POL - HOORAH! This is the way the US troops should be!!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Cheney CIA Exemption Torture....they didnt grab them out of a hat, like you said.

All I said was they got the idea from somewhere, it could have been from a hat, but it doesn't appear to be from the words of Dick Cheney. Interesting conclusion then that Dick Cheney said the CIA should torture people, I think.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

All I said was they got the idea from somewhere, it could have been from a hat, but it doesn't appear to be from the words of Dick Cheney. Interesting conclusion then that Dick Cheney said the CIA should torture people, I think.

he didnt say that they should, he is simply "spearheading" and "administration push to have the CIA be exempt from Torture" laws. Me and John McCain disagree with what he is pushing for, along with most Americans.

FYI,

Ex-CIA boss: Cheney is 'vice president for torture'

Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 7:42 p.m. EST (00:42 GMT)



LONDON, England (CNN) -- Former CIA chief Stansfield Turner lashed out at Dick Cheney on Thursday, calling him a "vice president for torture" that is out of touch with the American people.

Turner's condemnation, delivered during an interview with Britain's ITV network, comes amid an effort by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, to pass legislation forbidding any U.S. authority from torturing a prisoner. McCain was tortured as a Vietnam prisoner of war.

Cheney has lobbied against the legislation, prompting Turner to say he's "embarrassed that the United State has a vice president for torture. I think it is just reprehensible."

Turner, a retired Navy admiral who headed the intelligence agency from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter, stood firm on his earlier remarks Friday and, in a CNN interview, scoffed at assertions that challenging the administration's strategy aided the terrorists' propaganda efforts.

"It's the vice president who is out there advocating torture. He's the one who has made himself the vice president in favor of torture," said Turner, who from 1972 to 1974 was president of the Naval War College, a think tank for strategic and national security policy.

Cheney has fought McCain's legislation, pushing for an exception for the CIA in cases that involve a prisoner who may have knowledge of an imminent attack. (Read about McCain's anti-torture campaign)

Torture diminishes the country's image and moral stature, forcing other nations to look at the United States "in a very different light," Turner said, adding that such tactics also open the door to retribution.

"We military people don't want future military people who are taken prisoner by other countries to be subjected to torture in the name of doing just what the United States does," he said.

Turner, who supported Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, went on to say that "the vice president is out of tune with the American people, who don't want our country tarred with the label of being one that tortures."

A statement from the vice president's office said that the United States "does not torture." It also stated that Cheney's views are "reflected in the administration's policy.

"Our country is at war, and our government has an obligation to protect the American people from a brutal enemy that has declared war upon us." (Watch special on Cheney's remarks over the years)

The United States has enacted several intrusive procedures since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to protect the country from terrorists, but torture, Turner said, is an unacceptable method.

"Torture is beyond the pale. It is going too far," he said.

[Dutch]

The only thing Cheney is quoted as saying is "We do not torture." How the hell do you get from there to here?

Pardon you, Cheney has asked for an exemption from stated torture laws for the CIA.

Quoting what people actually say is very important and most articles show a wealth of what opponents say, like yours you cite. I understand that's not your fault, but doesn't Cheney deserve a better rebuttal in an article that is accusing him of "wanting torture"?

[st.cronin]

I don't have any special insight on this, but it would surprise me if the US/Cheney/CIA is involved in what we would consider Torture. It's possible that they're asking for exceptions because of liasons with some shady allies, or it's possible that they're asking for an exemption for some other reason, such as a specific technique that they want to be free to use but which we (laypeople) would not neccesarily consider torture.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The only thing Cheney is quoted as saying is "We do not torture." How the hell do you get from there to here?



Quoting what people actually say is very important and most articles show a wealth of what opponents say, like yours you cite. I understand that's not your fault, but doesn't Cheney deserve a better rebuttal in an article that is accusing him of "wanting torture"?

So every article ever written on anything that doesnt have a quote from the horse's mouth is horse shit? Thats horseshit. Now across many days multiple articles and statements cited people from within the walls of the meeting, from statements made at the White House, and Now statements made from someone who spent much time at the CIA.

