Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what is more idiotic is is convicting CIA officials in public without a trial for political purposes.
Learn how to differentiate. CIA officials are not under attack, the organization is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
what does that has to do with the term unlawful combatant? since you said the Bush administration made the term up and you lack knowledge of the term. It was used in our courts during WW 2.
The Obama administration change the term to "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents"......now, that term they made up with the same definition as unlawful combatant.
The Supreme Court has always been inconsistent and political.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. That's the bottom line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
it goes both ways, the lack of prosecution usually means it can't be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
I guess for you public media trial = a crime was committed.
Prove that the lack of prosecution USUALLY means it can't be proven in court.
And again, the institution of the CIA is at question here, not its individual members. Nobody is accusing individual agents of going rogue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
Bullshiat!
CIA Director John Brennan (Obama appointee ) defended harsh interrogation techniques as providing useful information to authorities, including in the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden.
Brennan said it's "lamentable" that the Senate panel didn't conduct interviews with CIA agents. That makes the whole senate report GARBAGE and political. A legal reason why this can't be prosecuted since you act like a constitutional legal scholar in this forum. Don't you think if the Senate (democrats) make a honest and unbias report they would interview CIA agents under oath? or you think unnamed sources should have more weight?
Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and her fellow Democrats in the committee which the Democrats control until next month spent the last five years and over $40 million dollars investigating a program that effectively ended over eight years ago for political purposes.
bipartisan by a$$!!!......keep drinking the kool aid.
lol
The Senate had access to transcripts of all the interviews conducted by CIA's Inspector General of its agents; the CIA's own oral history transcripts; and 6 million pages of CIA documents. Your objection that they didn't subpoena them to ask questions they'd already answered is laughable and weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
accusations in a report from unnamed sources doesn't equal a crime. You should know that since you mention the law and constitution so much in this forum.
The CIA won't support the report even with an Obama appointee CIA director, that says it all.
If the program ended 8 years ago, what was the purpose of the senate report when it won't prosecute and it puts Americans lives abroad in danger? POLITICAL
Don't you think if the democrats don't want for this to "NEVER" happen again they would fire and prosecute CIA agents......shouldn't they start with CIA director (Obama appointee)? John Brennan who was CIA's deputy executive director during these interrogation techniques. Why didn't the senate interview him for the report and the other CIA agents?
lol
weak, weak, weak
What's funniest about you is how inconsistent you are. You go to absurd lengths to defend the CIA's torture techniques and then deny they tortured anyone. So which is it? Did they torture people and you think it's good or did not they not, in spite of their own records to the contrary, do nothing of the kind? Make up your mind. You, as if proud of your own ignorance try to sarcastically call me a "constitutional scholar" for pointing out something (you clearly didn't know) that every American who made it through middle school should know. And then you turn around and present a rather dubious "fact" about prosecutorial discretion that you seem to have just made up, like your use of cliches in lieu of facts, substituting bravado for a point.
Most folks I have discussed it with say they are opposed to Torture, and that's quite a few people. All torture does is make us the same as any other Terrorist or despot regime. The people that say waterboarding was not torture, have always changed their minds drastically when it was done to them, and quit before the first bucket was empty. I think the people that instigated this, and participated in it, should be charged and arrested for Terroristic acts against humanity, no matter who they are.
Learn how to differentiate. CIA officials are not under attack, the organization is.
I guess the organization runs by itself. CIA officials just go there to grab a check and wait for retirement!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. That's the bottom line.
If you say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
Prove that the lack of prosecution USUALLY means it can't be proven in court.
I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof that a crime was committed by the CIA officials and high government officials must be proven in court by the government. Which democrats which have the Justice Department refuses to prosecute......again, you can speculate all you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
And again, the institution of the CIA is at question here, not its individual members. Nobody is accusing individual agents of going rogue.
who runs the institution? if nobody is accusing individual agents of going rogue and violating laws, then why are we having this discussion again? why have a democrat senate report accusing the CIA of crimes without interviewing 1 CIA agent involved in the interrogations, not 1?
who did these interrogations the holy ghost?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
The Senate had access to transcripts of all the interviews conducted by CIA's Inspector General of its agents; the CIA's own oral history transcripts; and 6 million pages of CIA documents. Your objection that they didn't subpoena them to ask questions they'd already answered is laughable and weak.
they do? Amazing!!!! The CIA's Inspector General works directly with the Department of Justice, why aren't there any charges? ......you say they have 6 million pages (LMAO) of CIA documents and you swear by the senate report that crimes were committed by CIA agents..err, I forgot Agents are not on trial here its the institution of the CIA....LMAO!!!
