In an opinion column in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Gen. Hayden and former U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey wrote that “fully half” of the government’s information about Al Qaeda’s structures and activities came from interrogation when “coercive interrogation” was used.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/us/politics/20CIA.html?_r=1&hp

Former C.I.A. Director Defends Interrogation

So apparently Gen. Hayden believes whether or not the CIA follows the law should be at the discretion of the President. This is precisely why he and everyone else should be prosecuted. They need to learn that the law is not set by the President.

There is a legal precedent already. What your saying has nothing to with what the law is. And since we're talking about illegal versus legal, the law has a lot more relevance than your rants.


Again, is/ought. As I'm sure you must have realised by now, I'm not discussing what the law is at the moment, if you're only interested in that, stop debating with me.


Of course you do, because obviously, you've been trained in waterboarding, yeah? See, under the law, they actually expect you to have reasonable knowledge about a field you're listed as an expert in. Among that reasonable knowledge is very much whether or not something is torture and whether or not it's previously been outlawed. It's not like Bush took office and fired everyone in the CIA that was there before 2000.


So they took a few classes in war law, again, that doesn't convince me that it would have counter-acted the conditions in Guantánamo Bay.


Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the actual precedent for this. The President has violated the law before and people have been prosecuted for following the President. This occurs because the President does not decide what is legal and illegal. It is not their role. They may choose what to enforce, as is their role, but that is not the same thing. Bush chose not to enforce the rule of law, but that doesn't change that it was illegal and that the relevant information as to its illegality is and always was available to the people who are supposed to be experts on the subject.

Again, I refuse to believe that people know that stabbing someone in the heart will kill them. Show me something compelling to prove otherwise. (See, you keep claiming there is a difference, but my request of you is just as impossible as your request of me.)

The situation would be more like, if a doctor told you that a patient has some rare heart condition, but kept on reassuring you that a precise stabbing in the heart will remove the growth or whatever, and he says that you must stab him straight away or he will die. It's obviously bullshit, but it's still not immediately obvious that the person has been deceived or not. Again, under certain conditions, you can be very suggestive, as empirical studies have shown.

So apparently Gen. Hayden believes whether or not the CIA follows the law should be at the discretion of the President.

It kinda is.

You're not going to provide any proof are you?

Ignorance of the law isn't a defence either don't forget.

I really cannot continue this right now, I really need to revise.

Again, is/ought. As I'm sure you must have realised by now, I'm not discussing what the law is at the moment, if you're only interested in that, stop debating with me.

We're talking about legality. If the law changes after the fact, that wouldn't change what it IS, now would it?


So they took a few classes in war law, again, that doesn't convince me that it would have counter-acted the conditions in Guantánamo Bay.

Um, what? They learn about the techniques and their use. Their legality is very relevant to that. We've prosecuted people in the past, both US citizens for using it and others for using it against US citizens. That's entirely relevant to whether or not it should be used. They learn a lot about the line. Seriously, how could they not?

It's funny to me that you dismiss their educations as so completely irrelevant and then claim you've seen no evidence they have any education at all.

Let's face it you're full of shit. You know it. I know it. It's not that you've not seen anything convincing. It's that you refuse to be convinced. Nothing is going to be shown you that's going to make you say, hey, you're right, let's prosecute those bastards to the fullest extent of the law. It's okay that you're taking that position, but, come on, let's not beat around the bush. You've already pointed out you don't think the law should be used to determine legality. You've already pointed out you don't think the law should be considered relevant to whether or not people are prosecuted. You've already pointed out that you think that what is and isn't legal should change every 8 years. You've already pointed out that you don't think people should be responsible for their own actions. Let's stop playing games here.

The situation would be more like, if a doctor told you that a patient has some rare heart condition, but kept on reassuring you that a precise stabbing in the heart will remove the growth or whatever, and he says that you must stab him straight away or he will die. It's obviously bullshit, but it's still not immediately obvious that the person has been deceived or not. Again, under certain conditions, you can be very suggestive, as empirical studies have shown.

Rare? We're not talking about anything rare, here. We're talking about a rather famous technique. A technique common enough to have been ruled on by the President of the United States (probably by more than one President, frankly). We're talking about a technique that has made it's way into the media and the law repeatedly. Not quite as rare as you'd like to pretend. So, yes, provided the interrogators were wildly ignorant as to the history and usage fo this technique and hadn't studied the technique, you're right.

And here, the person being told to do the stabbing is also a doctor, and very much should know better.

It kinda is.

No, it isn't. That's exactly why we need to prosecute.

We're talking about legality. If the law changes after the fact, that wouldn't change what it IS, now would it?


I'm talking about reasoning why Obama didn't try to legally prosecute them, I don't care what the courts would have done with them if they were charged.


Um, what? They learn about the techniques and their use.

Yes, you've told me that already.


It's funny to me that you dismiss their educations as so completely irrelevant

I hate how you do this. Seriously, if you have no fucking clue what my position, don't make some bullshit up and say that this is what I think. In fact, this is entirely what you do, that is your debating 'technique'.


and then claim you've seen no evidence they have any education at all.


When the fuck did I say this?


Let's face it you're full of shit. You know it. I know it. It's not that you've not seen anything convincing. It's that you refuse to be convinced. Nothing is going to be shown you that's going to make you say, hey, you're right, let's prosecute those bastards to the fullest extent of the law. It's okay that you're taking that position, but, come on, let's not beat around the bush.

It wouldn't be a Jocabia post without totally pointless abrasive rhetoric. Seriously, you're a fucking adult. And inb4 irony, you're doing it too etc... I know it's childish but - 'you started it'.


You've already pointed out you don't think the law should be used to determine legality. You've already pointed out you don't think the law should be considered relevant to whether or not people are prosecuted. You've already pointed out that you think that what is and isn't legal should change every 8 years. You've already pointed out that you don'tthink people should be responsible for their own actions.

Show me where the fuck I said any of this, or take it back. None of those positions even come close to anything I've said, you either have terrible reading comprehension, or disgracefully misinterpret people and extremely simplify their positions deliberately for your own ends. I'm not going to debate with you if you persist with this.


Rare? We're not talking about anything rare, here.

Oh for fucks sake, the 'rare' part was irrelevant, I wasn't trying to convey anything with it.


And here, the person being told to do the stabbing is also a doctor, and very much should know better.

No, the person would probably have the legal equivalent knowledge of a nurse at best, who's been reassured by the chief of medicine.

No, it isn't. That's exactly why we need to prosecute.

The point is who needs to prosecute? The Executive! Laws are laws, but what determines if you get prosecuted isn't what the law is, but whether or not the law is enforced. So if there's a law on the books against torture, and you torture someone, you're breaking the law, but it doesn't matter if you break the law and no one cares.

If someone cuts down a tree in a protected forest, and no one cares...

I can name an instance where there was evidence used in a trial that was not publically available. The rape shield. Go ahead, my friend, address that.

In this case that would only be relevant if someone who was tortured testified. It is a law designed to protect victims from retaliation. Classified documents are not victims. Also it is not suppression of the evidence the victim is cross examined behind a screen.


See, you're made up bullshit doesn't address that we actually have laws built around protecting people and information relevant to a trial. We already have means to evaluate evidence and it's relevance. You have yet to offer up ONE reason why the infromation you're talking about would be relevant.

Go ahead, list ONE example of why the information you're talking about is relevant. Give ONE example of how it makes the turture not a crime or changes who committed it?

Not torture but similar circumstance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403855.html
Defense getting to use classified information over the objections of the government. I suspect charges will be dropped.

Similar rulings were made in United States Vs Wen Ho Lee.
Oliver North had the charges dropped because against him in the Iran contra scandal for similar reasons as well.
And most recently the Katharine Teresa Gun case.

I'm talking about reasoning why Obama didn't try to legally prosecute them, I don't care what the courts would have done with them if they were charged.

And Obama is breaking the law. He is required to uphold it. That's the point.


Yes, you've told me that already.

I hate how you do this. Seriously, if you have no fucking clue what my position, don't make some bullshit up and say that this is what I think. In fact, this is entirely what you do, that is your debating 'technique'.

You've regularly compared them to various peon positions that have less knowledge about the techniques than the legal experts. The issue here is that these guys are experts on the techniques. You pretend otherwise. I've frequently caught you backpeddaling on what you said. Uh, I didn't mean retroactive... uh, I didn't mean this... uh, I didn't mean that...

Don't get all pissed off because you're having trouble making an argument.

You can put me on ignore if you like. I wouldn't be the first person you got pissed at for making your argument look silly.

When the fuck did I say this?

When you say you've seen no evidence that they're aware of the status of the techniques.


It wouldn't be a Jocabia post without totally pointless abrasive rhetoric. Seriously, you're a fucking adult. And inb4 irony, you're doing it too etc... I know it's childish but - 'you started it'.

Whatever, man. We both know. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're not actually evaluating any evidence at all.

Show me where the fuck I said any of this, or take it back. None of those positions even come close to anything I've said, you either have terrible reading comprehension, or disgracefully misinterpret people and extremely simplify their positions deliberately for your own ends. I'm not going to debate with you if you persist with this.

Or take it back? Dude, you act like you just got here. It's one thing when someone like Intangelon lectures me, but seriously, this is just embarrassing for you. We both know who you are and how you argue. We both know you're scrambling. And I can quote you repeatedly backtracking. Don't give me this "or take it back" nonsense. It never works on anyone else, it sure isn't going to work on me. We're not on a playground. We're in a debate. Act like it.

You've repeatedly claimed that you don't believe they were educated on the status of the techniques. You've repeatedly stated that you don't believe the current law is relevant to the topic which is why you keep saying how it "ought" to be and told me to stop arguing about what is. You've blatantly said that you think the President is effectively the final say on what is and isn't legal, which would change every 8 years. I'm not extrapolating. These are things you actually said. Are you denying that? Seriously?


Oh for fucks sake, the 'rare' part was irrelevant, I wasn't trying to convey anything with it.

No, it isn't. Your analogy rests on the idea that the person performing the procedure is entirely ignorant of the actual effect. It requires the procedure to be rare enough, they wouldn't know, and it requires them to be uneducated compared to the person telling them what to do. Neither of those fit the reality of the situation.

No, the person would probably have the legal equivalent knowledge of a nurse at best, who's been reassured by the chief of medicine.

Seriously, you're full of shit. We're talking about torture. These guys ARE the doctors. They are the people who are experts in executing these techniques. The DOJ is more like the hospital lawyer and the chief administrator telling you to stab the person in the heart. The lawyers aren't experts on the technique. They aren't experts on the status of the technique. If you read many of the memos they had to investigate and frequently admitted ignorance.

In this case that would only be relevant if someone who was tortured testified. It is a law designed to protect victims from retaliation. Classified documents are not victims. Also it is not suppression of the evidence the victim is cross examined behind a screen.


Not torture but similar circumstance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403855.html
Defense getting to use classified information over the objections of the government. I suspect charges will be dropped.

Similar rulings were made in United States Vs Wen Ho Lee.
Oliver North had the charges dropped because against him in the Iran contra scandal for similar reasons as well.
And most recently the Katharine Teresa Gun case.

Kind of missing the point, aren't you? They've got ways of protecting information from public view.

Also, you've not actually shown why the classified informatino is relevant. You're listing examples where the accusations were actually related to things that, themselves, were classified. However, here, the event, torture, isn't classified anymore. We know it occurred. You keep talkking about them revealing what was uncovered under torture, but you've not once said why it's relevant. I suppose it time to ask, do you understand the question? I'm not being an ass, I promise. Do you understand that in order to show it's relevant to the case that you have to show the results somehow make it either not a crime or change who committed it? Now, can you answer the question. Why are the results of interrogations relevant?

The point is who needs to prosecute? The Executive! Laws are laws, but what determines if you get prosecuted isn't what the law is, but whether or not the law is enforced. So if there's a law on the books against torture, and you torture someone, you're breaking the law, but it doesn't matter if you break the law and no one cares.

If someone cuts down a tree in a protected forest, and no one cares...

You're right. But that's precisely why they should. That's the point. Because they need to know that just because the Bush administration won't prosecute, they'll eventually be replaced and that administration might. That's precisely the point.

You're right. But that's precisely why they should. That's the point. Because they need to know that just because the Bush administration won't prosecute, they'll eventually be replaced and that administration might. That's precisely the point.

Unfortunately for us all, whether or not something is illegal is not the only consideration when we're talking about the Executive.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/axelrod_on_torture_prosecutions.php

SMITH: On the other hand, groups like the ACLU and others have said this proves there are prosecutable crimes that need to be acted on. What's your response to that?

AXELROD: Well, the president has said, if there were agents of the United States government acting on legal advice that what they were doing was legal and appropriate, that they should not be prosecuted.

If people acted outside the law, that's a different issue. But the main point is the president has banned these enhanced interrogation techniques. We have turned the page on this episode in our history. We have so many challenges in front of us, in terms of our national security, our relations in the world.

And remember, these techniques, far from enhancing our safety, really become a recruiting and propaganda tool for Al Qaida and the extremists around the world. We're moving past all of that. And to revisit it again and again and again isn't, in the president's view, in the country's interest.

Unfortunately for us all, whether or not something is illegal is not the only consideration when we're talking about the Executive.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/axelrod_on_torture_prosecutions.php

Which is the point of the thread. Honestly, who argued Obama's administration has nothing to say about it. I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about. I said that Obama SHOULD prosecute precisely to prevent people from simply doing whatever the President says when he's violating the law. It IS illegal and it should be treated as such.

So no one is arguing that Obama is GOING TO prosecute. WE're arguing that he SHOULD. Why would we have that argument if we didn't think he had anything to say about it?

You've regularly compared them to various peon positions that have less knowledge about the techniques than the legal experts.

That's totally different from dismissing their education as irrelevant. I just don't see any reason to assume it was enough to counter the effects, even though it obviously would have helped a bit.


The issue here is that these guys are experts on the techniques. You pretend otherwise. I've frequently caught you backpeddaling on what you said. Uh, I didn't mean retroactive... uh, I didn't mean this... uh, I didn't mean that...

I told you that I couldn't at the time articulate my position properly, couldn't quite think of the right words to describe what I meant (I still don't even think I've properly told you my position, I've waisted too much time trying to burn your strawmen), a reasonable person like yourself should not jump on that as back-pedalling just to gain some plus 1. I'm not going to respond any more to this, there's no point in addressing your speculations on what my position was or is, it adds nothing except more to the quote mountain.


You can put me on ignore if you like.

I might just do this.


I wouldn't be the first person you got pissed at for making your argument look silly.

No, there was Mur as well, who had similar tactics to you, by making up bullshit or deliberately oversimplifying and presenting it as my argument to 'make it look silly'.


When you say you've seen no evidence that they're aware of the status of the techniques.


I didn't say they have no idea, I said that they're education does not make them infallible, does not make them unsusceptible to deception and other psychological effects well documented.


At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're not actually evaluating any evidence at all.


Evidence? What evidence? You have yet to present any.


Or take it back? Dude, you act like you just got here. It's one thing when someone like Intangelon lectures me, but seriously, this is just embarrassing for you. We both know who you are and how you argue. We both know you're scrambling. And I can quote you repeatedly backtracking. Don't give me this "or take it back" nonsense. It never works on anyone else, it sure isn't going to work on me. We're not on a playground. We're in a debate. Act like it.


You first, you know what you're doing, your tactic of extreme oversimplification, taking out all context, and making what I say a universal absolute, and then addressing it, or otherwise making shit up entirely.


You've repeatedly claimed that you don't believe they were educated on the status of the techniques.

Never said that.


You've repeatedly stated that you don't believe the current law is relevant to the topic which is why you keep saying how it "ought" to be and told me to stop arguing about what is.

What the law currently is is not relevant to what I'm arguing, I never said it wasn't relevant to the topic.


You've blatantly said that you think the President is effectively the final say on what is and isn't legal,

Absolutely not.


Are you denying that? Seriously?

Yes.

[QUOTE]
No, it isn't. Your analogy rests on the idea that the person performing the procedure is entirely ignorant of the actual effect. It requires the procedure to be rare enough, they wouldn't know, and it requires them to be uneducated compared to the person telling them what to do. Neither of those fit the reality of the situation.


I didn't say it was a perfect analogy, but it was infinitely better than your version of just a man not knowing if someone stabbing someone else in the chest will kill them.


Seriously, you're full of shit. We're talking about torture. These guys ARE the doctors. They are the people who are experts in executing these techniques. The DOJ is more like the hospital lawyer and the chief administrator telling you to stab the person in the heart. The lawyers aren't experts on the technique. They aren't experts on the status of the technique. If you read many of the memos they had to investigate and frequently admitted ignorance.

So a lawyer can be ignorant about the technique, even though he's specifically declaring the legality of it (which would require extensive research into what exactly is defined as legal interrogation methods and which aren't, and thus knowledge of the techniques themselves), but a military or CIA grunt can't be deceived and convinced that a technique is legal even though it isn't?

Kind of missing the point, aren't you? They've got ways of protecting information from public view.

Not when the defense wants it all public.
It is called the Grey Mail Defense strategy.
It is pretty much the entire legal career of John D. Cline(know here as Neo Art).

Also, you've not actually shown why the classified informatino is relevant. You're listing examples where the accusations were actually related to things that, themselves, were classified. However, here, the event, torture, isn't classified anymore. We know it occurred. You keep talkking about them revealing what was uncovered under torture, but you've not once said why it's relevant. I suppose it time to ask, do you understand the question? I'm not being an ass, I promise. Do you understand that in order to show it's relevant to the case that you have to show the results somehow make it either not a crime or change who committed it? Now, can you answer the question. Why are the results of interrogations relevant?

It is hard to say a report is relevant or irrelevant when they are classified and can't be read.
But the report over the results of torture needs to be reviewed by the defense. If inconsistency exist between reports it calls into question the initial report of torture, used as evidence by the prosecution.
Any piece of evidence that may be remotely related to the case the defense needs to be able to review and to see if it can frame an argument on.

would some of the information be classified? Yes. Then its release poses a threat to national security and troops in the field.
Perhaps legitimate intel was gotten before torture and is in the same report.
And soldiers in the field are using that intel in the fight agaist insurgants in Iraq. The problem with classified infor is we dont know what it says. We jsut have to assume those who have read all the information (in this case Obama) make the right choice about risking it being brought to the surface in a trial.

List one example of a court issued Gag order over the objections of the Defense.
List one example of a Tribunal trying someone when the Us citzen defendant has insisted on a jury trial.
A sequestered jury is to protect the defendant from media bias, not to protect the national security of the country, besides you going to sequester them for 6 years until the information is no longer classified?
AS for information being withheld that is fine and dandy if it is the prosecution having their information limited. For the Defense on the other hand that is called suppression of Defense evidence. Name one single case law where Suppression of defense evidence is a good thing ?
Almost always suppression of evidence is grounds for a mistrial, and is often grounds for disbar of the one who suppressed the evidence.
Do you have to get stoned to make up this much bullshit? Or is it a talent you have nurtured over the years?

Every gag order issued by a judge is issued over the objections of one or both of the attorneys in the case. Gag orders are to shut up people who are running or threatening to run their mouths.

Also, you clearly have no idea what "suppression of evidence" means. That's when the prosecutor hides evidence that he is required to reveal to the defense. The public has nothing to do with it. The public trial provision in the Constitution does NOT require either side to reveal their evidence to the public. Only to each other and the court.

As for information withheld from the public without invalidating the proceedings of a court, Jocabia already threw down one gauntlet -- the rape shield that hides the identity of rape victims from the public.

Here's another: The FISA court, which is a court especially designed to deal with matters involving classified government information and which is never published for public perusal unless and until the information is declassifed, and many times not even then.

This is ridiculous. Your argument is like a joke. How can you be so pathetically wrong on every single fact when you are actually on the internet, which would let you look up all these facts before you make a fool of yourself?

It kinda is.
No, it really, really isn't.