I guess, you again fall under the title of, if it doesn't resound well with me and my "side" I will deny, deny, deny until they actually admit it. Well needless to say, Im open minded enough to see the forest for the trees on both sides of the aisle. Surely, while I lean more left than you, I am able to see the good from both sides....and expose the bad. Their rhetoric on this specific issue is self-evident.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't have any special insight on this, but it would surprise me if the US/Cheney/CIA is involved in what we would consider Torture. It's possible that they're asking for exceptions because of liasons with some shady allies, or it's possible that they're asking for an exemption for some other reason, such as a specific technique that they want to be free to use but which we (laypeople) would not neccesarily consider torture.

this could be very true.....my problem is not the asking of the exemption, thats a different issue. My problem is the hiding, the secrecy, the shadiness. Just tell me the truth. You might be surprised by my reaction.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this could be very true.....my problem is not the asking of the exemption, thats a different issue. My problem is the hiding, the secrecy, the shadiness. Just tell me the truth. You might be surprised by my reaction.

I absolutely do not expect transparency from the CIA or my government on certain matters. Certain things must remain obscure if we are to remain strong.

Surely you can see that, right?

[Dutch]

I guess, you again fall under the title of, if it doesn't resound well with me and my "side" I will deny, deny, deny until they actually admit it.

I'm not asking for anybody to admit it. I'm asking for what Cheney said that leads reporters to say "He's spearheading the charge" to allow torture. If he's in charge of trying to re-instate torture (or whatever) shouldn't he be allowed to defend himself with what he means by this?

The only thing I see Cheney say is "We do not torture."

That tells me the guy said nothing of the sort like "I want to legalize torture."

[duckman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Surely you can see that, right?

This is Flasch we're talking about.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by duckman

This is Flasch we're talking about.

I know Flasch is lefthanded, but he's also bright and reasonable.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I absolutely do not expect transparency from the CIA or my government on certain matters. Certain things must remain obscure if we are to remain strong.

Surely you can see that, right?

We're not talking about what the CIA says or Does, we're talking about what the
administration says or does, or doesnt say or do. There are things the CIA does that no one should know about, but unfortunately, this administration seems to have put the CIA in the breast pocket and carried it around with them. I think that that is one of the problems....there isnt enough seperation between them.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

We're not talking about what the CIA says or Does, we're talking about what the
administration says or does, or doesnt say or do. There are things the CIA does that no one should know about, but unfortunately, this administration seems to have put the CIA in the breast pocket and carried it around with them. I think that that is one of the problems....there isnt enough seperation between them.

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from - except that at times in the past, the CIA has been accused (and, from what I can deduce, been guilty of) operating with too LITTLE oversight.

I think ultimately responsibility for the CIA rests with the Executive branch (I could be wrong - I know there is some congressional oversight as well), so I don't really see what difference it makes how close they are.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think ultimately responsibility for the CIA rests with the Executive branch (I could be wrong - I know there is some congressional oversight as well), so I don't really see what difference it makes how close they are.

Yes, the CIA is a part of the Executive branch. The military is too. Should we have transparency in the military too?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from - except that at times in the past, the CIA has been accused (and, from what I can deduce, been guilty of) operating with too LITTLE oversight.

I think ultimately responsibility for the CIA rests with the Executive branch (I could be wrong - I know there is some congressional oversight as well), so I don't really see what difference it makes how close they are.

The only time the CIA exposes its deeds is when that oversight committee calls a representative of the CIA before them to explain something. Even then there are certain things they cannot answer. Unfortunately, this time, the administration has chosen to politicize torture and bring it to the forefront causing respected Senators like McCain to feel compelled to authoran anti-torture legislation, which should be unneccesary with the Geneva Conventions on the books. It is this, request for exemption, that Cheney has spearheaded that is appalling. He should just STFU, behind closed doors, so that Scott McLellan doesnt have to look like an asshat anymore.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The only time the CIA exposes its deeds is when that oversight committee calls a representative of the CIA before them to explain something. Even then there are certain things they cannot answer. Unfortunately, this time, the administration has chosen to politicize torture and bring it to the forefront causing respected Senators like McCain to feel compelled to authoran anti-torture legislation, which should be unneccesary with the Geneva Conventions on the books. It is this, request for exemption, that Cheney has spearheaded that is appalling. He should just STFU, behind closed doors, so that Scott McLellan doesnt have to look like an asshat anymore.