by the way, its about 6 thousand pages NOT 6 million pages!.........FUNNY that the Director of the CIA John Brennan (Obama appointee) and top CIA officials disagree with the Senate report and question why the senate didn't subpoena CIA agents....is that laughable and weak also? it doesn't fit your narrative?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
lol
weak, weak, weak
yeah, opinions are like A-holes, everybody has one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
What's funniest about you is how inconsistent you are. You go to absurd lengths to defend the CIA's torture techniques and then deny they tortured anyone. So which is it? Did they torture people and you think it's good or did not they not, in spite of their own records to the contrary, do nothing of the kind? Make up your mind. You, as if proud of your own ignorance try to sarcastically call me a "constitutional scholar" for pointing out something (you clearly didn't know) that every American who made it through middle school should know. And then you turn around and present a rather dubious "fact" about prosecutorial discretion that you seem to have just made up, like your use of cliches in lieu of facts, substituting bravado for a point.
you and the left makes a big thing about nothing. I just laugh how personal you get over this. Washington Post (not a right wing newspaper) pretty much sums up this political circus:
Quote:
What harsh interrogation methods did the CIA use, and did those methods amount to torture?
In 2002, CIA officials drew up a list of harsh techniques, including those that would allow interrogators to slap and forcefully grab detainees, put them in stress positions and deprive them of sleep, place them in confinement boxes and subject them to waterboarding, or simulated drowning. CIA officials also asked if they could perform mock burials but were refused authorization to do so.
Many detainees endured some of these techniques but only three were waterboarded. (Washington Post)
WOW!!! All this circus and drama by your side is about 3 Al Qaeda leaders getting waterboarded a program that was stop 8 years ago....yeah! we have a national constitutional crisis here! LMAO!!! NO wonder Holder refuses to prosecute this joke of a drama but you and left sure drink the kool aid.
Most folks I have discussed it with say they are opposed to Torture, and that's quite a few people. All torture does is make us the same as any other Terrorist or despot regime. The people that say waterboarding was not torture, have always changed their minds drastically when it was done to them, and quit before the first bucket was empty. I think the people that instigated this, and participated in it, should be charged and arrested for Terroristic acts against humanity, no matter who they are.
I don't give a rat's a$$ if 3 Al Qaeda leaders were waterboarded after 9/11.......if you have gone to ground zero after 9/11 and and see how Americans lost their lives and their families are still suffering their tragic lost you wouldn't get so personally upset why those 3 A-holes that were waterboarded riding your high moral horse here.
Put things under perspective..........according to CIA Director John Brennan, those interrogations got us Osama and other leaders and intel .....that is worth 3 Al Qaeda leaders being waterboarded.....you want to prosecute the people that got Osama Bin Laden....Good Luck!
All this fuss is about 3 Al Qaeda leaders who were waterboarded by the CIA after 9/11. A program that stop 8 years ago and we didn't need a 40 million dollar senate report for that.
The Drama Queens here make it sound that the CIA waterboarded Jesus or Gandhi like leaders and killed a humanitarian movement.
now the left and some here act like we have a constitutional and moral crisis in our nation. All to make the Bush administration look bad. They won't go after the CIA because they know better, so the report stop short of prosecutions and was a political stunt to set up the 2016 presidential election.
I'm still waiting for these people to go protest in the streets for justice for the 3 Al Qaeda leaders that were water boarded. I'm sure they will get a lot of support especially in New York.
I guess the organization runs by itself. CIA officials just go there to grab a check and wait for retirement!
Nobody said that. You're the one that insisted that CIA members were under attack. Again you seem to be arguing with yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
If you say so.
I didn't, the SCOTUS did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof that a crime was committed by the CIA officials and high government officials must be proven in court by the government. Which democrats which have the Justice Department refuses to prosecute......again, you can speculate all you want.
I asked you prove your own statement about prosecutorial discrection and you're trying to shift gears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
who runs the institution? if nobody is accusing individual agents of going rogue and violating laws, then why are we having this discussion again? why have a democrat senate report accusing the CIA of crimes without interviewing 1 CIA agent involved in the interrogations, not 1?
who did these interrogations the holy ghost?
The Senate report makes no claim that the CIA went rogue and goes to great lengths to explain how the CIA obtained legal cover from the Bush Administration. Once again, attacking a report for being partisan but you clearly have no idea even what's actually in it, just repeating the talking points of the right wing torture defenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
they do? Amazing!!!! The CIA's Inspector General works directly with the Department of Justice, why aren't there any charges? ......you say they have 6 million pages (LMAO) of CIA documents and you swear by the senate report that crimes were committed by CIA agents..err, I forgot Agents are not on trial here its the institution of the CIA....LMAO!!!
by the way, its about 6 thousand pages NOT 6 million pages!.........FUNNY that the Director of the CIA John Brennan (Obama appointee) and top CIA officials disagree with the Senate report and question why the senate didn't subpoena CIA agents....is that laughable and weak also? it doesn't fit your narrative?
yeah, opinions are like A-holes, everybody has one.
you and the left makes a big thing about nothing. I just laugh how personal you get over this. Washington Post (not a right wing newspaper) pretty much sums up this political circus:
WOW!!! All this circus and drama by your side is about 3 Al Qaeda leaders getting waterboarded a program that was stop 8 years ago....yeah! we have a national constitutional crisis here! LMAO!!! NO wonder Holder refuses to prosecute this joke of a drama but you and left sure drink the kool aid.