You're right. But that's precisely why they should. That's the point. Because they need to know that just because the Bush administration won't prosecute, they'll eventually be replaced and that administration might. That's precisely the point.
Well, Obama needs to remember that, too.

Unfortunately for us all, whether or not something is illegal is not the only consideration when we're talking about the Executive.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/axelrod_on_torture_prosecutions.php
Axelrod. Who works for Obama. Did we expect him to say anything else? Also, precisely what does his recitation of the "we're moving on" mantra have to do with "other considerations"?

Do you have to get stoned to make up this much bullshit? Or is it a talent you have nurtured over the years?

Do you try to rewrite the constitution for everyone or just people you don't lie.

Every gag order issued by a judge is issued over the objections of one or both of the attorneys in the case. Gag orders are to shut up people who are running or threatening to run their mouths.


Also, you clearly have no idea what "suppression of evidence" means. That's when the prosecutor hides evidence that he is required to reveal to the defense. The public has nothing to do with it. The public trial provision in the Constitution does NOT require either side to reveal their evidence to the public. Only to each other and the court.
[/quote]
supression of evidence is used anytime evidence is withheld.
For instance if the prosecution obtained evidence illegally.
As for purblic trial It was defined as meaning the media by Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 1966. And other case law. Your assertion the Constitution only means sharing of evidence between defense and prosecuting attorneys is completely contradicted by relevant case law.

As for information withheld from the public without invalidating the proceedings of a court, Jocabia already threw down one gauntlet -- the rape shield that hides the identity of rape victims from the public.

As I pointed out to him that's irrelevant.
The laws are designed to protect victims from retribution, documents do not fear retribution. Unless your suggesting that we use Rape shield laws to protect documents. furthermore Rape shield laws to not prevent the testimony form being made public. They only only protect the identity of the one making the testimony.

Here's another: The FISA court, which is a court especially designed to deal with matters involving classified government information and which is never published for public perusal unless and until the information is declassifed, and many times not even then.

First. FISA is the act that created the court, its acronym is the FISC.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is not a trial court. They are only allowed to issues warrants to conduct wire taps. More over the court only has authority over NONcitizens, hence the word foreign in the court's name.

This is ridiculous. Your argument is like a joke. How can you be so pathetically wrong on every single fact when you are actually on the internet, which would let you look up all these facts before you make a fool of yourself?
Your argument has lacked any case law to support it. furthermore you attempt to use partial definitions and reference non applicable laws and institutions.

Where as I have provided you with 4 instances of Case law, and clarified your misuse of legal terms and and the the mis named courts that you have used as example.

Do you try to rewrite the constitution for everyone or just people you don't lie.
I'm not rewriting anything. You're the one who doesn't know jack about the law. As for your claims to constitutionality, other posters have already proven you wrong. You don't suddenly become right just because you're talking to another person now.


supression of evidence is used anytime evidence is withheld.
For instance if the prosecution obtained evidence illegally.
As for purblic trial It was defined as meaning the media by Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 1966. And other case law. Your assertion the Constitution only means sharing of evidence between defense and prosecuting attorneys is completely contradicted by relevant case law.
Bullshit.

Also, I didn't mean that the Constitution only requires them to reveal evidence to each other. I mean that the Constitution does not require them to reveal their evidence to the public. The Constitution allows the public to observe trials but not to participate in them, except when we serve on juries. You really don't understand how this works, do you?

As I pointed out to him that's irrelevant.
The laws are designed to protect victims from retribution, documents do not fear retribution. Unless your suggesting that we use Rape shield laws to protect documents. furthermore Rape shield laws to not prevent the testimony form being made public. They only only protect the identity of the one making the testimony.
A BS equivocation. You demanded an example of information that is revealed during a trial being kept out of public knowledge. That was an example on point. Now claiming that it's not "relevant" is just you trying to pretend like you were not proven wrong when you claimed that any such withholding of information is "suppression of evidence" and grounds for mistrial. Your claim was bull, and the rape shield proved that.

First. FISA is the act that created the court, its acronym is the FISC.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is not a trial court. They are only allowed to issues warrants to conduct wire taps. More over the court only has authority over NONcitizens, hence the word foreign in the court's name.
Oh, it's supposed to be FISC, is it? Well, you'd better forward your post to the White House because everyone in the Clinton, Bush and now Obama admins have been referring to it as the FISA Court. Get it? The FISC is the C of the FISA, aka the FISA Court? :rolleyes: Your ignorance of legal matters is so intense, you can't even play "gotcha" about it.

Also, your quibble about who is affected by the cases heard by that court is another cheap dodge. You insisted that information would have to be revealed in public even though it is classified because "public trials" mean that everything has to be broadcast (despite proof that that is not true). The FISA Court (there, I said it again) is an example of a court specifically set up to handle information that cannot be revealed publicly without endangering national security. It proves that it is possible within our legal system to handle sensitive classified information in a way that preserves necessary secrecy while still conforming to the law. Therefore, you are wrong again.

Your argument has lacked any case law to support it. furthermore you attempt to use partial definitions and reference non applicable laws and institutions.

Where as I have provided you with 4 instances of Case law, and clarified your misuse of legal terms and and the the mis named courts that you have used as example.
I believe that Freud called what you just did there "projection."

Apparently you thought the two parts of my previous comment were connected - they were not. I had my personal comment, and then additional information from the administration's point of view. However, you are still wrong. Enforcement of a law is far more important than the law itself.

Not when the defense wants it all public.
It is called the Grey Mail Defense strategy.
It is pretty much the entire legal career of John D. Cline(know here as Neo Art).

I think you don't know what grey mail refers to. We already discussed earlier that it would be a good thing. It also has NOTHING to do with making it PUBLIC. It's about implicating others.


It is hard to say a report is relevant or irrelevant when they are classified and can't be read.
But the report over the results of torture needs to be reviewed by the defense. If inconsistency exist between reports it calls into question the initial report of torture, used as evidence by the prosecution.
Any piece of evidence that may be remotely related to the case the defense needs to be able to review and to see if it can frame an argument on.

Can't be read by whom? You're assuming that the report on the results of the torture is being introduced as evidence. That would be the only reason it would need to be revealed to the defense and why inconsistencies in it would be relevant.

The defense doesn't get to review anything it likes claiming it's relevant. It gets to review evidence that it can either show is relevant, that it finds itself, or that is being used against it. You're making this up wholesale.

Do you try to rewrite the constitution for everyone or just people you don't like.

Yes, yes, everytime someone explains the ACTUAL meaning of the Constitution over your failed understanding of it, it's rewriting it.

As for purblic trial It was defined as meaning the media by Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 1966.
Holy shit. Seriously, holy shit. You cite a case where the complaint is by the defendant that the case was TOO PUBLIC. You cite that as proof that a PUBLIC trial is necessary to meet consitutionality. Seriously, did you actually read the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheppard_v._Maxwell

The decision by SCOTUS was that the publicity actually harmed his right to a fair trial. It's the exact opposite of what you're looking for. Learn how to google better or stop arguing. This is pathetic.

*snip*

There is actually law relating to classified information. It basically says the oppositie of what he's been claiming.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/classifiedinformationprocedures.htm

It's designed to keep classified information as closely guarded as possible.

As demonstrated in the law, it's permissable for the prosecution to present some documents with parts edited out if the court allows them to do so. This is something our friend claimed is illegal.

It's permissable for the prosecution to argue that part or all of the classified information is not necessary to the case and needn't be revealed. Again, our friend said this was illegal.

It's required that the defense present every bit of classified information they intend to reveal more than 30 days before the trial (and any new bits they discover ASAP) in order to be reviewed the prosecution to allow them to make a case to the judge to stop it from being revealed if it's not relevant tot he case. Again, he claimed this was illegal.

Basically every bullshit claim that greed and death made up is completely flipped on its head by this law.

There is actually law relating to classified information. It basically says the oppositie of what he's been claiming.
<snip>
Thanks for looking that up. I suspected as much. I was just basing my arguments on things that are said and done within public view, and what few issues of the rules of evidence that come up working for civil attorneys, and it is so freakin' obvious that the facts contradict what he was saying just from that superficial view, that I was absolutely certain that there were specific laws covering exactly this kind of thing.

A long time ago, I had occasion to observe that it seems that, for some people, the only cure for being wrong is to be more wrong. G&D has been 100% wrong on his facts from his earliest posts, and he has only compounded his wrongness with every attempt to defend his claims. It has to be painfully obvious to everyone at this point that he literally is just making all this shit up, and now that he has been reduced to personal attacks and similar fallacious tactics, I'm ready to dismiss him. I'm sure he isn't done attempting to bully us (since he can't win, he can only hope to get us to quit), but from the degree to which his arguments have deteriorated, I would be surprised if he has anything new yet to bring us.

But nobody is calling for a token move. It's not a token move to prosecute every single person we can. It's called justice and there is nothing symbolic about it.

You don't think you are, but pragmatically, you are. There's the philosophical notion that yes, everyone gets it. But the reality is, time after time after time, we're served up the the bottom of the barrel and hands are clapped and then everyone goes about their business. So, I'm done. I'm not wasting my outrage so that they can serve me up the patsies once again and pretend it's justice. We're going to get blood if we ask for it, but if we waste our breath asking for the blood from the bottom up, all we'll get is the bottom. That's the world we live in. We've seen it happen again and again and again and again and again. I've had it. My outrage, my call for blood, is the people who get away with it, the people who can find the patsies. The people who perpetrate this thing over and over again. When we've got them, come to me about the patsies. Until then, I'm not wasting my outrage on the easy gets. We have a real opportunity here and I don't want to be pacified again. Not this time.

You don't think you are, but pragmatically, you are. There's the philosophical notion that yes, everyone gets it. But the reality is, time after time after time, we're served up the the bottom of the barrel and hands are clapped and then everyone goes about their business. So, I'm done. I'm not wasting my outrage so that they can serve me up the patsies once again and pretend it's justice. We're going to get blood if we ask for it, but if we waste our breath asking for the blood from the bottom up, all we'll get is the bottom. That's the world we live in. We've seen it happen again and again and again and again and again. I've had it. My outrage, my call for blood, is the people who get away with it, the people who can find the patsies. The people who perpetrate this thing over and over again. When we've got them, come to me about the patsies. Until then, I'm not wasting my outrage on the easy gets. We have a real opportunity here and I don't want to be pacified again. Not this time.

I don't refuse to punish some people because I can't punish everyone. A great deal of rapists don't get prosecuted, but I'd still encourage EVERY prosecution possible. A great deal of murderers never face justice, but I'd still encourage EVERY prosecution possible.

If we don't ask for blood at the bottom, we'll likely never get the blood from those near the top. Making deals is a great way to gather then necessary evidence, for one thing. For another, I don't feel like we're doing anyone any favors leting ANYONE go. I don't put a "big fish" are more important than "small fish" mentality that you do. Those that agreed to torture looking men and women in the face and tortured them. I don't find them less culpable. And I don't think of them as sacrificial lambs. I think of them as criminals who should be prosecuted. If you've not the stomach for that, then it's probably a good thing that you're not being asked. It's unfortunate that it appears Mr. Obama doesn't have the stomach to uphold the law either.

I don't refuse to punish some people because I can't punish everyone. A great deal of rapists don't get prosecuted, but I'd still encourage EVERY prosecution possible. A great deal of murderers never face justice, but I'd still encourage EVERY prosecution possible.

If we don't ask for blood at the bottom, we'll likely never get the blood from those near the top. Making deals is a great way to gather then necessary evidence, for one thing. For another, I don't feel like we're doing anyone any favors leting ANYONE go. I don't put a "big fish" are more important than "small fish" mentality that you do. Those that agreed to torture looking men and women in the face and tortured them. I don't find them less culpable. And I don't think of them as sacrificial lambs. I think of them as criminals who should be prosecuted. If you've not the stomach for that, then it's probably a good thing that you're not being asked. It's unfortunate that it appears Mr. Obama doesn't have the stomach to uphold the law either.

Nice. "I don't have the stomach for it." Trying to make the argument a challenge to my 'manhood'? Yeah, well, I'm not biting.

It's a matter of a pound of flesh or prevention. If you want a pound of flesh, that's what you'll get. And that's all you'll get. This isn't the Gotti mafia. We have the fucking memos. We don't need the patsies to talk, we have the words on paper.

I don't want the pound of flesh. I'm not as easily sated as you are (see, I can make it a personal challenge, too, if that's how you want to play it.) I want the head chopped off, not the thumbs. If we hadn't been satisfied by the pound of flesh after watergate, after Iran-Contra, maybe we wouldn't have to have the argument. I don't want to be on the internet ten years from now discussing whether or not we prosecute the death squads that had been ordered under some bullshit justification from another power player that sees that once again the public is more than happy to take the low hanging fruit and get back to their lawns.

It's not a matter of 'letting people get away' with anything. It's a matter of fucking priorities.

Nice. "I don't have the stomach for it." Trying to make the argument a challenge to my 'manhood'? Yeah, well, I'm not biting.

No, honestly, I'm not. I don't think most people could. The fact is that a lot of people balked at punishing the people at Abu Gharaib as well. It actually speaks to you being compassionate and I don't buy the bullshit that says that's not manly. Unfortunately, if you are willing to do the wrong thing because it's expedient or you can get away with it (referring to the criminals), I'm don't have a bit of compassion for you.

It's a matter of a pound of flesh or prevention. If you want a pound of flesh, that's what you'll get. And that's all you'll get. This isn't the Gotti mafia. We have the fucking memos. We don't need the patsies to talk, we have the words on paper.

I want every pound of flesh. You keep acting like there is a limit to justice. And as long as you act like you'll settle for partial justice then you're part of the problem.

And, yes, we probably do need them to talk. As you've acknowledged it's exceptionally difficult to presecute powerful people. We need every aid in doing so that we can get.


I don't want the pound of flesh. I'm not as easily sated as you are (see, I can make it a personal challenge, too, if that's how you want to play it.) I want the head chopped off, not the thumbs. If we hadn't been satisfied by the pound of flesh after watergate, after Iran-Contra, maybe we wouldn't have to have the argument. I don't want to be on the internet ten years from now discussing whether or not we prosecute the death squads that had been ordered under some bullshit justification from another power player that sees that once again the public is more than happy to take the low hanging fruit and get back to their lawns.

It's not a matter of 'letting people get away' with anything. It's a matter of fucking priorities.

No, you do want a pound of flesh. You're asking for a different pound is all. You seem to think that as long as we get the people at the top, it's okay. What I and M are calling for is for EVERYONE to be punished. The only ones calling for only some of the culprits to be punished are the ones who want them to only go after the top. We should not pick and choose which lawbreakers to punish. It's precisely that methodology that got us in the mess in the first place.

What this thread proves is that much of the public will NOT be happy with the low-hanging fruit. What this thread proves is that a lot of the public is thirsty for Bush blood and, frankly, I hope they get it.

Unfortunately for both of us, it appears that Obama isn't going after any of them under the guise of unity. And all he's doing is passing these problems on because there will be another time when a President thumbs his nose at the Constitution. Obama is not enforcing the law as is required by his position and I, for one, am very disappointed.

No, honestly, I'm not. I don't think most people could. The fact is that a lot of people balked at punishing the people at Abu Gharaib as well. It actually speaks to you being compassionate and I don't buy the bullshit that says that's not manly. Unfortunately, if you are willing to do the wrong thing because it's expedient or you can get away with it (referring to the criminals), I'm don't have a bit of compassion for you.



I want every pound of flesh. You keep acting like there is a limit to justice. And as long as you act like you'll settle for partial justice then you're part of the problem.

And, yes, we probably do need them to talk. As you've acknowledged it's exceptionally difficult to presecute powerful people. We need every aid in doing so that we can get.




No, you do want a pound of flesh. You're asking for a different pound is all. You seem to think that as long as we get the people at the top, it's okay. What I and M are calling for is for EVERYONE to be punished. The only ones calling for only some of the culprits to be punished are the ones who want them to only go after the top. We should not pick and choose which lawbreakers to punish. It's precisely that methodology that got us in the mess in the first place.

What this thread proves is that much of the public will NOT be happy with the low-hanging fruit. What this thread proves is that a lot of the public is thirst for Bush blood and, frankly, I hope they get it.

Unfortunately for both of us, it appears that Obama isn't going after any of them under the guise of unity. And all he's doing is passing these problems on because there will be another time when a President thumbs his nose at the Constitution. Obama is not enforcing the law as is required by his position and I, for one, am very disappointed.

You are operating under the delusion that I 'only' want one element punished, which suggests that you are not really reading what I am writing.

What we want. <--->What we get

We can argue what we want, what should be all day until we're blue in the face. The reality is what has happened again and again. That's what I'm talking about. You continue to pretend that it's that I don't want the interrogators. It's not. I can only imagine that it's selective reading that gives you that impression. Tell you what, show me some sort of pattern, something that tells me that there is even the slightest chance that if we go for the interrogators first that we won't stop there. If you want everyone punished, then I'm saying that where we start is at the top because time after time when you start at the bottom, that's all you get. I don't know how many times I can rephrase this for you. Now pretend it's about letting people go...

You are operating under the delusion that I 'only' want one element punished, which suggests that you are not really reading what I am writing.

What we want. <--->What we get

We can argue what we want, what should be all day until we're blue in the face. The reality is what has happened again and again. That's what I'm talking about. You continue to pretend that it's that I don't want the interrogators. It's not. I can only imagine that it's selective reading that gives you that impression. Tell you what, show me some sort of pattern, something that tells me that there is even the slightest chance that if we go for the interrogators first that we won't stop there. If you want everyone punished, then I'm saying that where we start is at the top because time after time when you start at the bottom, that's all you get. I don't know how many times I can rephrase this for you. Now pretend it's about letting people go...

Yes, but you keep acting like we have to stop prosecuting those we normally do in order to prosecute more. You are quite literally saying we need to cherrypick our criminals. There really isn't enough times we went after the top to establish a pattern. The pattern you mean to address but aren't is a pattern of not going after the top whether or NOT we go after the bottom. They aren't related.

Unfortunately, we're not going after any of them, but if I had my way, we'd go after all of them. Going after the lower rungs won't prevent us from prosecuting those higher up and you've not shown other than for those who only want a certain number prosecuted that it will make any difference. And for those who do only want a certain number prosecuted to sate their outrage, you very much are saying you want to focus on a different pound of flesh. That's the problem. We have to stop indulging this as a popularity thing. The President is sworn to uphold the law, not to uphold the law based on whether it's popular. Any President who refuses to do his sworn duty is a disappointment and, unfortunately, I now have to say that about Mr. Obama.

Quite honestly, Mr. Obama, where's the change. You promised that you would respect the Consitution and the law, but when push came to shove, you did what was politically expedient.

Yes, but you keep acting like we have to stop prosecuting those we normally do in order to prosecute more. You are quite literally saying we need to cherrypick our criminals.

...and I stopped reading. Why? Because that's as much attention as you seem to be paying so I don't know why I should continue extending the effort.

I have to admit I can get sucked into this whole posting chicken thing where we just keep saying the same thing over and over again and whoever gets tired of it first 'loses,' especially when NSG gets boring. But I'm not going to get sucked into it any more. You're not really reading my argument and responding to what you wish it was instead. Go ahead, pretend your not. I've said what I wanted to say in as many ways as I can think of. I'm not going to do it anymore, the third party reader can take or leave what I wrote I don't need to drag this nonsense out with you for that. You 'win.'

Quite honestly, Mr. Obama, where's the change. You promised that you would respect the Consitution and the law, but when push came to shove, you did what was politically expedient.

Ah. "Where's the change Sauron?" How much more of a change would it be to go after the lower ranking culprits in the whole scandal while the upper echelons responsible get away just as they did with My Lai, Watergate, Iran-Contra and Abu Ghraib?

...and I stopped reading. Why? Because that's as much attention as you seem to be paying so I don't know why I should continue extending the effort.