You don't even know what the guy said and you want him to shut up?

[st.cronin]

It seems to me that it's the enemies of the administration who are politicizing torture, and have been for some time now.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You don't even know what the guy said and you want him to shut up?

Dutch, it cannot be debated with you (Arles school of debate graduate) If you dont read it as a direct quote you dont believe it. does that transcend politics and also apply to anything? If a killer doesnt admit his guilt do you believe he is not guilty unless he admits it? I am able to see the whole picture, I wish you could too.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I am able to see the whole picture, I wish you could too.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It seems to me that it's the enemies of the administration who are politicizing torture, and have been for some time now.

we'll just have to disagree on which came first, the chicken or the egg, on this one.

[MrBigglesworth]

Dutch is right. I mean, a politician that takes the popular stand in public and then works behind the scenes on his real agenda? Outlandish! How could anyone ever think such a thing? That has never before happened in the history of the world. Who cares if all the circumstantial evidence points to it, it's what he says that matters. There's no reason to lie!

I took a lot of psych courses in college. What happens is that people get emotionally attached to a decision that they have made, where their entire self-esteem is intertwined with that decision. They can't admit being wrong, or their self-esteem is effected negatively. The result is that reason and logic no longer apply. It's pointless to argue using reason and logic, because that is no longer what their decision is based on. You end up debating the inconsequential. So you just have to keep beating them over the head with a simple narrative: Cheney loves torture. They've seen all the same news stories you have. They have been exposed to all the facts. It doesn't take you to remind them of them. You just need to wait until it becomes so obvious that it can't be denied anymore. A third of Bush voters have already reached that point, as his popularity is down to 35%.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Dutch is right. I mean, a politician that takes the popular stand in public and then works behind the scenes on his real agenda? Outlandish! How could anyone ever think such a thing? That has never before happened in the history of the world. Who cares if all the circumstantial evidence points to it, it's what he says that matters. There's no reason to lie!

I took a lot of psych courses in college. What happens is that people get emotionally attached to a decision that they have made, where their entire self-esteem is intertwined with that decision. They can't admit being wrong, or their self-esteem is effected negatively. The result is that reason and logic no longer apply. It's pointless to argue using reason and logic, because that is no longer what their decision is based on. You end up debating the inconsequential. So you just have to keep beating them over the head with a simple narrative: Cheney loves torture. They've seen all the same news stories you have. They have been exposed to all the facts. It doesn't take you to remind them of them. You just need to wait until it becomes so obvious that it can't be denied anymore. A third of Bush voters have already reached that point, as his popularity is down to 35%.

Did your college classes say this only applies to Republicans?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Did your college classes say this only applies to Republicans?

I was thinking the exact same thing after reading that.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Did your college classes say this only applies to Republicans?

Cheney loves torture.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Dutch, it cannot be debated with you (Arles school of debate graduate) If you dont read it as a direct quote you dont believe it. does that transcend politics and also apply to anything? If a killer doesnt admit his guilt do you believe he is not guilty unless he admits it? I am able to see the whole picture, I wish you could too.

Flasch,

I don't think Dutch is looking for a direct freaking quote. I know I'm certainly not. I would like some of the sources of the information to place it in some context. Because without context, Cheney might be asking for an exemption on a specific practice, say sleep deprivation or it might be that he is wanting an exemption from prosecution for CIA agents. Not because he wants them to be able to shove bamboo chutes beneath suspect's fingernails, but because he doesn't want some over zealous prosecutor to go after one for keeping a suspect awake by using loud music.