Get over it!
lol
Nice deflection. Anything to avoid addressing your staggering (but unsurprising) lack of consistency.
So, did they torture people or not? You just defended torture while simultaneously claiming the Senate report was bunk. Which is it?
Nobody said that. You're the one that insisted that CIA members were under attack. Again you seem to be arguing with yourself.
if the CIA is not under attack, what's the fuss about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
I asked you prove your own statement about prosecutorial discrection and you're trying to shift gears.
so the lack of prosecution on CIA agents is because prosecutorial discrection? you based this on what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
The Senate report makes no claim that the CIA went rogue and goes to great lengths to explain how the CIA obtained legal cover from the Bush Administration. Once again, attacking a report for being partisan but you clearly have no idea even what's actually in it, just repeating the talking points of the right wing torture defenders.
is not what the Director of the CIA John Brennan (Obama appointee) and top CIA officials said on the record. Are they repeating the right wing talking points?
Is CIA director John Brennan and top CIA officials also wrong for attacking the report because it doesn't fit your left wing narrative?
The final report runs more than 6,000 pages, with more than 35,000 footnotes. (Washington Post )
6 million pages?
Quote:
What harsh interrogation methods did the CIA use, and did those methods amount to torture?
In 2002, CIA officials drew up a list of harsh techniques, including those that would allow interrogators to slap and forcefully grab detainees, put them in stress positions and deprive them of sleep, place them in confinement boxes and subject them to waterboarding, or simulated drowning. CIA officials also asked if they could perform mock burials but were refused authorization to do so. Many detainees endured some of these techniques but only three were waterboarded. (Source: Washington Post)
all this drama from the left and drama queens like you is for 3 Al Qaeda leaders that were water boarded after 9/11 but the technique stop for over 8 years and they didnt need a 40 million dollar senate political motivated report to stop that technique. The left acts like we have a constitutional and moral crisis over this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
Nice deflection. Anything to avoid addressing your staggering (but unsurprising) lack of consistency.
So, did they torture people or not? You just defended torture while simultaneously claiming the Senate report was bunk. Which is it?
make up your mind? CIA agents broke the law? if they did according to the report , PROSECUTE......all you have is a 40 million dollar senate report of 1 sided allegations that democrats are too gutless to prosecute and lose public support.
and the decision to kill Osama and not interrogate was Obama,....take up with him. I would of like to have taken Osama and given him a public trial with Judge Judy in central NYC and then electrocute him at the SUPER Bowl half time show and revive him and do it all over again!
Waterboarding for crucial information in extreme circumstances and keeping our enemies ALIVE and well fed with medical and dental coverage for life is a lot better treatment than what the 3,000 Americans that died in 9/11 and the others who are beheaded got ......don't you think Mircea?
Obama had to kill OBL, because he and Holder have so screwed up our military justice system, and turned warfare into police actions. So if we had captured OBL alive, he'd have pleaded the 5th, refused to talk, and we would not be able to ask him any questions at all. Even those computers and phones at the home of OBL would have been denied us, since we did not have a proper search warrant, with no legal authority to enter the home of OBL.
if the CIA is not under attack, what's the fuss about?
I don't know, why don't you tell me? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
so the lack of prosecution on CIA agents is because prosecutorial discrection? you based this on what?
???
Seriously?
LMAO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
is not what the Director of the CIA John Brennan (Obama appointee) and top CIA officials said on the record. Are they repeating the right wing talking points?
Is CIA director John Brennan and top CIA officials also wrong for attacking the report because it doesn't fit your left wing narrative?
John Brennan is wrong because he's wrong. And Brennan didn't accuse the Senate of being partisan, that would be you and your fellow right wing propagandists. Once again, you're conflating two different things. You are not merely repeating Brennan's objections, you're attacking the very nature of the investigation as partisan (which again, Brennan did not do) while simultaneously defending torture (which you still wont' say whether they did it or not and Brennan does not defend torture).
Go back and read what you're arguing about (I'll wait). I said the Senate had access to over 6 million pages of CIA documents and you come back with how long the Senate report itself was. Not what I was talking about, those are two completely different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
all this drama from the left and drama queens like you is for 3 Al Qaeda leaders that were water boarded after 9/11 but the technique stop for over 8 years and they didnt need a 40 million dollar senate political motivated report to stop that technique. The left acts like we have a constitutional and moral crisis over this.
So, again, did they torture people or not? If they didn't, why have you gone to great lengths to defend torture? If they did, what's your beef with the Senate report then? The truth not the truth just because you don't like who says it? That's not the way it works in the real world. Maybe in right wing fantasy land, but nowhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
make up your mind? CIA agents broke the law? if they did according to the report , PROSECUTE......all you have is a 40 million dollar senate report of 1 sided allegations that democrats are too gutless to prosecute and lose public support.
Weak attempt to deflect. Again, a lack of prosecution does not = a lack of a crime.
So did they torture people or not?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