I have to admit I can get sucked into this whole posting chicken thing where we just keep saying the same thing over and over again and whoever gets tired of it first 'loses,' especially when NSG gets boring. But I'm not going to get sucked into it any more. You're not really reading my argument and responding to what you wish it was instead. Go ahead, pretend your not. I've said what I wanted to say in as many ways as I can think of. I'm not going to do it anymore, the third party reader can take or leave what I wrote I don't need to drag this nonsense out with you for that. You 'win.'

Oh, don't start that bullshit. It's lazy. I completed the statements and showed that I understand you're not saying you don't specifically want to let the lower people go, just that you think if we go after the lower people we'll miss the bigger people. The problem is, that entials letting the lower people go until and if we get the bigger people.

Stop bitching about someone not reading your post, when you haven't read their whole reply. I very much address your concern and you're simply not this lazy.

Ah. "Where's the change Sauron?" How much more of a change would it be to go after the lower ranking culprits in the whole scandal while the upper echelons responsible get away just as they did with My Lai, Watergate, Iran-Contra and Abu Ghraib?

It would be a change to enforce the law. Obama isn't doing so. He agreed to uphold the law and bring honor back to the position. Quite frankly, this is the opposite of that. The law says that everyone up and down is guilty and he's not going after any of them.

Again, what is it people don't get? Going after the lower echelongs does not preclude going after the upper echelons. There is no evidence of a relationship. We almost NEVER go after the upper echelons whether or not we go after the lower echelongs. There isn't the first bit of evidence of a relationship.

You don't solve a problem caused by giving special consideration to certain echelons by continuing to give special consideration to certain echelons. The solution is to go after anyone who breaks the law regardless of standing. That's what we're calling for. Unless anyone can provide evidence that going after one stops us from going after the other this whole argument is just ridiculous.

I think he should go after the guys that gave the order to torture people in the first place...going after the underlings is kind of a slippery slope though, so I can, grudgingly, accept that...

But the heads of the department should be fair game...

I think he should go after the guys that gave the order to torture people in the first place...going after the underlings is kind of a slippery slope though, so I can, grudgingly, accept that...

But the heads of the department should be fair game...

He should enforce the law. Anyone, anyone who broke it should be prosecuted to the full extent. If Obama wants my support, he'll show he respects the law. This does not show that. He's given them a bye in the name of politics and I don't see that as much of a change.

It would be a change to enforce the law. Obama isn't doing so. He agreed to uphold the law and bring honor back to the position. Quite frankly, this is the opposite of that. The law says that everyone up and down is guilty and he's not going after any of them.

Again, what is it people don't get? Going after the lower echelongs does not preclude going after the upper echelons. There is no evidence of a relationship. We almost NEVER go after the upper echelons whether or not we go after the lower echelongs. There isn't the first bit of evidence of a relationship.

You don't solve a problem caused by giving special consideration to certain echelons by continuing to give special consideration to certain echelons. The solution is to go after anyone who breaks the law regardless of standing. That's what we're calling for. Unless anyone can provide evidence that going after one stops us from going after the other this whole argument is just ridiculous.

The law was enforced in all those instances I mentioned via trials. And in all those cases, only the lowly grunts who directly carried out the questionable orders were convicted.

Going after the bottom theoretically doesn't stop anyone from going after the top. It's just that historical evidence shows that the top never got held accountable, much less put on trial when it comes down to it, exactly in all those moments I brought up.

The law was enforced in all those instances I mentioned via trials. And in all those cases, only the lowly grunts who directly carried out the questionable orders were convicted.

Going after the bottom theoretically doesn't stop anyone from going after the top. It's just that historical evidence shows that the top never got held accountable, much less put on trial when it comes down to it, exactly in all those moments I brought up.

Which means the law WAS NOT followed. If it were, everyone who broke the law would have been tried, not jus the "lowly grunts". Going after the bottom has never stopped us from going after the top in practice or theory.

What stops us from going after the top is a lack of respect for law and allowing the law to be subordinated to power and prestige. Even among those who believe Bush is really, really guilty there are many who think prosecuting the former President sets a bad precedent. I think it's the exact opposite. We've already set the bad precedent and we need to show a larger respect for the rule of law. This should start with Obama.

He should enforce the law. Anyone, anyone who broke it should be prosecuted to the full extent. If Obama wants my support, he'll show he respects the law. This does not show that. He's given them a bye in the name of politics and I don't see that as much of a change.

It's a matter of degrees - he's still a politician. As admirable as your high standards are, it pays to be pragmatic and realistic.

It's a matter of degrees - he's still a politician. As admirable as your high standards are, it pays to be pragmatic and realistic.

Jimmy Carter is an object lesson in idealism versus pragmatism in politics, sadly.

It's a matter of degrees - he's still a politician. As admirable as your high standards are, it pays to be pragmatic and realistic.

What passes for pragmatic and realistic is that the upper echelons of our government are NEVER held accountable. They accomplish by convincing us holding them accountable is impossible. Well, of course, unless they're trying to get into office, then they're all about holding them accountable.

Jimmy Carter is an object lesson in idealism versus pragmatism in politics, sadly.

Jimmy Carter had nothing close to the support and mandate Obama has. Obama was elected specifically in hopes he would hold people accountable for this kind of behavior. He said he was going to clean it up. Apparently what he really meant was that he was going to ignore it until the people do and then watch from his front porch while it happens again.

Obama was elected specifically in hopes he would hold people accountable for this kind of behavior.

Maybe. Or maybe the other guy was simply a worse choice.

I'm in full agreement with the principle of what your saying, but maybe by not gutting all the departments of these 'authorisers', he's avoiding making it more difficult for his administration to effectively operate on other matters down the road.

What stops us from going after the top is a lack of respect for law and allowing the law to be subordinated to power and prestige. Even among those who believe Bush is really, really guilty there are many who think prosecuting the former President sets a bad precedent. I think it's the exact opposite. We've already set the bad precedent and we need to show a larger respect for the rule of law. This should start with Obama.

All well and good, but you're forgetting the fact that he'd need massive congressional and senate support to pull off such a radical move, and that just isn't there. You'd need a seachange in public attitude for that, and thats not there either.

You are operating under the delusion that I 'only' want one element punished, which suggests that you are not really reading what I am writing.

What we want. <--->What we get

We can argue what we want, what should be all day until we're blue in the face. The reality is what has happened again and again. That's what I'm talking about. You continue to pretend that it's that I don't want the interrogators. It's not. I can only imagine that it's selective reading that gives you that impression. Tell you what, show me some sort of pattern, something that tells me that there is even the slightest chance that if we go for the interrogators first that we won't stop there. If you want everyone punished, then I'm saying that where we start is at the top because time after time when you start at the bottom, that's all you get. I don't know how many times I can rephrase this for you. Now pretend it's about letting people go...
I've read your whole post and I also reject it just as Jocabia did. You seem to be saying, and have been saying all along, that there exists some kind of relationship between one accused and another. There is not. Each accused is an individual and needs to be investigated and prosecuted individually. Part of your argument is saying that, if we're not going to go after the upper echelon, we should not waste our time going after the lower echelon. But that's a bad argument because the failure to prosecute one person does not lessen another person's potential guilt.

You make a neat little diagram illustrating the difference between what we want and what we get, as if you think Jocabia and I just need to grow up and get realistic. But then you spend the rest of your argument insisting that we have to shoot for the farthest and highest target and nothing else. If we followed your reasoning, no one would get prosecuted for anything in this, because the upper echelon is out of reach at this time, and according to you, the lower echelon are too unimportant to bother with.

On the other hand, I say a crime is a crime, and those accused must be prosecuted and answer to the law. I don't give a crap where they fall in the hierarchy.

Again, what is it people don't get? Going after the lower echelongs does not preclude going after the upper echelons.
This, once again.^^ People seem unable to wrap their minds around the concept that this is not an either/or proposition. It is not a choice of going after the upper echelon OR the lower echelon. You go after both, and whichever one is the easier target is likely to be the one hit first. The fact that this has been persistently ignored or denied by so many is what makes so many of the arguments in this thread sound suspiciously like an excuse for doing nothing.

It's a matter of degrees - he's still a politician. As admirable as your high standards are, it pays to be pragmatic and realistic.
Ah, so you ARE excusing doing nothing? That what it seems like.

I think the question of what is the most pragmatic approach is not entirely so cut and dried. I have addressed that before in this thread.

All well and good, but you're forgetting the fact that he'd need massive congressional and senate support to pull off such a radical move, and that just isn't there. You'd need a seachange in public attitude for that, and thats not there either.

Would he, and would we? I'm not so sure. Here's a suggestion: Let's appoint a special prosecutor to start investigations and see what happens.

Also, if we have gotten to the point where enforcing the law is a "radical move" then we are deep shit trouble.

Ah, so you ARE excusing doing nothing? That what it seems like.
Huh?

No, not at all. I'm saying there's no pragmatic point in gunning after every single individual who was links to this. That would essentially a) gut a lot of important departments, and b) piss off a lot of departments he would need to work with for the next 4-8 years.

Sometimes the bigger picture needs to be looked at - that doesn't mean whatsoever that I advocate letting everyone off the hook - specific policy makers and departmental heads (and higher into the last administration) should take the heat, imo.

I think the question of what is the most pragmatic approach is not entirely so cut and dried. I have addressed that before in this thread.

I'm sure you have. I'm just not going to read back over 320 posts :)

Huh?

No, not at all. I'm saying there's no pragmatic point in gunning after every single individual who was links to this. That would essentially a) gut a lot of important departments, and b) piss off a lot of departments he would need to work with for the next 4-8 years.

Sometimes the bigger picture needs to be looked at - that doesn't mean whatsoever that I advocate letting everyone off the hook - specific policy makers and departmental heads (and higher into the last administration) should take the heat, imo.
You used different words, but that sounds exactly like what I said before. The lower-downs are too small fry for you to bother with, and enforcing the law against war crimes would only piss people off anyway. But as I said, a crime is a crime, and each individual is potentially guilty in their own right. You might pass up one fish because you'd rather catch another, but we do not legitimately have the option to pass up one criminal just because we wish he/she had a higher profile -- much less because it would be inconvenient to prosecute. I stand by my analysis of your argument that it is a tacit excuse for doing nothing. You may not mean it that way, but viewed in practical terms, that is what it would boil down to.

I'm sure you have. I'm just not going to read back over 320 posts :)
Well, if you can't be bothered to be aware of the conversation, why should we bother engaging you in it?

You used different words, but that sounds exactly like what I said before.
Then you're not paying attention.

The lower-downs are too small fry for you to bother with,
Where did I say that? I've made, like 3 posts in this thread.

and enforcing the law against war crimes would only piss people off anyway.
Yes it would. I didn't say enforcing such a law was a bad thing, I said enforcing it might not be politically wise. Balance the black/white nature of the letter of the law, with the grey area of the lego-political spirit. It's not easy.

But as I said, a crime is a crime, and each individual is potentially guilty in their own right. You might pass up one fish because you'd rather catch another, but we do not legitimately have the option to pass up one criminal just because we wish he/she had a higher profile -- much less because it would be inconvenient to prosecute.
A lot of times, the principle of trying someone higher up outweighs the factual trying of the smaller fish, as you call them. For example, in the ICTR and ICTY it's often the case where individual soldiers are passed over to get to their commanding officers.

I stand by my analysis of your argument that it is a tacit excuse for doing nothing. You may not mean it that way, but viewed in practical terms, that is what it would boil down to.
Yes because it pays to be pragmatic and realistic. equals "do nothing". Kudos.

Well, if you can't be bothered to be aware of the conversation, why should we bother engaging you in it?
Feel free not to click that respond button.

I've read your whole post and I also reject it just as Jocabia did. You seem to be saying, and have been saying all along, that there exists some kind of relationship between one accused and another. There is not. Each accused is an individual and needs to be investigated and prosecuted individually. Part of your argument is saying that, if we're not going to go after the upper echelon, we should not waste our time going after the lower echelon. But that's a bad argument because the failure to prosecute one person does not lessen another person's potential guilt.

You make a neat little diagram illustrating the difference between what we want and what we get, as if you think Jocabia and I just need to grow up and get realistic. But then you spend the rest of your argument insisting that we have to shoot for the farthest and highest target and nothing else. If we followed your reasoning, no one would get prosecuted for anything in this, because the upper echelon is out of reach at this time, and according to you, the lower echelon are too unimportant to bother with.
This is where you go off the rails. The upper echelon is not out of reach. We have their memos, hell, we have them on tape, they're still going on television saying they still think this was a good fucking idea. We even have a majority opinion in the public that someone should do something about them. We seriously have never had a better chance of going after the head than ever before. It's like we found the leader of the drug cartel with a clear ledger of all his activities and his head in a pile of coke with a flashing sign saying "I did this!" and instead we're all sitting around going, "Yeah! Get the street dealers!"

Look, if you two could show me where we didn't just go after the lowest hanging fruit and then clap hands and walk away as if justice had been done, then fine. Idealistically, rounding up everyone is a great idea, you're swell people with a well developed sense of justice and who should get theirs. Pat yourselves on the back for your unwavering sense of right and wrong. We all bask in your uncompromising view of what 'should be.' I'm just looking at Watergate, Iran-Contra, Abu Garib, etc...and seeing similar or sometimes same players...what's that quote about doing something over and over again but expecting a different result?

You pretend that my argument is about 'letting the torturers go.' I'm telling you that according that our history, and you've given me no reason to believe different except that "Well, it shouldn't," indicates that starting at the bottom time and again means stopping at the bottom, so when you tell me "Let's get the interrogators now" you're telling me you want to let the top guys get away with it yet again. You can say, "Oh no, we want everyone" but that doesn't appear to be what happens. We have our best shot ever, I'm saying don't squander it.

Then you're not paying attention.
<snip the irony>

Feel free not to click that respond button.

This is the last time I will and gladly so. It's one thing to have to explain to someone the difference between a quote of their argument and an analysis of the meaning of their argument when they really are trying to keep up with the general conversation. But when it's with someone who chides me for "not paying attention" when they have already acknowledged that they can't be bothered to review what the person they are arguing with has said on the topic, that's entirely different.

I stand by my reading of your argument and my criticisms of it. Let others decide if I've misread you or not, as they please.

This is where you go off the rails. The upper echelon is not out of reach. We have their memos, hell, we have them on tape, they're still going on television saying they still think this was a good fucking idea. We even have a majority opinion in the public that someone should do something about them. We seriously have never had a better chance of going after the head than ever before. It's like we found the leader of the drug cartel with a clear ledger of all his activities and his head in a pile of coke with a flashing sign saying "I did this!" and instead we're all sitting around going, "Yeah! Get the street dealers!"

Look, if you two could show me where we didn't just go after the lowest hanging fruit and then clap hands and walk away as if justice had been done, then fine. Idealistically, rounding up everyone is a great idea, you're swell people with a well developed sense of justice and who should get theirs. Pat yourselves on the back for your unwavering sense of right and wrong. We all bask in your uncompromising view of what 'should be.' I'm just looking at Watergate, Iran-Contra, Abu Garib, etc...and seeing similar or sometimes same players...what's that quote about doing something over and over again but expecting a different result?

You pretend that my argument is about 'letting the torturers go.' I'm telling you that according that our history, and you've given me no reason to believe different except that "Well, it shouldn't," indicates that starting at the bottom time and again means stopping at the bottom, so when you tell me "Let's get the interrogators now" you're telling me you want to let the top guys get away with it yet again. You can say, "Oh no, we want everyone" but that doesn't appear to be what happens. We have our best shot ever, I'm saying don't squander it.
As Jocabia has asked numerous times, if you can show us how going after A has anything at all to do with going after B, we'll gladly address that concern. The ONLY connection that exists between going after the lower echelon and going after the upper echelon is that the lower echelon might give more evidence against the upper echelon. The end.

As you point out, we don't even really need that. So going after the upper echelon is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE QUESTION (caps for emphasis, not "shouting").

So let's say we go after the lower echelon. That's it. There's nothing else on that. We're going after them for what they did. Period.

Now lets say we go after the upper echelon. Same story. Nothing at all to do with the lower echelon.

(more emphasis*) GOING AFTER THE LOWER ECHELON IS NOT A SIGNAL THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO AFTER THE UPPER ECHELON.

If we do not go after the upper echelon, that is an entirely separate decision from anything we decide to do about the lower echelon. So the argument that going after the lower echelon is somehow a bad thing, or a less-good thing because we shouldn't be sacrificing grunts to save the brass, is false.

First, you would have to show that, in fact, these grunts are being targeted INSTEAD OF the brass.

In Abu Ghraib, lower-downs were thrown to the wolves as a substitute for the ones who gave the illegal orders. Note: That was done by the ones who gave those illegal orders, btw.

In this instance, we do not see that connection. All we see is two different issues, NEITHER ONE OF WHICH IS BEING PURSUED PROPERLY, in our opinions.

EDIT: Also, your claim that J and I are basking in an urealistically ideal sense of right and wrong is ironic, considering that you are insisting that we must not go after the easy target -- the grunts -- but should only prosecute the brass, who are the more protected, harder to get at target. In the name of realism, you set the bar idealistically high and then chide the rest of us as being naive somehow. You want the authorities to go after the ones they are most likely to be motivated not to go after, but WE'RE the unrealistic and uncompromising ones because we want everyone to answer to the law because, according to you, that's somehow less pragmatic than what you're demanding. Sure.

(*I just get tired of typing the font codes, sorry.)

As Jocabia has asked numerous times, if you can show us how going after A has anything at all to do with going after B, we'll gladly address that concern. The ONLY connection that exists between going after the lower echelon and going after the upper echelon is that the lower echelon might give more evidence against the upper echelon. The end.

As you point out, we don't even really need that. So going after the upper echelon is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE QUESTION (caps for emphasis, not "shouting").

So let's say we go after the lower echelon. That's it. There's nothing else on that. We're going after them for what they did. Period.

Now lets say we go after the upper echelon. Same story. Nothing at all to do with the lower echelon.

(more emphasis*) GOING AFTER THE LOWER ECHELON IS NOT A SIGNAL THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO AFTER THE UPPER ECHELON.

If we do not go after the upper echelon, that is an entirely separate decision from anything we decide to do about the lower echelon. So the argument that going after the lower echelon is somehow a bad thing, or a less-good thing because we shouldn't be sacrificing grunts to save the brass, is false.

First, you would have to show that, in fact, these grunts are being targeted INSTEAD OF the brass.

In Abu Ghraib, lower-downs were thrown to the wolves as a substitute for the ones who gave the illegal orders. Note: That was done by the ones who gave those illegal orders, btw.

In this instance, we do not see that connection. All we see is two different issues, NEITHER ONE OF WHICH IS BEING PURSUED PROPERLY, in our opinions.

(*I just get tired of typing the font codes, sorry.)

History. Show me where we didn't stop. Do it.

This argument boils down to:"You want the bottom guys first ergo you want to let the top guys go as that has been the pattern for at least the last forty years." "You want the top guys first and for some reason that means that you want to let the bottom guys go because this time will be different because..." rinse repeat for several drawn out pages.

If you could give me anything to counter what we've seen happen again and again and again to believe that this time would be different, it'd be one thing. But I'm looking at the best shot ever to go after the meat and watching people salivate over the chaff and starting to think we deserve what we get because we just don't learn.

Would he, and would we? I'm not so sure. Here's a suggestion: Let's appoint a special prosecutor to start investigations and see what happens.

Also, if we have gotten to the point where enforcing the law is a "radical move" then we are deep shit trouble.

Given the amount of accountability over arms to Iran, covert action against nicaragua and the bombing of cambodia, I think it fair to say that the shit runs both deep and fast, and has done so for a long time. Of course its that way the world over - I doubt we'll see any Brits go down over their various escapades either.

This is where you go off the rails. The upper echelon is not out of reach. We have their memos, hell, we have them on tape, they're still going on television saying they still think this was a good fucking idea. We even have a majority opinion in the public that someone should do something about them.

And how do you go about proving that their legal opinion wasn't a valid legal opinion but a criminal act...? (and - unusually for me - thats not a question to which I actually know the answer)

History. Show me where we didn't stop. Do it.
Nixon. First the underlings got it, then the higher ups were targeted, only to be saved at the last minute.