The point Dutch and a few others are making is that when no context is provided in the story, then readers are left to draw the, seemingly natural, conclusion that he is condoning torture, or seeking to. You have wholeheartedly jumped to this conclusion, and can't see that particular tree in the forest you keep suggesting Dutch is wandering around in. I'm beginning to think you are actually stuck in that particular tree.

I'm not looking for a direct quote. I'm looking for a little more information. In my mind the only thing shady going on are the articles that seem to be leaving out important details. It doesn't seem likely that Cheney is seeking a carte blanche allowance for torture when all the administration is saying publicly is that we don't torture, and we don't condone torture.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Flasch,

I don't think Dutch is looking for a direct freaking quote. I know I'm certainly not. I would like some of the sources of the information to place it in some context. Because without context, Cheney might be asking for an exemption on a specific practice, say sleep deprivation or it might be that he is wanting an exemption from prosecution for CIA agents. Not because he wants them to be able to shove bamboo chutes beneath suspect's fingernails, but because he doesn't want some over zealous prosecutor to go after one for keeping a suspect awake by using loud music.

The point Dutch and a few others are making is that when no context is provided in the story, then readers are left to draw the, seemingly natural, conclusion that he is condoning torture, or seeking to. You have wholeheartedly jumped to this conclusion, and can't see that particular tree in the forest you keep suggesting Dutch is wandering around in. I'm beginning to think you are actually stuck in that particular tree.

I'm not looking for a direct quote. I'm looking for a little more information. In my mind the only thing shady going on are the articles that seem to be leaving out important details. It doesn't seem likely that Cheney is seeking a carte blanche allowance for torture when all the administration is saying publicly is that we don't torture, and we don't condone torture.

Ahhhh, but I dont think that that is what Dutch was saying. If it is, than I can understand wanting to know the context to find out if a specific form of torture was being asked for BUT I think he was saying, or arguing, that Cheney is NOT asking for an exemption from something that, right now, is considered torture...but is not asking at all. THAT I do not believe.

I believe that the smoke points to those words existing and that there is some merit there. Sure, I can see your point BUT I dont think that that is what Dutch was saying. you do? I didnt read that in any of his statements.

[Flasch186]

its still evolving, but again, I will be proven right:

Powell aide: Torture 'guidance' from VP
Former staff chief says Cheney's 'flexibility' helped lead to abuse

Sunday, November 20, 2005; Posted: 5:18 p.m. EST (22:18 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former top State Department official said Sunday that Vice President Dick Cheney provided the "philosophical guidance" and "flexibility" that led to the torture of detainees in U.S. facilities.

Retired U.S. Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told CNN that the practice of torture may be continuing in U.S.-run facilities.

"There's no question in my mind that we did. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it," Wilkerson said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated -- in the vice president of the United States' office," he said. "His implementer in this case was [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department."

At another point in the interview, Wilkerson said "the vice president had to cover this in order for it to happen and in order for Secretary Rumsfeld to feel as though he had freedom of action."

Traveling in Latin America earlier this month, President Bush defended U.S. treatment of prisoners, saying flatly, "We do not torture." (Full story)

Cheney has lobbied against a measure in Congress that would outlaw "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners, calling for an exception for the CIA in cases that involve a detainee who may have knowledge of an imminent attack.

The amendment was included in a $491 billion Pentagon spending bill that declared 2006 to be "a period of significant transition" for Iraq. (Full story)

Proposed by Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, the amendment was approved in the Senate last month by a 90-9 vote. It was not included in the House version of the bill.

The White House has said that Bush would likely veto the bill if McCain's language is included, calling the amendment "unnecessary and duplicative."

Rumsfeld told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the White House was in negotiations with the Senate over the amendment.

"There's a discussion and debate taking place as to what the implications might be and what is supportable and what is not," he told the program. "But the fact of the matter is the president from the outset has said that he required that there be humane treatment."

Cheney has come under mounting criticism for his position. Last week, Stansfield Turner, a military veteran who served as director of the CIA during the Carter administration, labeled him the "vice president for torture." (Full story)

In a statement responding to Turner's remark, Cheney said his views "are reflected in the administration's policy. Our country is at war and our government has an obligation to protect the American people from a brutal enemy that has declared war upon us."