Nuremburg, followed by 70 years of hunting down the lower echelons. First the higher ups got it, then it was the underlings' turn.

This argument boils down to:"You want the bottom guys first ergo you want to let the top guys go as that has been the pattern for at least the last forty years."
No, apparently, what it boils down to is you completely ignoring pages upon pages of posts correcting this false perception. I suppose you do this in order to facilitate accusing us of wanting the precise opposite of everything we've been saying. If you persist in misrepresenting our arguments, I see no way to continue having a discussion with you. Are you going to stop accusing us of this, or aren't you?

And how do you go about proving that their legal opinion wasn't a valid legal opinion but a criminal act...? (and - unusually for me - thats not a question to which I actually know the answer)

Given the amount of accountability over arms to Iran, covert action against nicaragua and the bombing of cambodia, I think it fair to say that the shit runs both deep and fast, and has done so for a long time. Of course its that way the world over - I doubt we'll see any Brits go down over their various escapades either.

Predicting the outcome of a race is not a substitute for running the race. Both of the above concerns can be tested and answered by the appointment of a special prosecutor. Hence my "let's try and see what happens" suggestion.

Nixon. First the underlings got it, then the higher ups were targeted, only to be saved at the last minute.
The last forty years have been a decending pattern since Watergate allowed the top people to get away with it, which is of course what I've been saying, but whatever.

Nuremburg, followed by 70 years of hunting down the lower echelons. First the higher ups got it, then it was the underlings' turn.
That sound remarkably like what some poster has been arguing should be the priority in this thread...if only I could think of his name...


No, apparently, what it boils down to is you completely ignoring pages upon pages of posts correcting this false perception. I suppose you do this in order to facilitate accusing us of wanting the precise opposite of everything we've been saying. If you persist in misrepresenting our arguments, I see no way to continue having a discussion with you. Are you going to stop accusing us of this, or aren't you?
Rinse, repeat apparently. No, I guess if you're going to continue to say the same thing and insist it's about 'letting someone get away with it' or then, no you don't have to say it again.

The last forty years have been a decending pattern since Watergate allowed the top people to get away with it, which is of course what I've been saying, but whatever.

That sound remarkably like what some poster has been arguing should be the priority in this thread...if only I could think of his name...
Do you deny that both grunts and brass were "gone after" in re the Nazis?

Do you deny that Nixon was facing prosecution if he did not resign, and that in any event, his guilt was neither ignored nor denied, despite the pardon by Ford? In fact, the pardon confirmed his guilt, since you can't pardon someone unless they have committed a crime. The Nixon example, while unsatisfying in itself is an example of the upper echelon not being just allowed to "get away with it." And what Nixon did was drastically less heinous than what Bush et al. did.

But I enjoy the way you try to shrug off the historical examples you asked for.


Rinse, repeat apparently. No, I guess if you're going to continue to say the same thing and insist it's about 'letting someone get away with it' or then, no you don't have to say it again.

You clearly have absolutely no clue what this conversation has been about.

Do you deny that both grunts and brass were "gone after" in re the Nazis?

To be fair, Nuremberg is an example of what CToaN has been talking about doing, going after the high ups before wasting our time with the patsies, so isnt really applicable as an example to disprove his claim.

Watergate works better though.

To be fair, Nuremberg is an example of what CToaN has been talking about doing, going after the high ups before wasting our time with the patsies, so isnt really applicable as an example to disprove his claim.

Watergate works better though.

It is not a "waste of time" to enforce the law!! Damnation, seriously, people. Also, these people are not "patsies." They committed acts of torture (allegedly; innocent-until and all that) and that makes them criminals in their own right.

CToaN has been blaming me and Jocabia for wanting BOTH sets of guilty (alleged) parties to be prosecuted equally. He has been claiming that we want to give the upper echelon a free pass. When he cannot prove that we really want to do that, he claims history proves that he's right about us even if we didn't really say what he claims. Nuremburg supports what I said, i.e. that BOTH parties get their own treatment independently. Or are you contending that all of the prosecutions of lowly camp guards since Nuremberg were dependent on and stemmed from the convictions of specific commanders above them? No. They were prosecuted on their own merits, in their own turn, as they were tracked down.

And now that we've cleared that up (as if I have any hope of getting this through to some people) I would like to watch you explain to camp survivors how the prosecutions of the guards who carried out the abuses ordered by the commanders was a "waste" of everybody's time.

Those who commit crimes should be punished for them, whether they hold high or low rank. Period.

I'm not rewriting anything. You're the one who doesn't know jack about the law. As for your claims to constitutionality, other posters have already proven you wrong. You don't suddenly become right just because you're talking to another person now.

In Waller V Georgia. The supreme court thinks you are 9 to 0.
the only time a court can force closure is when a public hearing conflicts with a defendants right to a fair trial. That is really hard to prove when the defendant wants to trial to be public.
How many SCOTUS rulings must I quote ?

Bullshit.

Also, I didn't mean that the Constitution only requires them to reveal evidence to each other. I mean that the Constitution does not require them to reveal their evidence to the public. The Constitution allows the public to observe trials but not to participate in them, except when we serve on juries. You really don't understand how this works, do you?

If the defendant wants it revealed yes it does. It si a right and a damn good protection to have public trials. Nothing scares me more then a government able to say information is classified and being able to conduct a secret trial.



A BS equivocation. You demanded an example of information that is revealed during a trial being kept out of public knowledge. That was an example on point. Now claiming that it's not "relevant" is just you trying to pretend like you were not proven wrong when you claimed that any such withholding of information is "suppression of evidence" and grounds for mistrial. Your claim was bull, and the rape shield proved that.

I highlighted the important word. As I told you the FISC does not conduct trials. In order for the court to hold secret trials they would actually have to conduct trials. All they conduct is warrants so the government can wire tap in secret. Warrants are not part of the trials.


Oh, it's supposed to be FISC, is it? Well, you'd better forward your post to the White House because everyone in the Clinton, Bush and now Obama admins have been referring to it as the FISA Court. Get it? The FISC is the C of the FISA, aka the FISA Court? :rolleyes: Your ignorance of legal matters is so intense, you can't even play "gotcha" about it.

then it should be the FIS Court. The A is dropped from the name of the court. the A stands for 'Act' and warrants issued by the FISC are named FISA warrants(short hand) or warrants issued under the FISA. the government making such mistakes does not surprise me though I haven't seen source so weather it was you mis reading a document or a bushism I don't know.
[/quote]

Also, your quibble about who is affected by the cases heard by that court is another cheap dodge. You insisted that information would have to be revealed in public even though it is classified because "public trials" mean that everything has to be broadcast (despite proof that that is not true). The FISA Court (there, I said it again) is an example of a court specifically set up to handle information that cannot be revealed publicly without endangering national security. It proves that it is possible within our legal system to handle sensitive classified information in a way that preserves necessary secrecy while still conforming to the law. Therefore, you are wrong again.
[/quote]
The information is made public. The testimony is still in the archives and is available to the public. Now they just put a screen over the victim and give her a voice modifier most of the time anyways. The identity of a person is not the evidence there testimony is. The evidence is subject to public scrutiny.


I believe that Freud called what you just did there "projection."

Meaning you have no Scotus rulings to back your claims compared to my two.
You have no case law compared to three 3 examples I presented. Compared to my three examples. Instead you claim the rape shield law which hides the identity not the testimony or evidence of certain victims is your support.And you claim a court that can not conduct trials is conducting secret trials.

Literally you have posted not evidence. Stop watching legal dramas for legal knowledge it is a bad idea.
here again a source for summary of the defense the CIA operatives will use in this case.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicaljunkies/g/greymail.htm

And now that we've cleared that up (as if I have any hope of getting this through to some people) I would like to watch you explain to camp survivors how the prosecutions of the guards who carried out the abuses of the commanders was a "waste" of their time.

If we had only gotten the guards and not gotten the commanders because we could all pat ourselves on the back over precieved justice and wash our hands of the situation it would have been a waste, because there wouldnt have been real justice.

As an aside, public opinion currently favors going after the people who gave the orders.

I really dont know why we're not.

It is not a "waste of time" to enforce the law!! Damnation, seriously, people. Also, these people are not "patsies." They committed acts of torture (allegedly; innocent-until and all that) and that makes them criminals in their own right.

CToaN has been blaming me and Jocabia for wanting BOTH sets of guilty (alleged) parties to be prosecuted equally. He has been claiming that we want to give the upper echelon a free pass. When he cannot prove that we really want to do that, he claims history proves that he's right about us even if we didn't really say what he claims. Nuremburg supports what I said, i.e. that BOTH parties get their own treatment independently. Or are you contending that all of the prosecutions of lowly camp guards since Nuremberg were dependent on and stemmed from the convictions of specific commanders above them? No. They were prosecuted on their own merits, in their own turn, as they were tracked down.

And now that we've cleared that up (as if I have any hope of getting this through to some people) I would like to watch you explain to camp survivors how the prosecutions of the guards who carried out the abuses ordered by the commanders was a "waste" of everybody's time.

Those who commit crimes should be punished for them, whether they hold high or low rank. Period.

So we're still pretending that setting priorities given historical precedent=letting people off, then accusing me of stretching the argument when my very first post was about the historical precedent, not some stretch to cover an argument. But yeah, go ahead and pretend that I'm saying I want the guards to go free and that I'm saying you don't want everyone punished.

Can we just agree that no one wants anyone truly guilty to walk?

Can we just agree that no one wants anyone truly guilty to walk?

Apparently, no.

Can we just agree that no one wants anyone truly guilty to walk?

Depends. If they tortured someone because they were running out of time to stop a dirty bomb from going off in NYC and they had to get as much information out of the guy as fast as possible. I am very apt to favor leniency.
Which is why we need to wait until the classified information can be released.

*shrug* To me, real justice is getting the guys who gave the orders, and not just the guy who carried them out.


It wont be real justice to me if we just get the guys who carried it out. It will feel like a show trial done just to make us all feel better.

Thats all Im saying.

If we had only gotten the guards and not gotten the commanders because we could all pat ourselves on the back over precieved justice and wash our hands of the situation it would have been a waste, because there wouldnt have been real justice.
That would be relevant if it had happened.

Depends. If they tortured someone because they were running out of time to stop a dirty bomb from going off in NYC and they had to get as much information out of the guy as fast as possible. I am very apt to favor leniency.

You know, this scenario used to defend torture to me has always been one of the stupidest, most half baked arguements ever given. Not only does it create some Tom Clancy/24 esc scenario where one can pat themselves on the back over committing war crimes because "the ends justify the means", torture in that situation wouldnt even fucking work.

The guy just lies to you. Period. By the time youve figured out he lied, the bomb has gone off.

That would be relevant if it had happened.

I dont recall saying it did happen that way. Youre the one who said "Oh, tell the camp survivors that it was a waste to go after the guards" completely ignoring the context I gave for my comment you were responding to. So I gave you that proper context you were (apperantly) content to ignore.

*shrug* To me, real justice is getting the guys who gave the orders, and not just the guy who carried them out.


It wont be real justice to me if we just get the guys who carried it out. It will feel like a show trial done just to make us all feel better.

Thats all Im saying.

My view is if you do it right now.the issue is too divisive. Those with money Bush, Rumsfield, and the like could make sure the trial suits their interest via jury selection and other means.

Those with out money would apply grey mail as a defense.
Wait 10 years and it wont be divisive and everyone will thick Bush was a turd. And the government can counter Grey mail by releasing classified documents.

You do it right now it will be another Iran contra with almost no one convicted.

You know, this scenario used to defend torture to me has always been one of the stupidest, most half baked arguements ever given. Not only does it create some Tom Clancy/24 esc scenario where one can pat themselves on the back over committing war crimes because "the ends justify the means", torture in that situation wouldnt even fucking work.

But in a Jury trial being able to say I saved a 1,000 lives goes a long way. Even more so if you have the money for good attorneys to take advantage of the jury selection process.

The guy just lies to you. Period. By the time youve figured out he lied, the bomb has gone off.

I wouldn't say always. If you can use that to your advantage, by catching him in a lie and what not. not that I know anything about interrogation or torture.

Can we just agree that no one wants anyone truly guilty to walk?
Apparently all but one of us can agree on that.

Apparently, no.

False, and I am getting sick of telling you that over and over again.

I dont recall saying it did happen that way. Youre the one who said "Oh, tell the camp survivors that it was a waste to go after the guards" completely ignoring the context I gave for my comment you were responding to. So I gave you that proper context you were (apperantly) content to ignore.
I was objecting to your choice of words. I was aware of the context and I still objected to it.

Apparently all but one of us can agree on that.



False, and I am getting sick of telling you that over and over again.

At this point the feeling is mutual.

Apparently all but one of us can agree on that.


CtoaN hasnt said that he wants the lowers to walk.


He just is worried that once we get the lower guys, the public will just feel better about itself, think justice was done, and move on. Which is a possiblity that worries me too.

Thats why I think we should get the higher ups first. Not only them. Just get them first.

*shrug* To me, real justice is getting the guys who gave the orders, and not just the guy who carried them out.


It wont be real justice to me if we just get the guys who carried it out. It will feel like a show trial done just to make us all feel better.

Thats all Im saying.

To me, letting the guy who carried out the crime skip would be a betrayal of justice just as much as the guy who gave the order.

It will not be complete justice to me if we get only one of either of the two groups. I want both groups.

But any conviction fairly arrived at, of either the upper or lower echelon, will be real justice, even if there is still more real justice left to be pursued.

CtoaN hasnt said that he wants the lowers to walk.


He just is worried that once we get the lower guys, the public will just feel better about itself, think justice was done, and move on. Which is a possiblity that worries me too.

Thats why I think we should get the higher ups first. Not only them. Just get them first.

:headbang: No, he has NOT said that he wants the lowers to walk. I know that. But he has accused me and Jocabia of being content to let the uppers walk, and that is false.

:headbang: No, he has NOT said that he wants the lowers to walk. I know that. But he has accused me and Jocabia of being content to let the uppers walk, and that is false.

I havent even seen him accuse you guys of that.

Depends. If they tortured someone because they were running out of time to stop a dirty bomb from going off in NYC and they had to get as much information out of the guy as fast as possible. I am very apt to favor leniency.
Which is why we need to wait until the classified information can be released.

You know, this scenario used to defend torture to me has always been one of the stupidest, most half baked arguements ever given. Not only does it create some Tom Clancy/24 esc scenario where one can pat themselves on the back over committing war crimes because "the ends justify the means", torture in that situation wouldnt even fucking work.

The guy just lies to you. Period. By the time youve figured out he lied, the bomb has gone off.

Now THIS we can agree on 100%.

At this point the feeling is mutual.
Then freaking stop talking to me already. If you stop misrepresenting my argument, I'll stop fighting with you. I don't care if you never get it right. Your silence in regard to me will be sufficient.

CtoaN hasnt said that he wants the lowers to walk.


He just is worried that once we get the lower guys, the public will just feel better about itself, think justice was done, and move on. Which is a possiblity that worries me too.

Thats why I think we should get the higher ups first. Not only them. Just get them first.

You do realize that's not how the criminal justice system works, right? Many crimes are actually prosecuted months, even years after the public have forgotten they ever happened. The criminal justice system is not a media event.

I havent even seen him accuse you guys of that.
Well, I have.

Then freaking stop talking to me already. If you stop misrepresenting my argument, I'll stop fighting with you. I don't care if you never get it right. Your silence in regard to me will be sufficient.
Oh waaah. Get a fucking tissue. I had all but said I was tired of repeating myself and you specifically quoted me so that we could add a few more pages of saying the exact same shit. Now the best you can do is say, "Shutupshutupshutup!" Give me a break...

Well, I have.

Then quote it.

You do realize that's not how the criminal justice system works, right? Many crimes are actually prosecuted months, even years after the public have forgotten they ever happened. The criminal justice system is not a media event.

Wow. It's like... when justice.... meets politics.... justice doesn't always come out on top.

Well holy shit.

Maybe legal purists would do well to look around the world we live in and realise life isn't ideal.

You do realize that's not how the criminal justice system works, right? Many crimes are actually prosecuted months, even years after the public have forgotten they ever happened. The criminal justice system is not a media event.

No, but when it could take years and years, what with all the appeals that are bound to happen, and all the red tape and legal wrangling that will go on, and if the public loses interest, and a new guy is elected (and appoints a new AG) who kind of just...stops prosecutions.

Wow. It's like... when justice.... meets politics.... justice doesn't always come out on top.

Well holy shit.

Maybe legal purists would do well to look around the world we live in and realise life isn't ideal.

More or less this. Especially when the guy who will be prosecuting the case is someone appointed by a politician.

Then quote it.

For example:

History. Show me where we didn't stop. Do it.

This argument boils down to:"You want the bottom guys first ergo you want to let the top guys go as that has been the pattern for at least the last forty years." "You want the top guys first and for some reason that means that you want to let the bottom guys go because this time will be different because..." rinse repeat for several drawn out pages.

<snip>
emphasis added.

And the sentence following that is a misrepresention of what I have been saying all along. I speak only for myself, not Jocabia, on that point.

More or less this. Especially when the guy who will be prosecuting the case is someone appointed by a politician.
And that is precisely the kind of Cynicism Song and Dance that has the effect of excusing inaction, even though it doesn't mean to. "Oh, well, what else can we expect? They're politicians, after all." Well, sometimes, in spite of people being politicians, the right thing gets done anyway, and since it is possible, I guess I'll just keep pulling for it.

I want proof that these interrogators knew that the Bush admin was wrong and that it was in fact illegal.

If interrogation is their job - they either know it, and deliberately ignored the knowledge - in which case they should be held accountable...

OR - they didn't know it, which they SHOULD have... and thus are not fit for the office, but tortured people anyway - in which case they should be held accountable.

I think he should go after the guys that gave the order to torture people in the first place...going after the underlings is kind of a slippery slope though, so I can, grudgingly, accept that...

But the heads of the department should be fair game...

As someone already said - it's a fairly common tactic in the enforcement of law, to start with the little fish, even if you've very little on them, and use them to work your way up the food chain.

Personally, I'd like to see every level that was involved in torturing people, held accountable. I admit, I have an extreme aversion to the idea that people in my country torture people. It bothers me, a lot.

Perosnally (again), I really want the people who actually got their hands dirty to be held accountable, to the fullest extent of the law. But, realitistically, I realise I'm being unrealistic, and in all likelihood they'd mostly walk away because of some mitigation. But the people who gave those orders, and the people that lied to protect those orders - if nothing else comes of chasing the 'little guys', it would all be worth it if it stamped down hard on any of THOSE fingers that had been in the pie.

Depends. If they tortured someone because they were running out of time to stop a dirty bomb from going off in NYC and they had to get as much information out of the guy as fast as possible. I am very apt to favor leniency.
Which is why we need to wait until the classified information can be released.

Ridiculous scenario.

If you actually think about it - we know that torture produces answers. We also know that the answers torture produces are sometimes, possibly, true. Which is why, even with torture, other methods of fact-checking are necessary. What people REALLY tell you under torture - is whatever they think will stop you torturing them. Which means they'll tell the truth (Maybe), or they'll make things up (Because you won't believe them if they say they don't know - because, if you'd believe that, you wouldn't be torturing them), or they'll lie (because they know it will take you time to check).

Which means - in the 'timelimit+dirtybomb' scenario, torture is probably the MOST useless method of obtaining information.

Ridiculous scenario.

If you actually think about it - we know that torture produces answers. We also know that the answers torture produces are sometimes, possibly, true. Which is why, even with torture, other methods of fact-checking are necessary. What people REALLY tell you under torture - is whatever they think will stop you torturing them. Which means they'll tell the truth (Maybe), or they'll make things up (Because you won't believe them if they say they don't know - because, if you'd believe that, you wouldn't be torturing them), or they'll lie (because they know it will take you time to check).