"We are aggressively finding terrorists and bringing them to justice and anything we do within this effort is within the law," the statement said, adding that the United States "does not torture."
Rumsfeld denies 'cabal' charge

Bush administration officials, including Rumsfeld and military officials, have denied that instances of torture were ever officially condoned. Some personnel accused of torture have been convicted and sentenced for prisoner abuse.

"All the instructions I issued required humane treatment," Rumsfeld told ABC. "Anything that was done that was not humane has been prosecuted."

But Wilkerson argued last month in a speech that Cheney and Rumsfeld formed a cabal that "made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."

Wilkerson told CNN Sunday he does not know "if the president was witting in this or not."

"I voted for him twice," he said. "I prefer to think that he was not."

Earlier, on the same CNN program, Rumsfeld dismissed as "ridiculous" the claim that he was involved in a cabal.

Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they had no recollection of Wilkerson having attended meetings with Rumsfeld or Cheney.

"In terms of having first-hand information, I just can't imagine that he does," said Rumsfeld. "The allegation is ridiculous."

"I was in every meeting with the joint chiefs. I was in every meeting with the combatant commanders. I went to the White House multiple times to meet with the National Security Council and with the president of the United States. I have never seen that colonel," added Pace.

"They made my point for me," responded Wilkerson. "The decisions were not made in the principals' process, in the deputies' process, in the policy coordinating committee process. They were not made in the statutory process."

Wilkerson said his "insights" came from Powell "walking through my door in April or March of 2004 and telling me to get everything I could get my hands on with regard to the detainee abuse issue -- ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] reporting, memoranda, open-source information and so forth -- so that I could build some kind of story, some kind of audit trail so we could understand the chronology and we can understand how it developed."

While he acknowledged having no proof that the United States is torturing detainees, Wilkerson said, "I can only assume that, when the vice president of the United States lobbies the Congress on behalf of cruel and unusual punishment and the need to be able to do that in order to get information out of potential terrorists... that it's still going on."

He said U.S. officials should realize they are involved in "a war of ideas" that cannot be advanced with torture.

"In a war of ideas, you cannot damage your own ideas, your own position by seeming to do things that are in contradiction of your values," he said.

Rumsfeld told ABC that the military has "overwhelmingly treated people humanely."

"The history of the United States military is clear. Torture doesn't work. The military knows that. We want our people treated humanely," he said.

[Glengoyne]

Flasch,

I'm thinking he is just a guy who used to be someone important who read the same stories we all have, and has jumped to the same conclusion about Cheney that you, Giggles, and many on the left have. It is just that because he used to be someone, he gets to spread his assumptions around in a format that reaches more people.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Flasch,

I'm thinking he is just a guy who used to be someone important who read the same stories we all have, and has jumped to the same conclusion about Cheney that you, Giggles, and many on the left have. It is just that because he used to be someone, he gets to spread his assumptions around in a format that reaches more people.

Ok, but we've been down this road before. when I tell you something will flesh out 9 time out of 10 it does. Its a comin....Just like the Plame story, its going back in front of the grandjury soon. I will add it to my list of items I said would flesh out that did.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I am able to see the whole picture, I wish you could too.

Now if only you were equally capable of discernment, logic, reason, or simple common sense.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Ok, but we've been down this road before. when I tell you something will flesh out 9 time out of 10 it does. Its a comin....Just like the Plame story, its going back in front of the grandjury soon. I will add it to my list of items I said would flesh out that did.

I don't know who is keeping that batting average for you, but really they need to check their math. I'm not saying that you aren't perceptive and insightful, just that you aren't THAT insightful. I'm thinking there is some selective remembering going on.

[Flasch186]

okay...we'll see.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now if only you were equally capable of discernment, logic, reason, or simple common sense.

If there is anything that screams discernment, logic, and reason better than ad hominem attacks, I don't know of it.