Which means - in the 'timelimit+dirtybomb' scenario, torture is probably the MOST useless method of obtaining information.

No true scotsman would obliterate G&D's points like this.

Good grief! We've turned into a powder puff nation!
The next time we're hit by planes used as bombs lets not use any torture
but set up a series of talks. Maybe we can find out what we did to upset
the dictators of the world and try to assuage their anger.
Sheesh! We've turned into a paper tiger and the whole world knows it.

Good grief! We've turned into a powder puff nation!
The next time we're hit by planes used as bombs lets not use any torture
but set up a series of talks. Maybe we can find out what we did to upset
the dictators of the world and try to assuage their anger.
Sheesh! We've turned into a paper tiger and the whole world knows it.

Wrong.

Good grief! We've turned into a powder puff nation!
The next time we're hit by planes used as bombs lets not use any torture
but set up a series of talks. Maybe we can find out what we did to upset
the dictators of the world and try to assuage their anger.
Sheesh! We've turned into a paper tiger and the whole world knows it.

The next time we're hit by planes... if we are hit by planes AGAIN, the argument about torture will already be redundant, because we'll be back in a position where we IGNORE intelligence - like we did before 9/11.

Seriously - the idea that the 9/11 concept was 'new', is nonsensical. We even had specific (and credible) information that a major strike was on the horizon - which was systematically ignored and supressed.

If we learned anything from 9/11 - it SHOULD have been that information gathering must be pro-active and pre-emptive. Which makes 'torture' pretty much useless.

THIS JUST IN:

Rachel Maddow is reporting right now that the DoJ may not be on the same page on torture prosecutions as the White House. A statement released by the DoJ today announced that AG Holder is "seriously considering" appointing an independent counsel to conduct possible criminal investigations of CIA officers.

Apparently, according to Michael Isikoff, who broke this story, there are strict rules that prohibit the White House from determining who gets investigated and prosecuted. That is the DoJ's job, relying only on the law and the facts and operating independently.

Isikoff recommended googling "white house department of justice communications." I did and, as promised, got this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/doj00032.htm

Which sets out the rules governing how the White House and the DoJ are supposed to manage this sort of thing.

How very, very interesting.

It is not clear yet just what Holder will do. It may yet amount to nothing. But still...interesting.

Over the weekend and today, Obama reiterated three times that he has no intention of prosectuing any CIA officers and that he does not think Bush White House officials should be prosecuted, either. But it turns out, that is not his decision to make. Will Holder do what the Attorney General is supposed to? Will Obama allow the political wing and the legal wing of the government to be so at odds (the way their kind of supposed to be but which Bush wiped out all hint of)? Will Holder put the lie to the assurances Obama just gave out, which actually were not all that affirmative anyway?

Stay tuned, kids.

If they do decide to prosecute, then fine. But if Gonzalez and company don't end up on the roster of prosecutions, it'll just continue a historical trend which most of us have been saying all along.

Over the weekend and today, Obama reiterated three times that he has no intention of prosectuing any CIA officers and that he does not think Bush White House officials should be prosecuted, either. But it turns out, that is not his decision to make.
Good spot.

There was a letter in today's Grauniad which stated exactly the above.

Interesting stuff indeed, the $6million question being, will the DOJ prosecute either?

If they do decide to prosecute, then fine. But if Gonzalez and company don't end up on the roster of prosecutions, it'll just continue a historical trend which most of us have been saying all along.
Piss on that. I am sick and tired of this "if/then" BS. Yes, yes, I get it, past is prologue, we all know that. But past is not destiny. It is not exactly entirely unheard of for new or different stuff to happen. A person might want to bet on the "No Results" horse, and that nag may be the overwhelming favorite to win, but that does not mean that the race has already been run. You all can huff and puff about patterns and trends all you like, none of you can predict the future.

(Also, I am getting a little annoyed at being reminded of caveats that I did actually already allude to in my own fucking post. /growling.)

So we're still pretending that setting priorities given historical precedent=letting people off, then accusing me of stretching the argument when my very first post was about the historical precedent, not some stretch to cover an argument. But yeah, go ahead and pretend that I'm saying I want the guards to go free and that I'm saying you don't want everyone punished.

Uh, You actually said that yourself. It's interesting that it pisses you off that others would. The difference is that I'm not calling for anyone to "go first". I'm saying there are no priorities. I'm saying they should all be prosecuted according to the law.

You argued that we should ignore the peons until or if we're able to prosecute the big dogs. You also argue that there is almost no precedent for actually getting the big dogs.

I mean, seriously, you're capable of a strong argument. I've seen you do it tons of times. This one... well, it ain't it.

I mean, seriously, you're capable of a strong argument. I've seen you do it tons of times. This one... well, it ain't it.

Oh no! Don't shame me! Whatever will I do?

Patronizing me does not really change the value of anything said, nor does it come up with yet another way to rephrase this for you so that you can continue to pretend it's another argument.

Oh no! Don't shame me! Whatever will I do?

Patronizing me does not really change the value of anything said, nor does it come up with yet another way to rephrase this for you so that you can continue to pretend it's another argument.

What you could do, you know, is make a better argument rather than making out like we're trying to trick you or the various other tactics you've used to avoid making a better argument.

You do realize that not one word or your post constitutes an argument. All it does is whine that you've been misunderstood, despite the fact you've been quoted saying these things.

You blatantly said that if we go after the peons people will be sated with that and stop prosecuting and then got pissed off when M pointed out you also want to go after a particular group and there is no reason to believe the thirst for justice would go beyond the initial prosecutions you propose. Then you bitch that she points out that you're arguing for partial prosecution. You don't see what's wrong with that.

See, now, make sure you don't actually make an argument in your next post. Nah, that would be too much like debate. What you should do instead is make it totally personally and whine and bitch about how woefully misunderstood you are. You've called people out in the past for avoiding the argument because they don't have a strong one. It's amusing how annoyed you get when people point out the same tactic taken by you. Would you like some quotes of your complaining about CH doing the same? Just say the word, this could be fun.

See, now, make sure you don't actually make an argument in your next post. Nah, that would be too much like debate. What you should do instead is make it totally personally and whine and bitch about how woefully misunderstood you are. You've called people out in the past for avoiding the argument because they don't have a strong one. It's amusing how annoyed you get when people point out the same tactic taken by you. Would you like some quotes of your complaining about CH doing the same? Just say the word, this could be fun.

What you could do, you know, is make a better argument rather than making out like we're trying to trick you or the various other tactics you've used to avoid making a better argument.

You do realize that not one word or your post constitutes an argument. All it does is whine that you've been misunderstood, despite the fact you've been quoted saying these things.
Seriously? I don't need your class to graduate. I'm not 'shamed.' I'm sorry. Patronize, talk down, whatever. I don't fucking care. I don't worship at the alter of Jocabia and do not crave your approval. This wastes as much space as you accuse me of, so really, are you all that much better? I didn't start the condescending crap, I just called you out on it. The back and forth about who and when someone is a 'good debator' is and always has been bullshit. If you're keeping score, that's on you. Try and remember that masturbating is an alone time activity.

What I had said was that I was responding to the same shit again and again. And yeah, I would get caught up in that routine with CH and it was numbing. I find no need to do it with you, too.


You blatantly said that if we go after the peons people will be sated with that and stop prosecuting and then got pissed off when M pointed out you also want to go after a particular group and there is no reason to believe the thirst for justice would go beyond the initial prosecutions you propose. Then you bitch that she points out that you're arguing for partial prosecution. You don't see what's wrong with that.
First, to get here you have to do some contextual contortions. You apparently seem to be taking the rhetorical we even though I believe (but could be wrong) actually used the word 'we' which would then include me personally. Whatever.

What have I been shown to say, what have I been quoted as? Saying that given precedent and patterns over the last forty years that when we go after the low hanging fruit first we've stopped again and again. So, given the precedent it is like tacitly allowing the orchestrators to go? This shames me how, exactly? Because I didn't add a 'tacitly' in a sentence that followed volumes of posts that had already said the same thing over and over again?

Or maybe I could read another one of your chest pounding posts about how everyone is culpable, which in reality has fuck all to do with what I'm saying, but boy it makes some good back patting, doesn't it? When I finally get an example this pattern supposedly not happening it's actually the event that sets the precedent (Watergate, the secret to why I keep saying 'forty years' where the head got away while we were chopping off the hands) and outside the forty years with Nuremburg where they did exactly what I've been saying, starting from the top.

Now, you can insist, again, that it doesn't have to happen that way. That this time it will be different. But again there's that quote about doing the same thing but expecting a different result. There are people who were part of this that are still in power. There's one sitting on the court of appeals one step away from the Supreme Court. Again, and I expect this to fall on deaf ears as usual, it's a matter of priorities. I don't want to rely on the world of 'should have' because if we lived there this wouldn't have happened. It doesn't have to follow, it just does. Again and again and again. Kind of like the merry-go-round of this thread.

Seriously? I don't need your class to graduate. I'm not 'shamed.' I'm sorry. Patronize, talk down, whatever. I don't fucking care. I don't worship at the alter of Jocabia and do not crave your approval. This wastes as much space as you accuse me of, so really, are you all that much better? I didn't start the condescending crap, I just called you out on it. The back and forth about who and when someone is a 'good debator' is and always has been bullshit. If you're keeping score, that's on you. Try and remember that masturbating is an alone time activity.

What I had said was that I was responding to the same shit again and again. And yeah, I would get caught up in that routine with CH and it was numbing. I find no need to do it with you, too.

First, to get here you have to do some contextual contortions. You apparently seem to be taking the rhetorical we even though I believe (but could be wrong) actually used the word 'we' which would then include me personally. Whatever.

What have I been shown to say, what have I been quoted as? Saying that given precedent and patterns over the last forty years that when we go after the low hanging fruit first we've stopped again and again. So, given the precedent it is like tacitly allowing the orchestrators to go? This shames me how, exactly? Because I didn't add a 'tacitly' in a sentence that followed volumes of posts that had already said the same thing over and over again?

Or maybe I could read another one of your chest pounding posts about how everyone is culpable, which in reality has fuck all to do with what I'm saying, but boy it makes some good back patting, doesn't it? When I finally get an example this pattern supposedly not happening it's actually the event that sets the precedent (Watergate, the secret to why I keep saying 'forty years' where the head got away while we were chopping off the hands) and outside the forty years with Nuremburg where they did exactly what I've been saying, starting from the top.

Now, you can insist, again, that it doesn't have to happen that way. That this time it will be different. But again there's that quote about doing the same thing but expecting a different result. There are people who were part of this that are still in power. There's one sitting on the court of appeals one step away from the Supreme Court. Again, and I expect this to fall on deaf ears as usual, it's a matter of priorities. I don't want to rely on the world of 'should have' because if we lived there this wouldn't have happened. It doesn't have to follow, it just does. Again and again and again. Kind of like the merry-go-round of this thread.

Much better. It's an argument. Give me a minute to address ;)

EDIT: So what is it precisely that makes you feel like going after the peons will cause us to be sated with our judicial victories but not do so when we focus on the top? Is there some rule that top-level of victories send the public into a bloodlust, but low-level victories bring about absolute satisfaction? Or is it possible that we actually have a history of is not going after the top and this is demonstrated time and again both cases where go after the low hanging fruit and casese where we don't.

Why is it that focusing on the law rather than the level of the lawbreaker is such an attrocity to you that you're thrashing about the thread pissed that anyone would dare to propose such a thing?

Much better. It's an argument. Give me a minute to address ;)
Get over yourself.

Get over yourself.

Why's it so personal to you? It's a debate forum. If actually being expected to make an argument pisses you off so badly, why are you here? Asking you to debate in a debate forum... how dare I slight you so?

Like I said, I remember you making a pretty distinct point of attacking CH for this behavior. Why is it so much more acceptable when you do it? If you don't like engaging in the debate topic of the thread, no one is forcing you to click on it. Replying with personal attacks and taunts doesn't make your argument seem stronger, it doesn't make people ignore the topic or miss the obvious holes. It doesn't work for any of the people you've argued with and pointed out it didn't work for, what makes you think you're going to accomplish it.

(See, this is where you offer up another post claiming you don't care while proving you do by continually getting pissed off.)

Why's it so personal to you?

Jocabia: Why is this personal?

*then proceeds to go out of his way to make it personal, all the while saying 'why is it personal to you?'*

Jocabia: Why is this personal?

*then proceeds to go out of his way to make it personal, all the while saying 'why is it personal to you?'*

Asking him to make an argument is making it personal? Did I claim this is some habit of his? Nope. Did I claim he's a bad person? I just pointed out that his TACTICS aren't effective and that he should make an argument. That's not personal. That's a part of debate. I asked him to calm down and offer up arguments. Hell, he doesn't even have to calm down. I could care less if he taunts me provided it's coupled with an argument. He instead does in lieu of an argument. The difference is not at all slight.

Jocabia: Why is this personal?

*then proceeds to go out of his way to make it personal, all the while saying 'why is it personal to you?'*

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw it that way.

Ridiculous scenario.

If you actually think about it - we know that torture produces answers. We also know that the answers torture produces are sometimes, possibly, true. Which is why, even with torture, other methods of fact-checking are necessary. What people REALLY tell you under torture - is whatever they think will stop you torturing them. Which means they'll tell the truth (Maybe), or they'll make things up (Because you won't believe them if they say they don't know - because, if you'd believe that, you wouldn't be torturing them), or they'll lie (because they know it will take you time to check).

Which means - in the 'timelimit+dirtybomb' scenario, torture is probably the MOST useless method of obtaining information.

And if there are no other means to get information?
You try absolutely nothing to get the information?

So what if he lies it takes how long to make a call and have someone in the local area check something out ?
If asking the guy real nicely doesn't work but intelligence says he knows about a immediately impending attack, I would likely have water boarded too the 24 hours before.
Scars from torture heal, lives you don't get those back. If you don't do everything possible to save lives what is the purpose of morality?

Why's it so personal to you? It's a debate forum. If actually being expected to make an argument pisses you off so badly, why are you here? Asking you to debate in a debate forum... how dare I slight you so?

Like I said, I remember you making a pretty distinct point of attacking CH for this behavior. Why is it so much more acceptable when you do it? If you don't like engaging in the debate topic of the thread, no one is forcing you to click on it. Replying with personal attacks and taunts doesn't make your argument seem stronger, it doesn't make people ignore the topic or miss the obvious holes. It doesn't work for any of the people you've argued with and pointed out it didn't work for, what makes you think you're going to accomplish it.

(See, this is where you offer up another post claiming you don't care while proving you do by continually getting pissed off.)
Seriously, enough with the lectures. For fucks sake. You offered your generic pandering bullshit when I rewrote the following posts once again. It's not personal, it's annoying. Don't waste space telling me what you think about me or patting me on the head or whatever. I quote Tuco when I say, "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk." You want to have a discussion about how I'm 'disappointing you' we can whip out the tea cozzies and get some little biscuits, make a time of it. Otherwise, get the fuck on with it.
You don't think you are, but pragmatically, you are. There's the philosophical notion that yes, everyone gets it. But the reality is, time after time after time, we're served up the the bottom of the barrel and hands are clapped and then everyone goes about their business. So, I'm done. I'm not wasting my outrage so that they can serve me up the patsies once again and pretend it's justice. We're going to get blood if we ask for it, but if we waste our breath asking for the blood from the bottom up, all we'll get is the bottom. That's the world we live in. We've seen it happen again and again and again and again and again. I've had it. My outrage, my call for blood, is the people who get away with it, the people who can find the patsies. The people who perpetrate this thing over and over again. When we've got them, come to me about the patsies. Until then, I'm not wasting my outrage on the easy gets. We have a real opportunity here and I don't want to be pacified again. Not this time.

We punished the Lindsey Englunds and the people who created her continued to write memos justifying what she did and worse. We punished the people who actually broke into Watergate and the people who perpetrated that continued in government knowing that they don't have to take the blame, we can be sated with the low hanging fruit, and they went on to do far worse. It's not about 'feeling bad' for the low people on the totem pole who take the heat for the crap that the people above them justify. You mistake me when you read that as "poor Lindsey Englund." It's not about pity, it's about wanting something done about the abuses, about the people who use their positions to abuse knowing that they can always find a patsy, always find a fall guy, and when ever the heat comes on they can throw that person to the wolves and know that some knee jerk satisfaction in us will be sated, that 'someone' paid, and then they can go on and continue to abuse power. Well I'm sick of it. Fuck that. Fuck them. Attacking the symptoms does nothing about the disease, I want something done about the disease and I'm not going to feel like an ounce of justice is done until that happens. Feed me a bunch of fucktard interrogators that were convinced to do something that their peers knew to be wrong and ineffective, and it's just the bastards getting away with it once again.

Like I said, if we had a history of doing both, getting both the people who did it and the people who orchestrated it, that'd be one thing. But we don't. And so this kind of thing keeps happening. And we're to blame, because we're too satisfied to take the sacrificial lamb and let the wolves run free and pretend it's justice, when it is not.

This is where you go off the rails. The upper echelon is not out of reach. We have their memos, hell, we have them on tape, they're still going on television saying they still think this was a good fucking idea. We even have a majority opinion in the public that someone should do something about them. We seriously have never had a better chance of going after the head than ever before. It's like we found the leader of the drug cartel with a clear ledger of all his activities and his head in a pile of coke with a flashing sign saying "I did this!" and instead we're all sitting around going, "Yeah! Get the street dealers!"

Look, if you two could show me where we didn't just go after the lowest hanging fruit and then clap hands and walk away as if justice had been done, then fine. Idealistically, rounding up everyone is a great idea, you're swell people with a well developed sense of justice and who should get theirs. Pat yourselves on the back for your unwavering sense of right and wrong. We all bask in your uncompromising view of what 'should be.' I'm just looking at Watergate, Iran-Contra, Abu Garib, etc...and seeing similar or sometimes same players...what's that quote about doing something over and over again but expecting a different result?

You pretend that my argument is about 'letting the torturers go.' I'm telling you that according that our history, and you've given me no reason to believe different except that "Well, it shouldn't," indicates that starting at the bottom time and again means stopping at the bottom, so when you tell me "Let's get the interrogators now" you're telling me you want to let the top guys get away with it yet again. You can say, "Oh no, we want everyone" but that doesn't appear to be what happens. We have our best shot ever, I'm saying don't squander it.

Much better. It's an argument. Give me a minute to address ;)

EDIT: So what is it precisely that makes you feel like going after the peons will cause us to be sated with our judicial victories but not do so when we focus on the top? Is there some rule that top-level of victories send the public into a bloodlust, but low-level victories bring about absolute satisfaction? Or is it possible that we actually have a history of is not going after the top and this is demonstrated time and again both cases where go after the low hanging fruit and casese where we don't.

Why is it that focusing on the law rather than the level of the lawbreaker is such an attrocity to you that you're thrashing about the thread pissed that anyone would dare to propose such a thing?
To illustrate that question, I will refer back to my earlier Nazi reference. The bigwigs were prosecuted and hanged or imprisoned. That sated the thirst for justice so little that, 70+ years later, Nazi peons and officials are still being hunted. So, yes, I do wonder why so many are so certain that there would only be one round of prosecutions in this instance, so yeah, we better make damn sure we pick the targets they think are best.

Seriously, enough with the lectures. For fucks sake. You offered your generic pandering bullshit when I rewrote the following posts once again. It's not personal, it's annoying. Don't waste space telling me what you think about me or patting me on the head or whatever. I quote Tuco when I say, "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk." You want to have a discussion about how I'm 'disappointing you' we can whip out the tea cozzies and get some little biscuits, make a time of it. Otherwise, get the fuck on with it.

Which doesn't answer my questions. Meanwhile, if you feel you've nothing else to add the thread besides quotes of yourself which all can read, then one wonders why you're wasting your time.

My question is:

So what is it precisely that makes you feel like going after the peons will cause us to be sated with our judicial victories but not do so when we focus on the top? Is there some rule that top-level of victories send the public into a bloodlust, but low-level victories bring about absolute satisfaction? Or is it possible that we actually have a history of is not going after the top and this is demonstrated time and again both cases where go after the low hanging fruit and casese where we don't.

Why is it that focusing on the law rather than the level of the lawbreaker is such an attrocity to you? Wouldn't that solve the problem that you're complaining about? Because that is what's being proposed.

To illustrate that question, I will refer back to my earlier Nazi reference. The bigwigs were prosecuted and hanged or imprisoned. That sated the thirst for justice so little that, 70+ years later, Nazi peons and officials are still being hunted. So, yes, I do wonder why so many are so certain that there would only be one round of prosecutions in this instance, so yeah, we better make damn sure we pick the targets they think are best.
No, no, we're not picking targets when we say some prosecutions are more important than others. We're picking targets when we say all lawbreakers should be treated equally. It's makes total sense.

And if there are no other means to get information?
You try absolutely nothing to get the information?

So what if he lies it takes how long to make a call and have someone in the local area check something out ?
If asking the guy real nicely doesn't work but intelligence says he knows about a immediately impending attack, I would likely have water boarded too the 24 hours before.
Scars from torture heal, lives you don't get those back. If you don't do everything possible to save lives what is the purpose of morality?

Yes, yes, we're all on the show 24.

But what if there is a nuclear bomb inside the guy and it's set to go off if you waterboard him. You just destroyed the east coast. It's so much fun when we get to make up scenarios, eh?

EDIT: So what is it precisely that makes you feel like going after the peons will cause us to be sated with our judicial victories but not do so when we focus on the top? Is there some rule that top-level of victories send the public into a bloodlust, but low-level victories bring about absolute satisfaction? Or is it possible that we actually have a history of is not going after the top and this is demonstrated time and again both cases where go after the low hanging fruit and casese where we don't.

Why is it that focusing on the law rather than the level of the lawbreaker is such an attrocity to you that you're thrashing about the thread pissed that anyone would dare to propose such a thing?

You know what? Nothing. We certainly don't have a pattern of going after the top first yet to look to, but seeing as we have a pattern going from the bottom and stopping I'm willing to try and new approach instead of the old one and hoping this time it's different. Basically you're saying, "Well, what if it is one or the other." Well, if it is, and if I have to make a choice, I'll go for the people who get away with it again and again, orchestrate this thing sometimes with the same cast of characters again and again over the disposable patsies.

So, again, with feeling-I have seen over and over again taking the low hanging fruit and seeing us stop there. So maybe we can try and start at the top and then maybe we can actually get all for a change. Or maybe we won't. But I think there is value in maybe letting someone other than Lucy place the ball for the kick.

And if there are no other means to get information[/b]/lies/fantasies/hysterical blather[/b]?
You try absolutely nothing to get the information?
False dichotomy, which is part and parcel of the fantastical "ticking bomb" scenario. There ARE other means to get information from a prisoner.

So what if he lies it takes how long to make a call and have someone in the local area check something out ?
And if it turns out that he did lie -- how long does it take to torture him again, and then make a call to check that out, and then torture him again, and make a third call, and then do it again a fourth time, etc, etc, etc, etc? Enough time to hear the explosion? Or enough time to figure out that your prisoner doesn't know anything?

If asking the guy real nicely doesn't work but intelligence says he knows about a immediately impending attack, I would likely have water boarded too the 24 hours before.
Scars from torture heal, lives you don't get those back. If you don't do everything possible to save lives what is the purpose of morality?
What the fuck do you know about the scars of torture? I have never heard anyone who has suffered torture talk so cavalierly about it.

Also, apparently, morality already has no purpose for you, since you are so ready to abandon it. It seems you don't care much about results, either.

Which doesn't answer my questions. Meanwhile, if you feel you've nothing else to add the thread besides quotes of yourself which all can read, then one wonders why you're wasting your time.



I kind of feel like asking you the same fucking question.

You know what? Nothing. We certainly don't have a pattern of going after the top first yet to look to, but seeing as we have a pattern going from the bottom and stopping I'm willing to try and new approach instead of the old one and hoping this time it's different. Basically you're saying, "Well, what if it is one or the other." Well, if it is, and if I have to make a choice, I'll go for the people who get away with it again and again, orchestrate this thing sometimes with the same cast of characters again and again over the disposable patsies.

So, again, with feeling-I have seen over and over again taking the low hanging fruit and seeing us stop there. So maybe we can try and start at the top and then maybe we can actually get all for a change. Or maybe we won't. But I think there is value in maybe letting someone other than Lucy place the ball for the kick.
I gave you the single biggest example of that "low hanging fruit" thing NOT happening in the whole of the past two centuries.

I asked you a question about that earlier, which you also ignored/refused to answer: Do you deny that the first wave of prosecutions did not stop later prosecutions after Nuremberg?

I have not kept as close note of your posting history as Jocabia seems to. Is it your habit to ignore questions that you have no counter for?

And if there are no other means to get information?


What possible justification is there for such a scenario? We have to imagine there's no intelligence community, no communications or communications industry, no drugs, no attempt to infiltrate... we have to create an unrealistic world JUST for your premise to even START to have legs to stand on.

And if we do that, we STILL run into the poor reliability problem.


You try absolutely nothing to get the information?


I'd probably try cross-referenced questioning, since that is a pretty good way of checking if people are lying. I'd probably try some kind of close-observation interrogation. I'd probably try drugging the alleged conspirator.


So what if he lies it takes how long to make a call and have someone in the local area check something out?


Right - so you wasted 45 minutes getting bad info, the call and the check takes 15 minutes, and the 'bomb' was going to go off at an hour. Nothing happened, and you tortured an innocent guy.

All because your original information was faulty.


If asking the guy real nicely doesn't work but intelligence says he knows about a immediately impending attack, I would likely have water boarded too the 24 hours before.


What if the intelligence is wrong? You just repeatedly tortured the wrong guy... and even if he'd been the RIGHT guy, it's notoriously unreliable.

What did you gain?


Scars from torture heal, lives you don't get those back. If you don't do everything possible to save lives what is the purpose of morality?

Those kinds of rambling philosophical questions leave me cold. Sorry. I don't accept that 'saving lives' is the ultimate purpose of existence, and I'm not sure I'd entertain your concepts of 'morality'.

You know what? Nothing. We certainly don't have a pattern of going after the top first yet to look to, but seeing as we have a pattern going from the bottom and stopping I'm willing to try and new approach instead of the old one and hoping this time it's different. Basically you're saying, "Well, what if it is one or the other." Well, if it is, and if I have to make a choice, I'll go for the people who get away with it again and again, orchestrate this thing sometimes with the same cast of characters again and again over the disposable patsies.

So, again, with feeling-I have seen over and over again taking the low hanging fruit and seeing us stop there. So maybe we can try and start at the top and then maybe we can actually get all for a change. Or maybe we won't. But I think there is value in maybe letting someone other than Lucy place the ball for the kick.

I'm not saying it's one or the other. I'm saying we should solve this problem by making justice about justice rather than meaning something different depending on how powerful you are.

Why do we have to start at any particular echelon? Why don't we start with each case we've made as we make them and move through all of the criminals like we do with all other crimes. How do we solve the problem that the powerful are treated as if they're special by continuing to do so?

I don't disagree that we have a history of patsies. I fully agree and have said as much. We also have a history of not prosecuting the top-level people when we didn't go after the low-level people. We have a history of just letting them get away with anything and everything. Seriously, who among us wouldn't be shocked if Bush was tried? Because he's powerful. And we wouldn't be more shocked if it somehow happened after they prosecuted some of the lower levels of his administration, would we?

I gave you the single biggest example of that "low hanging fruit" thing NOT happening in the whole of the past two centuries.

And he gave you a half dozen examples of the "low hanging fruit" thing happening in the past 40 years alone, including one from the very same conflict as the current debate. Which one is a pattern and which one is an isolated incident?

I gave you the single biggest example of that "low hanging fruit" thing NOT happening in the whole of the past two centuries.

I asked you a question about that earlier, which you also ignored/refused to answer: Do you deny that the first wave of prosecutions did not stop later prosecutions after Nuremberg?

I have not kept as close note of your posting history as Jocabia seems to. Is it your habit to ignore questions that you have no counter for?
You mean the trials where they, by your own characterization of it, did exactly what I've been advocating this entire time, going after the people who gave the orders first? No, they didn't. Thank you for that.

I kind of feel like asking you the same fucking question.

I'm trying to make an argument. Depending on whether one agrees with me or not, the opinion of my success may vary, but I'm very interested in further exploring the topic. In fact, I very much liked your last reply.

And he gave you a half dozen examples of the "low hanging fruit" thing happening in the past 40 years alone, including one from the very same conflict as the current debate. Which one is a pattern and which one is an isolated incident?

And how many examples are there of going after the top-level at all? See, that's the problem. All evidence suggests if you're powerful, whether part of a large organization like the CIA or not, there is a tendency for the powerful to get a special brand of justice. The examples given demonstrate that tendency. That's the pattern. It doesn't support the argument being made.

And he gave you a half dozen examples of the "low hanging fruit" thing happening in the past 40 years alone, including one from the very same conflict as the current debate. Which one is a pattern and which one is an isolated incident?
Which one is an example of "it takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black"? Have I or have I not been arguing on this point that history proves that it is POSSIBLE for this to happen, therefore, it is worth trying TO MAKE it happen? That's the question I pose to you: Have I or have I not said that several times in this thread?

And further: Have I or have I not at the same time also argued that, since we cannot know the future, but we can know the past, that means that we CAN KNOW that it is possible to avoid that pattern, but we CANNOT KNOW that we will fail to avoid it if we try? Come on, tell me whether I said that, too.

EDIT: Warning: You may actually have to read my posts and -- brace yourself -- think about what is written in them.

False dichotomy, which is part and parcel of the fantastical "ticking bomb" scenario. There ARE other means to get information from a prisoner.

And if those clearly are not working. Then what ? If all other options have failed then what ?


And if it turns out that he did lie -- how long does it take to torture him again, and then make a call to check that out, and then torture him again, and make a third call, and then do it again a fourth time, etc, etc, etc, etc? Enough time to hear the explosion? Or enough time to figure out that your prisoner doesn't know anything?

And if the first call saves 1,000 lives?


What the fuck do you know about the scars of torture? I have never heard anyone who has suffered torture talk so cavalierly about it.

Also, apparently, morality already has no purpose for you, since you are so ready to abandon it. It seems you don't care much about results, either.
Don't get me wrong torture should not be invoked lightly. I wouldn't even use it for general national security. It should only be used for a specific threat on a specific person linked to that specific threat.

As for my morality. What is more moral then do whatever it takes to save lives ? If there are no other means left and torture only increased the chances of getting information to save lives by 1%, I would not hesitate to torture. The pain of one man pales in the comparison to the pain of a 1000.

You mean the trials where they, by your own characterization of it, did exactly what I've been advocating this entire time, going after the people who gave the orders first? No, they didn't. Thank you for that.
No. I mean the trials where they did what I have been advocating all this time -- namely, go after the targets they had in hand at the time.

Which one is an example of "it takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black"? Have I or have I not been arguing on this point that history proves that it is POSSIBLE for this to happen, therefore, it is worth trying TO MAKE it happen? That's the question I pose to you: Have I or have I not said that several times in this thread?

And further: Have I or have I not at the same time also argued that, since we cannot know the future, but we can know the past, that means that we CAN KNOW that it is possible to avoid that pattern, but we CANNOT KNOW that we will fail to avoid it if we try? Come on, tell me whether I said that, too.

Well, to be fair, he addressed that, and rather well. The scenario that makes it POSSIBLE was actually very much like what he's proposing.

And if those clearly are not working. Then what ? If all other options have failed then what ?

And if the first call saves 1,000 lives?

Don't get me wrong torture should not be invoked lightly. I wouldn't even use it for general national security. It should only be used for a specific threat on a specific person linked to that specific threat.

As for my morality. What is more moral then do whatever it takes to save lives ? If there are no other means left and torture only increased the chances of getting information to save lives by 1%, I would not hesitate to torture. The pain of one man pales in the comparison to the pain of a 1000.

But what if the torture cause the nuke in the man to explode? I mean, it's an equally like scenario if shaping reality like a movie passing for a reasonable argument.

I'm not saying it's one or the other. I'm saying we should solve this problem by making justice about justice rather than meaning something different depending on how powerful you are.

Why do we have to start at any particular echelon? Why don't we start with each case we've made as we make them and move through all of the criminals like we do with all other crimes. How do we solve the problem that the powerful are treated as if they're special by continuing to do so?

Because we don't. Because we haven't. Maybe instead of the easiest we should try and do it right since the easiest cases first have a tendency to be the last as well.

And how many examples are there of going after the top-level at all? See, that's the problem. All evidence suggests if you're powerful, whether part of a large organization like the CIA or not, there is a tendency for the powerful to get a special brand of justice. The examples given demonstrate that tendency. That's the pattern. It doesn't support the argument being made.

Very few, if any at all. That's precisely the point. The powerful don't get punished because after a few sacrificial lambs are led to the slaughter, the populace's thirst for vengeance is sated and the clamor for continued punishment dies off. Thus, the powerful, the ones who make the decisions to perform the bad stuff, remain safe and, most importantly, in power, where they continue to do more bad stuff. Nothing ever stops because the truly bad people are still around.

There are two precedents set, as I see it. Go after the top first, and work your way down, a la Nuremburg. Go after the bottom first, and stop, a la everything else. Unless you want to talk in a purely philosophical sense, ignoring all manner of realpolitik, then I don't see why you would oppose going after the top before the bottom, since it historically lends itself to greater overall justice.

EDIT: Warning: You may actually have to read my posts and -- brace yourself -- think about what is written in them.

I think I'd rather not. If your first response to me is arrogant, patronizing douchebaggery, you're better off ignored. I'll discuss this amongst the adults that manage to avoid lashing out with CAPITAL LETTERS at a totally innocuous post.

But what if the torture cause the nuke in the man to explode? I mean, it's an equally like scenario if shaping reality like a movie passing for a reasonable argument.

really?
I have heard of a dirty bomb plot.
And supposedly* they did get good results from the water boarding sessions.
If information got from water boarding at gitmo prevented the dirty bomb plot, would that be a bad thing ?
Should we free that man give him back his dirty bomb because we got information from torture ?

Not quite ready to believe that, unitl the info gets declassified

I'm trying to make an argument. Depending on whether one agrees with me or not, the opinion of my success may vary, but I'm very interested in further exploring the topic. In fact, I very much liked your last reply.

The one where I almost literally lifted whole sentences from a half dozen other replies I had already made and paraphrased the rest. Add some calliope music and some painted horses and we got a ride.

Unless you want to talk in a purely philosophical sense, ignoring all manner of realpolitik, then I don't see why you would oppose going after the top before the bottom, since it historically lends itself to greater overall justice.

Jocabia and Mur are impatient. They want instant results, i.e. a prosecutorial body count now and call it "justice". They don't care if it's the low-hanging fruit or that every such prosecutions since Nurenberg have been nothing but a harvest of windfall worm-infested apples.

Nurenberg is the exception rather than the rule. That's the only time in history where the top has been directly held accountable and prosecuted. Everything after that has been just scapegoating after scapegoating.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - Georges Santayana

And if those clearly are not working. Then what ? If all other options have failed then what ?

And if the first call saves 1,000 lives?

Don't get me wrong torture should not be invoked lightly. I wouldn't even use it for general national security. It should only be used for a specific threat on a specific person linked to that specific threat.
What if he gives up the information as soon as he looks at you because he is so shocked by the outfit you think is appropriate for work that he forgets where he is and blurts it right out, only it turns out the bomb is located 4 hours away and is set to explode in two minutes so there is no way to save the 1000 lives because solar flares have knocked out phone service and they wouldn't be able to run away fast enough anyway, but HEY LOOK! the day is saved because the space aliens come and pour molasses over the bomb, thus containing the explosion, so the 1000 people only get slight sticky! Yay!

Look, Mr. Bauer -- The "ticking bomb" story is bullshit, start to finish. There are ALWAYS other, better ways to get REAL information about REAL things from REAL prisoners. As you yourself admit, you will have to use those better methods anyway since torture is so unreliable.

The "ticking bomb" scenario is NOT a real thing. Torture fans/apologists always invoke it because they have nothing else, but the fact that they resort to this cheap tv plot to justify torturing human beings is disgusting as well as insulting to the real victims of real torture.

As for my morality. What is more moral then do whatever it takes to save lives ? If there are no other means left and torture only increased the chances of getting information to save lives by 1%, I would not hesitate to torture. The pain of one man pales in the comparison to the pain of a 1000.
And this is the self-serving, groveling excuse-making of a person utterly lacking in morality or even any idea what that word means.

Because we don't. Because we haven't. Maybe instead of the easiest we should try and do it right since the easiest cases first have a tendency to be the last as well.

Doing it right means prosecuting everyone we can, not picking who is most important. You've not actually demonstrated that doing it right entails anything other than prosecuting everyone we can.

Again, what we DON'T do is hold those who are powerful accountable in the same ways we do those who aren't. If you steal 20 dollars from a store you don't work at, you've got a pretty good chance of going to jail. If you steal 20 million from a corporation that you're the CEO of, you probably aren't.

You and I have agreed in the past about the necessity of our leadership to claim the moral high ground. Giving even the appearance that this about retribution against those who were high up in the Bush administration, rather than just a simple pressure for justice, takes away our high ground. We were promised change and that change included a respect for the rule of law.

Frankly, I think it's great that the DoJ said that Obama doesn't set their priorities. I do wish Obama hadn't pretended like moving on means pretending there shouldn't be consequences for past transgressions. We're not holding on to anger. We're simply righting the ship. And that message should be given by every level of the administration. Instead, he's given ammo to those who are going to claim this is retribution.

Seriously, who among us wouldn't be shocked if Bush was tried? Because he's powerful. And we wouldn't be more shocked if it somehow happened after they prosecuted some of the lower levels of his administration, would we?

Shocked? No. Surprised, a bit. Clinton went on trial too.

Now if Bush, his cabinet and all his friends in Haliburton were not only tried but convicted, and sentenced to life in prison, I'd be shocked. And happy.

But I do believe I've said it before. They wield way too much influence and power to ever let themselves be put in court.

Well, to be fair, he addressed that, and rather well. The scenario that makes it POSSIBLE was actually very much like what he's proposing.
He who? Which of the he's who have been bitching at me because I said I think both the commanders and the officers should be prosecuted are you referring to?

Jocabia and Mur are impatient. They want instant results, i.e. a prosecutorial body count now and call it "justice". They don't care if it's the low-hanging fruit or that every such prosecutions since Nurenberg have been nothing but a harvest of windfall worm-infested apples.

Nurenberg is the exception rather than the rule. That's the only time in history where the top has been directly held accountable and prosecuted. Everything after that has been just scapegoating after scapegoating.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - Georges Santayana

Amusing. Who said anything about now? Quote me.

What I said is I want them to go after everyone. That's the only thing I said. I didn't specify an order. I didn't specify how quickly it need happen. I ONLY said that we should treat them all equally.

My beef was that Obama said we weren't going after anyone at any time. He didn't say it would take time to get justice. He didn't say he planned on using a particular order or focus. He said we were turning the page. And that's my beef.

I think I'd rather not. If your first response to me is arrogant, patronizing douchebaggery, you're better off ignored. I'll discuss this amongst the adults that manage to avoid lashing out with CAPITAL LETTERS at a totally innocuous post.
Evidently you have not been reading the thread at all, if you think this is my first response to you. That would explain why you are so completely ignorant of the content of my argument. Drive-by commentary doesn't seem to be working in this thread.

He who? Which of the he's who have been bitching at me because I said I think both the commanders and the officers should be prosecuted are you referring to?