[Flasch186]

I told ya....Cheney now had the motive to go ask for a CIA exemption from the definition of torture under the new bill. Here is Goss saying some of the things they do would be banned by the new bill that Cheney is asking for that exemption. So here's the motive, now we just need Cheney to admit he asked for the exemption and Ill be right again. I admit, Cheney hasnt come outright and admitted that he asked for the exemption, but the deck of cards is almost in place....youve got the leaks that he did behind closed doors (multiple leaks), youve got the motive now....were just missing the admittance.



Goss: CIA Doesn't Torture Detainees
Monday, November 21, 2005



WASHINGTON — The CIA's interrogation methods are "unique" but don't involve torture, agency chief Porter Goss says, although he won't specify just what techniques are used to extract information from prisoners.

In an interview published Monday in USA Today, Goss reiterated the Bush administration's defense of its interrogation practices in the war against terrorism.

"This agency does not do torture. Torture does not work," Goss said. "We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways, all of which are legal and none of which are torture."

The Senate has passed a ban on the torture of suspected terrorists in U.S. custody. The bill would restrict techniques used to interrogate foreign terrorism suspects and would ban "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of anyone in U.S. custody. The bill was sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Without elaborating, Goss suggested that some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence. He said it was important that the United States have flexibility in dealing with terror suspects in other countries.


"An enemy that's working in an amorphous network that doesn't have to worry about a bunch of regulations, chain of command, rule of law or anything else has got a huge advantage over a stultified, slow-moving bureaucratic, by-the-book" organization, Goss argued. "So we have to, within the law and within all the requirements of our professional ethics in this profession, develop agility. And that means putting a lot of judgment in the hands of individuals overseas."

Goss declined to discuss reports that the CIA maintains secret detention centers at military bases in Central European countries.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I told ya....Cheney now had the motive to go ask for a CIA exemption from the definition of torture under the new bill. Here is Goss saying some of the things they do would be banned by the new bill that Cheney is asking for that exemption. So here's the motive, now we just need Cheney to admit he asked for the exemption and Ill be right again. I admit, Cheney hasnt come outright and admitted that he asked for the exemption, but the deck of cards is almost in place....youve got the leaks that he did behind closed doors (multiple leaks), youve got the motive now....were just missing the admittance.
....

I don't know. Goss says that the techniques used by the CIA don't involve torture. He describes them as lawful, innovative, and Unique. Then later he possibly hints that some of their techniques might be restricted under the proposed law, while those methods are not limited by the current torture policy/laws. It sounds to me like Cheney might have been seeking a specific exemption for some technique(s) that might fall into a "grey area" created by this new legislation.

That isn't the same as Cheney or the Administration advocating or requesting a license to torture. If it turns out that Cheney was simply trying to protect a practice that many wouldn't consider torture, would you be wrong? Or are you trying to set yourself up, so that no matter what Cheney was asking for proves you right? That Cheney was asking for some kind of exemption regarding the CIA and torture isn't at question. It was whether he was asking for essentially a carte blanche policy allowing the CIA to torture prisoners. That doesn't appear to be what Goss is describing at all.

[Flasch186]

I never once said the Admin. supports or advocates torture. I was called out that Cheney WAS NOT asking for an exemption, and thats the road I had to go down to show that he did. Whether or not I agree with him, wasnt the point. simply put that he is asking for an exemption from things defined as "torture" for the CIA. Its coming through that I was right. Some of those on the right will just jump to the defense JUST as quick as those on the left jump to attack. I am saying exactly what I said, he did, more and more evidence is mounting and those that are saying he did not, that it cant be proven until he admits it, basically are full of partisan shit.

Maybe the specific exemption isnt what youre looking for BUT remember you got into this late, it was challenged by a different poster that none of it could be believed because it didn't come from Cheney himself. You (Glen) gave him the license to worm out of his defense by throwing in the "specificity" clause. That wasn't the debate...., it was any at all.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I never once said the Admin. supports or advocates torture. I was called out that Cheney WAS NOT asking for an exemption, and thats the road I had to go down to show that he did. Whether or not I agree with him, wasnt the point. simply put that he is asking for an exemption from things defined as "torture" for the CIA. Its coming through that I was right. Some of those on the right will just jump to the defense JUST as quick as those on the left jump to attack. I am saying exactly what I said, he did, more and more evidence is mounting and those that are saying he did not, that it cant be proven until he admits it, basically are full of partisan shit.

Maybe the specific exemption isnt what youre looking for BUT remember you got into this late, it was challenged by a different poster that none of it could be believed because it didn't come from Cheney himself. You (Glen) gave him the license to worm out of his defense by throwing in the "specificity" clause. That wasn't the debate...., it was any at all.

I don't think I was all that late to the debate. I believe specifically that the subject came up when I had asked what proof there was that the President or his administration were advocating torture. Giggles mentioned the infamous "torture" memo, and someone cited the Cheney bit. I called you and others out specifically because you and they didn't know the first thing about Cheney's request. Folks had apparently and willfully jumped to the conclusion the story led you to believe, that Cheney was secretly working to get "torture" legalized for the CIA. The paucity of facts in the story made the insinuation that Cheney was up to something dark and untoward even more ominous. The truth of the matter is that we still don't know what Cheney was asking for, because none of the reporters/sources have shared those details.

Although I could be wrong, I don't think Dutch was arguing that he had to hear Cheney himself make the request. I think you went into your golf bag, mistakenly grabbed your Arles Wedge, and went to swinging away at Dutch's argument.

[Flasch186]

first off NEVER compare my diatribes to Giggles.

Second I didnt say the admin advocated for torture, simply that Cheney was advocating for that specific exemption for the CIA.

Third, it seeming untoward is nobody's fault but those that act or speak behind closed doors. So that is all his, not mine - Perception is reality 99% of the time.

Dutch, used the Arles argument first, and while he certainly wont ever overtake Arles in that dept. he used it, so the whack-a-mole came out.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't think I was all that late to the debate. I believe specifically that the subject came up when I had asked what proof there was that the President or his administration were advocating torture. Giggles mentioned the infamous "torture" memo, and someone cited the Cheney bit. I called you and others out specifically because you and they didn't know the first thing about Cheney's request. Folks had apparently and willfully jumped to the conclusion the story led you to believe, that Cheney was secretly working to get "torture" legalized for the CIA. The paucity of facts in the story made the insinuation that Cheney was up to something dark and untoward even more ominous. The truth of the matter is that we still don't know what Cheney was asking for, because none of the reporters/sources have shared those details.

Although I could be wrong, I don't think Dutch was arguing that he had to hear Cheney himself make the request. I think you went into your golf bag, mistakenly grabbed your Arles Wedge, and went to swinging away at Dutch's argument.

Blen, open your eyes. Seriously. At some point you have to start trusting those that have been correct and not trusting those that have been wrong. I was pro war in March of 2003. When the WMD's failed to show up, I admitted my mistake. At that time I chose to trust those who were right, and not trust those that were wrong. First Abu Ghraib happened, and the administration called it a bunch of bad apples. Then similar behavior was found to have occurred other places around the world. We know for a fact that suspected terrorists are extradicted to other countries to be tortured (something that also happened during the Clinton years, which was wrong then as well). We know for a fact that Bush does not believe in universal habeus corpus. Amnesty International called Gitmo a 'gulag', the administration was aghast at the rhetoric, then it turned out that we actually have reopened Soviet era gulags in Eastern Europe. There are literally hundreds of smoking guns that indicate that the administration, at the very least, wants to loosen the definition of 'torture'. And that is not a partisan view coming out of moonbat lefty blogs or Micheal Moore. Read Andrew Sullivan or the 'Cunning Realist' to get conservative views on it.

For God's sake, the President is outright lying now in covering up the lead up to the Iraq war, telling the people that Congress had the same intelligence as he did and that they voted to authorize war. At this point why would you give them the benefit of the doubt in the face of mountains of evidence?