Several people in the thread, including CTOAN have pointed out that your example of Nuremburg entailed a very similar scenario to what CTOAN is saying is a better tactic. It make a very poor example if you're disagreeing with CTOAN.

really?
I have heard of a dirty bomb plot.
And supposedly* they did get good results from the water boarding sessions.
If information got from water boarding at gitmo prevented the dirty bomb plot, would that be a bad thing ?
Should we free that man give him back his dirty bomb because we got information from torture ?

Not quite ready to believe that, unitl the info gets declassified

You've heard? Oh, yeah? Doesn't that make it a really poor example of the information that can't come to light.

But since you've "heard", then you can post a source, yeah?

I heard from my sister's podiatrist's daughter's gym teacher's cheeseburger salesman that there was once a nuke in the belly of a terrorist that only didn't go off because they didn't torture them.

The one where I almost literally lifted whole sentences from a half dozen other replies I had already made and paraphrased the rest. Add some calliope music and some painted horses and we got a ride.

Ah, but that ride is called NSG and it's been entertaining us for years.

Evidently you have not been reading the thread at all, if you think this is my first response to you. That would explain why you are so completely ignorant of the content of my argument. Drive-by commentary doesn't seem to be working in this thread.

Right.

Look, Mr. Bauer -- The "ticking bomb" story is bullshit, start to finish. There are ALWAYS other, better ways to get REAL information about REAL things from REAL prisoners. As you yourself admit, you will have to use those better methods anyway since torture is so unreliable.

So your an expert on interrogation then ?
Surely their area finite number of interrogation techniques to be used ina given situation.

The "ticking bomb" scenario is NOT a real thing. Torture fans/apologists always invoke it because they have nothing else, but the fact that they resort to this cheap tv plot to justify torturing human beings is disgusting as well as insulting to the real victims of real torture.

If that's the case then you should have no qualms exonerating someone if they used torture that produced results and saved lives.
After all if it is impossible for torture to have saved lives outside of TV then then the issue should never come up. And you would also not mind waiting for the results of the torture to be declassified, before trying to throw people in Jail. I mean after all it shouldn't matter right ??

And this is the self-serving, groveling excuse-making of a person utterly lacking in morality or even any idea what that word means.
I really don't find morality to simply be just one set of rules.
I fine its more flexible and adjusts to the situation. If you want to hold to a more religious view of morality I suppose that's your business though. though please don't be so preachy, if i wanted to listen to right wing types I would hang out at a baptist church.

Amusing. Who said anything about now? Quote me.

What I said is I want them to go after everyone. That's the only thing I said. I didn't specify an order. I didn't specify how quickly it need happen. I ONLY said that we should treat them all equally.

My beef was that Obama said we weren't going after anyone at any time. He didn't say it would take time to get justice. He didn't say he planned on using a particular order or focus. He said we were turning the page. And that's my beef.

He said exactly what he should have said as the president. He gets to look like the uniter, the role Bush never adopted, and seem like he's all about forgiving the bad guys and building bridges and all that holding hands horseshit. Then the DoJ, people who don't need to look like good guys, can come in and prosecute anyway. It was purely a political statement from a man I'm sure understands he doesn't have any actual authority to decide who does and doesn't get prosecuted.

Doing it right means prosecuting everyone we can, not picking who is most important. You've not actually demonstrated that doing it right entails anything other than prosecuting everyone we can.
I think I die inside a little every time I have to type this again. It's not about 'picking.' It's not about letting anyone go. It's about looking how this has been handled in the past and realizing that it's not getting results.

Again, what we DON'T do is hold those who are powerful accountable in the same ways we do those who aren't. If you steal 20 dollars from a store you don't work at, you've got a pretty good chance of going to jail. If you steal 20 million from a corporation that you're the CEO of, you probably aren't.
And this goes to...?

You and I have agreed in the past about the necessity of our leadership to claim the moral high ground. Giving even the appearance that this about retribution against those who were high up in the Bush administration, rather than just a simple pressure for justice, takes away our high ground. We were promised change and that change included a respect for the rule of law.
The rule of law will continue the ass raping if we allow the pattern to continue to repeat over and over and over again because we want justice in the most immediate sense.


Frankly, I think it's great that the DoJ said that Obama doesn't set their priorities. I do wish Obama hadn't pretended like moving on means pretending there shouldn't be consequences for past transgressions. We're not holding on to anger. We're simply righting the ship. And that message should be given by every level of the administration. Instead, he's given ammo to those who are going to claim this is retribution.
Frankly I think that Holder might be making the best of this situation that could be. First of all, on a personal level, he laid it out like I've been saying--that Bush administrators are not off the table, nor the operatives. It's just a sentence order and I could and probably am reading too much into it, but I'll take it. Second of all, this is an opportunity to re-seperate the DoJ from the executive branch in a symbolic and decisive way. It's a mark on Obama, or maybe even an attempt to have his cake and eat it too, knowing that Holder is going to do what he's going to do regardless of what he says so he can dodge out of what will be considered a 'partisan fight.' Who knows. But the distinction needed to be (re)made and there's no better place.

K, gotta eat. That's a pretty good stopping point for the night.

You've heard? Oh, yeah? Doesn't that make it a really poor example of the information that can't come to light.

But since you've "heard", then you can post a source, yeah?

I heard from my sister's podiatrist's daughter's gym teacher's cheeseburger salesman that there was once a nuke in the belly of a terrorist that only didn't go off because they didn't torture them.

dirty bomb plot http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/06/10/terror-arrest.htm
Several different ones came up on a Google search actually. One was in the UK as well.

As for the saved some lives
http://www.newser.com/story/13800/ex-cia-agent-waterboarding-useful-torture.html

It wasn't bush but a CIA official.
but since it obviously can not have good results, you wouldn't mind giving an exoneration if it did would you ? Since the scenario would never come up right ?

Several people in the thread, including CTOAN have pointed out that your example of Nuremburg entailed a very similar scenario to what CTOAN is saying is a better tactic. It make a very poor example if you're disagreeing with CTOAN.
All right, you're doing it, too, now. I'm going to bed. This is fucking ridiculous.

I already addressed why Nuremberg supports what I have been saying, independent of what he is saying!

Am I the only person here is actually reading all the posts in this thread? Or just the only one who can still keep track of what's in it? Ugh!

To everyone in this thread: I have stated that Obama's decision to do nothing at all in re prosecutions is disgraceful in my opinion. I have stated that all of the policymakers, commanders, and officers who carried out the orders should be investigated and face potential prosecution for war crimes, again in my opinion. I have rejected arguments that prosecuting grunts would necessarily buy a free pass for the brass on the grounds that they (a) predict the future and (b) are denied by counter examples from history. I stand by that rejection. I have NOT -- repeat, NOT -- said I want it all right now or that I am impatient or that I don't care about the quality of justice gained. That is a lie, apparently meant to insult me and Jocabia, Gauthier. When asked for a historical example of CToaN's pattern not holding true, I cited two, Nixon and Nuremberg/subsequent Nazi hunts. I explained exactly how each of them applied to my argument. I stand by those statements.

And yes, Sdaeriji, sooner or later, everone in NSG gets a taste of how it's no fun to play with Muravyets. Make bet on how much I care if you think I'm a big douchebag. Cope or ignore, my friend.

I'm going to bed. Tomorrow, I will faint dead away if I tune into this thread and discover that the people arguing in it have taken some time to actually read it.

dirty bomb plot http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/06/10/terror-arrest.htm
Several different ones came up on a Google search actually. One was in the UK as well.

As for the saved some lives
http://www.newser.com/story/13800/ex-cia-agent-waterboarding-useful-torture.html

It wasn't bush but a CIA official.
but since it obviously can not have good results, you wouldn't mind giving an exoneration if it did would you ? Since the scenario would never come up right ?

Which of those included the 24 Season 2 deadline you cited?

As far as someone who broke the law claiming they saved lives doing it... is that really all that useful?

They can save lives by taking all of Bill Gates' money and using it for medical care for the poor. You support that, no? They can save lives by forcing us all to wear helmets every day. You support that, no? They can save lives by ignoring several of the bill of rights. You support that, no?

All right, you're doing it, too, now. I'm going to bed. This is fucking ridiculous.

I already addressed why Nuremberg supports what I have been saying, independent of what he is saying!

Am I the only person here is actually reading all the posts in this thread? Or just the only one who can still keep track of what's in it? Ugh!

To everyone in this thread: I have stated that Obama's decision to do nothing at all in re prosecutions is disgraceful in my opinion. I have stated that all of the policymakers, commanders, and officers who carried out the orders should be investigated and face potential prosecution for war crimes, again in my opinion. I have rejected arguments that prosecuting grunts would necessarily buy a free pass for the brass on the grounds that they (a) predict the future and (b) are denied by counter examples from history. I stand by that rejection. I have NOT -- repeat, NOT -- said I want it all right now or that I am impatient or that I don't care about the quality of justice gained. That is a lie, apparently meant to insult me and Jocabia, Gauthier. When asked for a historical example of CToaN's pattern not holding true, I cited two, Nixon and Nuremberg/subsequent Nazi hunts. I explained exactly how each of them applied to my argument. I stand by those statements.

And yes, Sdaeriji, sooner or later, everone in NSG gets a taste of how it's no fun to play with Muravyets. Make bet on how much I care if you think I'm a big douchebag. Cope or ignore, my friend.

I'm going to bed. Tomorrow, I will faint dead away if I tune into this thread and discover that the people arguing in it have taken some time to actually read it.


It supports what you've been saying. It's also supporting what he's saying. He's saying that we should go after the top first, which is what happened with Nuremburg.

The problem is that in order to combat what he's saying, you'd have to show an example where the first prosecutions were the lower tier and we still got the top. Nuremburg isn't that.

Really, going to eat now. It's nearly 1 AM.

As far as someone who broke the law claiming they saved lives doing it... is that really all that useful?

You asked for me to show you dirty bomb plot information and where someone claimed it produced results. And I did. We can not effectively evaluate results until it is safe to declassify the information.
If it is impossible torture saved lives then you would have no problem if anyone involved in a case of torture that saved lives.


They can save lives by taking all of Bill Gates' money and using it for medical care for the poor. You support that, no? They can save lives by forcing us all to wear helmets every day. You support that, no? They can save lives by ignoring several of the bill of rights. You support that, no?

Hasn't he already donated half of his money to help people ? All I think he does right now is run the Gates foundation. What does this have to do with anything other than you hate the rich for having more then you ?

You asked for me to show you dirty bomb plot information and where someone claimed it produced results. And I did. We can not effectively evaluate results until it is safe to declassify the information.
If it is impossible torture saved lives then you would have no problem if anyone involved in a case of torture that saved lives.


Hasn't he already donated half of his money to help people ? All I think he does right now is run the Gates foundation. What does this have to do with anything other than you hate the rich for having more then you ?

No, I didn't. I asked you to show YOUR scenario. Because it's bullshit. The plot you showed doesn't support your claim. No one said there isn't anyone who claims that they were justified in disobeying the law. Unfortunately, they don't get to decide to break the law without also paying the consequences.

Again, what if there was a bomb inside a person and water sets it off? What then? Cuz we're making up bulshit scenarios.

really?
I have heard of a dirty bomb plot.
And supposedly* they did get good results from the water boarding sessions.
If information got from water boarding at gitmo prevented the dirty bomb plot, would that be a bad thing ?
Should we free that man give him back his dirty bomb because we got information from torture ?

Not quite ready to believe that, unitl the info gets declassified

You've heard? Oh, yeah? Doesn't that make it a really poor example of the information that can't come to light.

But since you've "heard", then you can post a source, yeah?

I heard from my sister's podiatrist's daughter's gym teacher's cheeseburger salesman that there was once a nuke in the belly of a terrorist that only didn't go off because they didn't torture them.

No, I didn't. I asked you to show YOUR scenario. Because it's bullshit. The plot you showed doesn't support your claim. No one said there isn't anyone who claims that they were justified in disobeying the law. Unfortunately, they don't get to decide to break the law without also paying the consequences.



Seems in the post you posed the question I was only dealing with the dirty bomb report and claims water boarding produced results.
I was trying to suggest a possible connection between the two. But that will never be know until we can safely declassify all documents on this mater now can we ?

And go eat you get cranky when you don't eat.

Snip.

What if that person was actually God but did not know it, and the suffering made them want to destroy that universe and create a new one, therefore causing the extinction of the world as we know it?

What if that person was a wizard able to summon a beast with the ability to turn people into pastries and candy, and then got fed up with the torture?

What if that person was a child selected to pilot a giant robot, but - from within it - being able to turn the entire humanity into tang if he's suicidal enough and torture did just that?

I see no reason why I can't add anime to things. :D

What if that person was actually God but did not know it, and the suffering made them want to destroy that universe and create a new one, therefore causing the extinction of the world as we know it?



you have been reading my books on Hinduism. The answer is you do what your Dharma is regardless of fear of god. The enlightenment realizes that he and all people are god and only though great pain can one understand that and reach Moksa.


What if that person was a wizard able to summon a beast with the ability to turn people into pastries and candy, and then got fed up with the torture?

Then how is he in jail in the first place?

What if that person was a child selected to pilot a giant robot, but - from within it - being able to turn the entire humanity into tang if he's suicidal enough and torture did just that?


See Hinduism post.

you have been reading my books on Hinduism. The answer is you do what your Dharma is regardless of fear of god. The enlightenment realizes that he and all people are god and only though great pain can one understand that and reach Moksa.


Then how is he in jail in the first place?

See Hinduism post.

1- Haruhi Suzumiya.

2- Dragonball Z.

3- Evangelion.

1- Haruhi Suzumiya.

2- Dragonball Z.

3- Evangelion.

That still doesn't answer my question of why he is in jail in the first place?
And how you have my knowledge from a secret sect of Hinduism?

That still doesn't answer my question of why he is in jail in the first place?
And how you have my knowledge from a secret sect of Hinduism?

I don't know, man, I don't write it.

A time traveler, an esper, and an integrated data entity told me, like an angel without a sense of mercy.

I don't know, man, I don't write it.

A time traveler, an esper, and an integrated data entity told me, like an angel without a sense of mercy.

that is not an acceptable answer.
Lay down on this table.
I am going to have give you the water cure to get the answers I want.

that is not an acceptable answer.
Lay down on this table.
I am going to have give you the water cure to get the answers I want.

*Changes into a piglet when water hits his face. Runs away.*

*Changes into a piglet when water hits his face. Runs away.*

*tosses on ready made net over piglet*
*Gets out the barbecue pit*

*tosses on ready made net over piglet*
*Gets out the barbecue pit*

SQUEEE!!! SQUEE!! *Trashes about*

SQUEEE!!! SQUEE!! *Trashes about*

Squeal little piggy I am going to have me some Churrasco.

Squeal little piggy I am going to have me some Churrasco.

*While he's tied up, manages to write G&D's name on a notebook somehow. Watches as G&D dies of cardiac arrest.*

(Okay, let's stop the silliness :p)

really?
I have heard of a dirty bomb plot.
And supposedly* they did get good results from the water boarding sessions.
If information got from water boarding at gitmo prevented the dirty bomb plot, would that be a bad thing ?
Should we free that man give him back his dirty bomb because we got information from torture ?

Not quite ready to believe that, unitl the info gets declassified

I was watching interviews with a former interrogator (he writes under the assumed name of 'Matthew Alexander', now, I think) who was pretty unequivocal about the fact that there HAS been good intelligence obtained in the last 8 years - but that it wasn uncovered by building relationships with people - not by torturing them.

There's really no reason to believe that torture WOULD be the best recourse in the pie-in-the-sky 'episode of 24' scenario you seem to like so much. Indeed, if we're going to let fiction make our arguments for us - I'm agreeing with Joabia's idea. I'm seeing your '24' and I'm raising you "Impostor".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160399/

I'm seeing your '24' and I'm raising you "Impostor".

That's it? I had already put Haruhi Suzumiya, Evangelion and Dragonball in the pot. No true scotsman would ignore that.

That's it? I had already put Haruhi Suzumiya, Evangelion and Dragonball in the pot. No true scotsman would ignore that.

He would? Bugger. There goes my elaborate Eva argument.

What can I say I'm a Philip K Dick fan. Bombs in bodies always makes me think of "Impostor" (and it is a much underrated film... in fact, I think I might go watch that now).

Squeal little piggy I am going to have me some Churrasco.

Mmmmm. Churrasco and Parrillero rice. *drools*

It supports what you've been saying. It's also supporting what he's saying. He's saying that we should go after the top first, which is what happened with Nuremburg.

The problem is that in order to combat what he's saying, you'd have to show an example where the first prosecutions were the lower tier and we still got the top. Nuremburg isn't that.
Sigh. Follow: Nixon was the example of what you said. Nuremberg was cited as an example of the desire for prosecutions not waning after the first big batch but rather continuing long after the public stopped thinking about them, and of prosecution of one group not leading to free pass for the other.

See? Two arguments. Two examples presented in counter-argument.

The reason I get so frustrated is that I have this suspicion that when intelligent people fail to be able to keep track of two points that were actually presented and explained side-by-side, it is because they are not really reading the thread, but instead just scanning it for words/phrases they want to pounce on. This is why so much time is spent arguing over the content of posts rather than the substance of arguments. If people were paying real attention, I think we might have less of this back and forth.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/04/21/holocaust.nazi.hunting.reactions/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/04/21/holocaust.nazi.hunting.reactions/index.html

That's a very good article. Thank you.

Over the weekend and today, Obama reiterated three times that he has no intention of prosectuing any CIA officers and that he does not think Bush White House officials should be prosecuted, either. But it turns out, that is not his decision to make.

This is what I wanted to say as well. And let me add:

US President Barack Obama has left open the possibility of prosecuting officials who wrote CIA memos allowing harsh interrogation methods.

It would be up to the attorney general whether to prosecute, Mr Obama said.
"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws," Mr Obama said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8011077.stm

Mr Nowak has called for an independent review and compensation for victims.

"The United States, like all other states that are part of the UN convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court," Mr Nowak told the Austrian daily Der Standard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8006597.stm

My opinion: Mr. Obama should stay away from this, and allow independent investigations of what's been going on under the Bush administration. His statement was a mistake, as he shouldn't promise amnesty before an investigation has been conducted.

I'm looking forward to see indictments being handed down.

Oh, and Cheney has ventured out of his bunker to sneer at the memos. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8009571.stm)

This is what I wanted to say as well. And let me add:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8011077.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8006597.stm

My opinion: Mr. Obama should stay away from this, and allow independent investigations of what's been going on under the Bush administration. His statement was a mistake, as he shouldn't promise amnesty before an investigation has been conducted.

I'm looking forward to see indictments being handed down.
I agree. It was a tactical error. No matter what happens now, it will be a mark against him. Either he obstructs justice or he makes promises and then throws people to the wolves.

Oh, and Cheney has ventured out of his bunker to sneer at the memos. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8009571.stm)

When is someone going to throw a net over that loon?

Cheney: But you didnt release the memos showing that they work!!!!




I wonder why? Maybe them not existing is an obsitcale.

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws," Mr Obama said.
That is such a 'Ummm, I mean what he said' moment that it's almost kind of awesome. Holder yesterday had already said it was his job to decide who does and doesn't get prosecuted, so today Obama is coming out as pretty much corrected on the issue.

This I agree with-
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Mr Obama said the episode involved a "host of very complicated issues".

An investigation would be acceptable, he said, "outside of the typical hearing process" and with "independent participants who are above reproach".
...
"I do worry about this getting so politicised that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."
Though not our critical national security operations, but rather the ability to function as a deliberative body and not a partisan he said/she said/bickerfest that completely loses sight of the issue, the fact that during this the country still has to function and has some pretty big fucking issues to deal with, etc. I'm not saying we can't multi-task, I'm saying that we have to remember that we have to. I don't want to sit through another Monica Bowl Game. Do it right, get it right. You can't stop the bitching or the flopping for the refs, but you don't have to sink to it.

Either he obstructs justice or he makes promises and then throws people to the wolves.


I wouldn't characterize it as 'throwing people to the wolves' as much as 'makes promises that were not his to make.' He doesn't really throw anyone, it's not his decision ultimately.

I wouldn't characterize it as 'throwing people to the wolves' as much as 'makes promises that were not his to make.' He doesn't really throw anyone, it's not his decision ultimately.

OMG Sauron throes peeple undar dee bus!!

Seriously though, it's been aggravating how every little thing including this debate has somehow been twisted into an indictment of the Obama Administration's complete and utter failure. If they want to prosecute the actual interrogators then great! If Gonzalez and company aren't touched even within 10 years though, it'll be just another dog and pony show like you and a whole bunch others have been saying we were afraid it might turn into.

I agree. It was a tactical error. No matter what happens now, it will be a mark against him. Either he obstructs justice or he makes promises and then throws people to the wolves.
Yeah, that's how it'll be perceived, unfortunately.


When is someone going to throw a net over that loon?
Just make sure to loose the combination to his bunker door...

I'm not saying we can't multi-task, I'm saying that we have to remember that we have to. I don't want to sit through another Monica Bowl Game. Do it right, get it right. You can't stop the bitching or the flopping for the refs, but you don't have to sink to it.
I agree. And I think this is the thing "everybody" fears. People remember the Lewinski-thing all too well, and if such a footnote became such a hysterical circus, what would a real case against real people (who were under the protection of a real president) look like?

OMG Sauron throes peeple undar dee bus!!

Seriously though, it's been aggravating how every little thing including this debate has somehow been twisted into an indictment of the Obama Administration's complete and utter failure.
In this case, it's because Obama himself made some stupid mistakes. He turned the spotlight on himself, and it's a case he can't win.

Sigh. Follow: Nixon was the example of what you said. Nuremberg was cited as an example of the desire for prosecutions not waning after the first big batch but rather continuing long after the public stopped thinking about them, and of prosecution of one group not leading to free pass for the other.

See? Two arguments. Two examples presented in counter-argument.

The reason I get so frustrated is that I have this suspicion that when intelligent people fail to be able to keep track of two points that were actually presented and explained side-by-side, it is because they are not really reading the thread, but instead just scanning it for words/phrases they want to pounce on. This is why so much time is spent arguing over the content of posts rather than the substance of arguments. If people were paying real attention, I think we might have less of this back and forth.

Sigh. Follow: Nuremburg is an example for what you used it for. It's also an example for what he argued. Thus by citing it, you're supporting his argument. See? What you want people to focus on about an example doesn't mean it can't be applied to other arguments. It's almost it like there are other people here who can analyze the data (examples) you present.

You've actually argued his methodology is wrong. When you do that and then give an example where his methodology work it kind of shoots your argument in the head. No amount of sighing and footstamping is going to change that.

As far as Nixon is concerned, Nixon walked. He committed crimes and the only thing that happened is that he had to resign. If it would have been you or I, we'd have gone to jail. Also not such a good example.

Seems in the post you posed the question I was only dealing with the dirty bomb report and claims water boarding produced results.
I was trying to suggest a possible connection between the two. But that will never be know until we can safely declassify all documents on this mater now can we ?

And go eat you get cranky when you don't eat.

Which would be great if there wasn't more context, but there was.

I said you were making shit up when you proposed your silly 24 scenario and you said you had heard of a dirty bomb plot which implies it was a similar plot. I called for you to prove you didn't wholesale make up your scenario. Guess what your source didn't do? It didn't prove that your scenario wasn't bullshit.

So, I'll ask again, do you have a scenario that isn't utter bullshit? Sourcing something mildly similar does crap for your argument.

If we're arguing unicorns exist sourcing a horse doesn't actually prove anything even though a horse is kind of similar.

Sigh. Follow: Nuremburg is an example for what you used it for. It's also an example for what he argued. Thus by citing it, you're supporting his argument. See? What you want people to focus on about an example doesn't mean it can't be applied to other arguments.
But it does mean that I cannot be legitimately criticized as having made a point that someone else actually supplied. You, he and everyone else who jumped on me about Nuremberg were acting like I was trying to disprove something he said. Only I wasn't. I was supporting something that I said, which you just acknowledged that example worked for. As I have said so many fucking times that if I could throw something at you, I would. At this point, this bullshit about what I meant that was different from what I've told you people over and over again that I meant is reaching hijack stage.

You've actually argued <snip a bunch of stuff I did not actually argue>
No. I did not. Either read the damned posts again or freaking drop it already. Because you are not right and haranguing me about it is not going to make me pretend that you are.

Or do I have to remind people again that I am not the topic of this thread?

Or do I have to remind people again that I am not the topic of this thread?

I should just make a thread titled 'Muravyets' since the amount of threads you end up having to say this is in pretty....substantial.;)

I should just make a thread titled 'Muravyets' since the amount of threads you end up having to say this is in pretty....substantial.;)
Seriously, wtf. Are the topics really that boring?

Anyway, back to those memos.... Heinous, ain't they?

Seriously, wtf. Are the topics really that boring?

Nah. We're all just obsessed with you.

Anyway, back to those memos.... Heinous, ain't they?

I personally like how now Obama's like "....but maybe we'll go after their lawyers."

I was reminded of the Shakespeare line, "First, kill all the lawyers."

Nah. We're all just obsessed with you.
Bah, you sad bastards. :p

I personally like how now Obama's like "....but maybe we'll go after their lawyers."

I was reminded of the Shakespeare line, "First, kill all the lawyers."
Yeah, that was kind of weak. I was, like, "Obama, dude, I respect and admire you, but ... stop talking."

Yeah, that was kind of weak. I was, like, "Obama, dude, I respect and admire you, but ... stop talking."

You know what the worst part is?

From a purely political standpoint, his decision makes sense. From a purely political standpoint, I understand why he's doing. Hell, from a purely political standpoint, I agree with his decision.

You know what the worst part is?

From a purely political standpoint, his decision makes sense. From a purely political standpoint, I understand why he's doing. Hell, from a purely political standpoint, I agree with his decision.
Yes, true, but from a purely political standpoint, it would have been even better for him to say nothing at all. We all, who want to see justice done, would be bitching about his silence, but then when/if something actually is done, he wouldn't have so much to explain away.

Yes, true, but from a purely political standpoint, it would have been even better for him to say nothing at all. We all, who want to see justice done, would be bitching about his silence, but then when/if something actually is done, he wouldn't have so much to explain away.

Once he releases the memos, prosecution will be the next logical question on everyone's mind. His silence wouldnt have been a good call.

This way, he makes the CIA trust him and feel safe, this way Republicans may actually end up liking him in the end, and this way he doesnt go down in history as the guy who sent his predecessor to jail.

Plus, his point about how at the moment there is no way these guys would get a fair trial is a good point. Thats my biggest concern. I want to see these guys hang, but I still believe they should recieve a fair trial.

Once he releases the memos, prosecution will be the next logical question on everyone's mind. His silence wouldnt have been a good call.

This way, he makes the CIA trust him and feel safe, this way Republicans may actually end up liking him in the end, and this way he doesnt go down in history as the guy who sent his predecessor to jail.

Plus, his point about how at the moment there is no way these guys would get a fair trial is a good point. Thats my biggest concern. I want to see these guys hang, but I still believe they should recieve a fair trial.
Possibly, your first two points are true. On the other hand, I see a lot of ammo against Obama being piled up by his opponents. Of course, that would likely happen no matter what he did.

Your third point is certainly true, yes.

Oh, and another thing: Do we want to make any bets concerning the next round of memos to come out?

It seems Dick Cheney now wants even more memos to be released, only this time he wants the ones that will prove HE WAS RIGHT!!! and WE SHOULD TORTURE PEOPLE AND KEEP ON TORTURING THEM!!! He has submitted a formal request to the National Archive to get some more documents declassified so they can be published.

He claims that they will show all the real intel that was gained by torture.

I guess that would be the super-sensitive intel that we don't want the enemy to know we have or else they'll change their tactics to beat us. Sigh.

However, he has not mentioned whether any of those memos will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such intel could not have been gotten by any means other than torture. Sigh again.

But whatever -- if his request is granted, then the memos he wants should be released just in time for the publication of the book he's writing. Sigh*cough*ahem.

Oh, and another thing: Do we want to make any bets concerning the next round of memos to come out?

It seems Dick Cheney now wants even more memos to be released, only this time he wants the ones that will prove HE WAS RIGHT!!! and WE SHOULD TORTURE PEOPLE AND KEEP ON TORTURING THEM!!! He has submitted a formal request to the National Archive to get some more documents declassified so they can be published.

He claims that they will show all the real intel that was gained by torture.

I guess that would be the super-sensitive intel that we don't want the enemy to know we have or else they'll change their tactics to beat us. Sigh.

However, he has not mentioned whether any of those memos will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such intel could not have been gotten by any means other than torture. Sigh again.

But whatever -- if his request is granted, then the memos he wants should be released just in time for the publication of the book he's writing. Sigh*cough*ahem.

My theory is that these memos dont exist. Cheney knows it. He just is hoping that his supporters will start screaming that OBAMA IS SUPRESSING INFORMATION!!!

My theory is that these memos dont exist. Cheney knows it. He just is hoping that his supporters will start screaming that OBAMA IS SUPRESSING INFORMATION!!!
That's one theory.

Another is that he's just crazy. And every time he gets in front of a camera, he sounds crazier.

You know, he's been in the politics racket since Nixon. I hear so many old-timers who have known him for decades say over and over that nothing he says or does now makes any sense compared to how he acted years ago. I do think he is degenerating.

My theory is that these memos dont exist. Cheney knows it. He just is hoping that his supporters will start screaming that OBAMA IS SUPRESSING INFORMATION!!!

I have to vote this scenario. Cheney is anti-transparency and him bitching about lack of transparency is obviously a gambit to get right-wing talking heads and their sheep to start screaming about a liberal conspiracy.

But it does mean that I cannot be legitimately criticized as having made a point that someone else actually supplied. You, he and everyone else who jumped on me about Nuremberg were acting like I was trying to disprove something he said. Only I wasn't. I was supporting something that I said, which you just acknowledged that example worked for.

"Just" acknowledged. I said so before when you first complained. Weren't you saying it bothers you when no one reads.

As I have said so many fucking times that if I could throw something at you, I would. At this point, this bullshit about what I meant that was different from what I've told you people over and over again that I meant is reaching hijack stage.

You know you get angry a lot just because people disagree. Your arguments suck. They suck. Badly. And when people dispute them your invariable response is that people just didn't understand, which is also a bad argument. Talking about how you want to throw things because you can't express a good argument is silly.

Violence is the resort of individuals whose arguments have failed them.


No. I did not. Either read the damned posts again or freaking drop it already. Because you are not right and haranguing me about it is not going to make me pretend that you are.

Or do I have to remind people again that I am not the topic of this thread?

Oh, you poor thing. Everyone who disagrees with you just didn't read. I mean, if only people read what you wrote then they'd agree, right? There is no other explanation for them disagreeing with your aguments, right? That it's every single person who disagrees with you must just be coincidence. Surely, it's coincidence.

You make yourself a topic when you bitch and moan and footstomp and pretend that you're being mistreated if anyone dares to disagree. You chose an ill-thought out example. You got caught. Quit your crying and move on.

"Just" acknowledged. I said so before when you first complained. Weren't you saying it bothers you when no one reads.

<snip>

Quit your crying and move on.
If you had been reading the thread, you would have known that the class has already moved on. Do try to keep up, J.

I have to vote this scenario. Cheney is anti-transparency and him bitching about lack of transparency is obviously a gambit to get right-wing talking heads and their sheep to start screaming about a liberal conspiracy.
Yeah, actually, now that I think more about it, I'm changing my vote. This is just the kind of thing Cheney would pull.

Shit. You're right, M. I fucking mixed up your argument. Dammit. That kind of makes me look silly.

Looking back at some of it, I'm not sure how I got the impression you were saying something else, but I sure did. I still think that your examples help his claims, but since you weren't claiming that going after the bigwigs first won't work, then that's irrelevant. Fair enough.

I can admit when I'm wrong and I am here.

Shit. You're right, M. I fucking mixed up your argument. Dammit. That kind of makes me look silly.

Looking back at some of it, I'm not sure how I got the impression you were saying something else, but I sure did. I still think that your examples help his claims, but since you weren't claiming that going after the bigwigs first won't work, then that's irrelevant. Fair enough.

I can admit when I'm wrong and I am here.
Aw, shit. Am I going to have to have sex with you now?

Oh, well, when a thank-you is warranted, then it must be given. :fluffle:

Actually, really sincerely, thank you. A lot. Amazingly a lot.

Yeah, actually, now that I think more about it, I'm changing my vote. This is just the kind of thing Cheney would pull.

Bush is conniving but a bit dense, the rest of the administration is just plain conniving.

Aw, shit. Am I going to have to have sex with you now?

Oh, well, when a thank-you is warranted, then it must be given. :fluffle:

Actually, really sincerely, thank you. A lot. Amazingly a lot.
For admitting I'm wrong? Wouldn't you be more thankful if I hadn't been wrong in the first place.

My original reply to you still stands, though. I forgot my point since last night at first, but what I was pointing out then was that he's saying we'd do better to err on the side of beginning at the top since the bottom has failed so many times.

Now you and I both agreed that starting at the bottom isn't why it failed. But since the example you gave that actually succeeded started at the top and the other example failed to actually get the top, they very much bolster his argument.

I was pointing out that you were asking him to deal with your examples, but they strengthen his call to start at the top. I know that's not why you posted them, but since they do, there is not much to deal with. In history, we've come up with ONE example that shows that getting the top is possible and the ONLY time it's happened has been when we did it CTOAN's way.

You know you get angry a lot just because people disagree. Your arguments suck. They suck. Badly. And when people dispute them your invariable response is that people just didn't understand, which is also a bad argument. Talking about how you want to throw things because you can't express a good argument is silly.

"But its not personal. Really."


:rolleyes:

For admitting I'm wrong? Wouldn't you be more thankful if I hadn't been wrong in the first place.

My original reply to you still stands, though. I forgot my point since last night at first, but what I was pointing out then was that he's saying we'd do better to err on the side of beginning at the top since the bottom has failed so many times.

Now you and I both agreed that starting at the bottom isn't why it failed. But since the example you gave that actually succeeded started at the top and the other example failed to actually get the top, they very much bolster his argument.

I was pointing out that you were asking him to deal with your examples, but they strengthen his call to start at the top. I know that's not why you posted them, but since they do, there is not much to deal with. In history, we've come up with ONE example that shows that getting the top is possible and the ONLY time it's happened has been when we did it CTOAN's way.
First, I never denied that it worked the way he said it would.

I only disputed that it cannot work any other way as well.

In that vein, there is a flaw in your comment above: You say that when it was done CTOAN's way (Nuremberg), that is the only time it worked to get both upper and lower echelon criminals to face justice.

But that would only be a true assertion of fact if you could show that it was not possible for it to have happened the other times we have faced such issues. But that would require it to have been tried the other times. It never has been tried.

No one has been punished for Rwanda, nor will they ever be. That country has decided not to go that route.

Legal proceedings have not even begun on Darfur.

The atrocities of the US Indian Wars were not considered atrocities for many decades after they happened, and it's too late now. There is no prosecuting the dead.

And so on.

As for Watergate, that supports my assertion that it is possible to reach up to the highest levels by starting from the bottom of a conspiracy. As I said, Nixon was saved at the last minute, but his guilt was established, and he was facing prosecution and near-certain conviction, even after he resigned, when Ford preemptively pardoned him.

So on your and CTOAN's side, you have a whole lot of nothing, frankly. You have one huge and impressive example of it working from the top down, and then you have tons of examples of non-effort, but no examples of efforts that failed.

on my side, I have one -- just one little example of the legal system working from the bottom up. But compared to zero examples of the bottom-up approach not working, I'll take my Watergate and stand by my argument that it is possible and, therefore, the argument that starting at the bottom effectively guarantees that the guys at the top will never be brought to justice is not proven.

That is why I will not condemn prosecutions for starting at the bottom, only for ending there. I will not assume that the start guarantees the end.

First, I never denied that it worked the way he said it would.

I only disputed that it cannot work any other way as well.

In that vein, there is a flaw in your comment above: You say that when it was done CTOAN's way (Nuremberg), that is the only time it worked to get both upper and lower echelon criminals to face justice.

But that would only be a true assertion of fact if you could show that it was not possible for it to have happened the other times we have faced such issues. But that would require it to have been tried the other times. It never has been tried.

No one has been punished for Rwanda, nor will they ever be. That country has decided not to go that route.

Legal proceedings have not even begun on Darfur.

The atrocities of the US Indian Wars were not considered atrocities for many decades after they happened, and it's too late now. There is no prosecuting the dead.

And so on.

As for Watergate, that supports my assertion that it is possible to reach up to the highest levels by starting from the bottom of a conspiracy. As I said, Nixon was saved at the last minute, but his guilt was established, and he was facing prosecution and near-certain conviction, even after he resigned, when Ford preemptively pardoned him.

So on your and CTOAN's side, you have a whole lot of nothing, frankly. You have one huge and impressive example of it working from the top down, and then you have tons of examples of non-effort, but no examples of efforts that failed.

on my side, I have one -- just one little example of the legal system working from the bottom up. But compared to zero examples of the bottom-up approach not working, I'll take my Watergate and stand by my argument that it is possible and, therefore, the argument that starting at the bottom effectively guarantees that the guys at the top will never be brought to justice is not proven.

That is why I will not condemn prosecutions for starting at the bottom, only for ending there. I will not assume that the start guarantees the end.

He doesn't want us to reach them, though. He wants us to convict them. We didn't convict them. It's another case where we got the bottom and not the top.

As I've said, I agree that they aren't related. But given he's saying starting at the bottom doesn't work, Nixon makes a poor example. It didn't work. Unless they do time for their crimes, they didn't work.

"But its not personal. Really."


:rolleyes:

She brought herself up and said she wanted to throw things at me. I responded. If you notice, I mention something she said, that she was angry, and the rest is about her arguments.

You don't know what personal means, do you? How many times in the quoted part did I mention her arguments? It's not personal. I don't dislike her. I disliked her arguments and that she was getting angry.

You know you get angry a lot just because people disagree. Your arguments suck. They suck. Badly. And when people dispute them your invariable response is that people just didn't understand, which is also a bad argument. Talking about how you want to throw things because you can't express a good argument is silly.

Yes, totally personal.

He doesn't want us to reach them, though. He wants us to convict them. We didn't convict them. It's another case where we got the bottom and not the top.

As I've said, I agree that they aren't related. But given he's saying starting at the bottom doesn't work, Nixon makes a poor example. It didn't work. Unless they do time for their crimes, they didn't work.
No more sex for you. Go sleep on the couch.

Because you're once again trying to make my arguments be about CTOAN's arguments. And that brings me right back to "that's not what I was saying." Take three guesses as to how eager I am to play that stupid fucking game with anyone ever again.

She ... herself ... she .................. she said, ... she was ........... her ....

.... her ... It's not personal. ... her. .... her .... she ....



Yes, totally personal.
Didn't you say something about "moving on"?

And didn't I say something about how I am not the topic of this thread?

Move the fuck on, J.

Didn't you say something about "moving on"?

And didn't I say something about how I am not the topic of this thread?

Move the fuck on, J.
Do you know of a way to talk about what you said when I'm not talking to you without mentioning that you said it?

As I said, it's not as if I was talking about whether or not you're likeable or smart or anything like that. I talked about your arguments within the thread. That's not personal. That's wholly relevant to the topic. Particularly, when you made out like discussing what you said is the same as discussing you. It isn't. At all.

No more sex for you. Go sleep on the couch.

Because you're once again trying to make my arguments be about CTOAN's arguments. And that brings me right back to "that's not what I was saying." Take three guesses as to how eager I am to play that stupid fucking game with anyone ever again.

You're replying to him. He's replying to you. We're talking about an example you gave to CTOAN. What he's arguing at the point you gave that example is relevant. You're not arguing in a vaccuum.

And yes, I said 'you' several times. It must be personal.