-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
Not that reality ever gets in the way of your talking points, there is still great dispute about whether waterboarding is torture, including by those who have undergone it.Misty » 16 Dec 2014 12:48 pm » wrote: Those torture memos written by Jay Bybee and John Yoo, have been widely discredited. Just because those two clowns said that torture was legal, doesn't make it so.
The rules were arguably bent on behalf of the country's defense at a time of great peril, saving thousands of lives.
Lying trolls and hopeless hacks bleat in fake outrage.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
There was absolutely no reason to imprison Japanese Americans; not even a bit of evidence.Misty » 16 Dec 2014 10:24 am » wrote: Did FDR torture people?
President Jimmy Carter opened an investigation to determine whether the decision to put Japanese Americans into internment camps had been justified by the government.
And in 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act, which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 to each individual camp survivor.
Today the decision by FDR to intern the Japanese is looked upon as a blemish on his record, just like BushCo.'s decision to torture people will be.
We got mountains of intel from waterboarding and harsh interrogations, and as high CIA officials stated, thousands of lives were saved.
Further, even worse torture happened under Clinton and likely Obama, by outsourcing it to countries where the practices are far, far worse and more widespread.
Didn't hear a peep out of you about that.
So take your self righteous bleating and stick it.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
FDR did it, and no one was threatened with prosecution or impeachment, because anyone with common sense knows that a president will cross lines to protect the country.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 9:00 pm » wrote: No one agreed that was the right thing to do.
And that when peace comes, policy goes back to Constitutional and legal norms.
Did anyone shriek about war crimes and demand prosecution, like today's liberal left is doing?It was a mistake and President Reagan signed legislation that provided for payments and apologies to Japanese-Americans who were forcibly relocated during World War II.
This country is not perfect. We have made mistakes, and when we do we need to own up to them.
Did they vilify the public figures who with good intent to protect the country crossed lines?
Not that I've ever read.
Liberals are an ugly, irrational mob.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
How to Lie with Semantics in one easy lesson.Cannonpointer » 14 Dec 2014 10:19 pm » wrote: That's cool, *******.
So what is the name of the economy that Wall Street operates in? Everything on Wall Street is PUBLICLY OWNED.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
Yup, they bent the rules in order to protect the country, just like FDR stomped on the Constitution when he locked up 10's of thousands of innocent Japanese Americans.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 8:04 pm » wrote:
You mean by John Yoo and Jay Bybee the two clowns that BushCo. shopped around for to write those ridiculous torture memos? Give me a **** break.
Those memos were widely condemned by many jurists, and in fact most career attorneys in the Justice, Defense and State Departments strongly opposed the positions taken in the memos but were overruled by senior political appointees.
But you moonbats always give him a free pass. It's only when conservatives tip toe across the line that you take out the blackjacks.
So go f*** yourself and your endless partisan lies and bulls***.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
Oh, okay, the CIA should have taken months if not years seeking outside legal advice and let the country be attacked again and thousands more killed.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 8:04 pm » wrote:
You mean by John Yoo and Jay Bybee the two clowns that BushCo. shopped around for to write those ridiculous torture memos? Give me a **** break.
There, happy, moonbat?
But the point is, CIA operatives acted within that directive to protect the country.
Got that? Protect the country.
Which is also true, but doesn't refute Rodriguez's stated reason. If I recall, he also alluded on Fox to protecting the CIA's reputation.
That's not what the deputy to Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, then executive director of the CIA said. He wrote in an e-mail that Rodriguez thought “the heat from destroying is nothing compared with what it would be if the tapes ever got into public domain—he said that out of context they would make us look terrible; it would be ‘devastating’ to us.”
So? That's not a concern?
Are you stupid?
Last edited by RichClem on 14 Dec 2014, 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
Yeah, all the psychotics and liars agree about that.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:50 pm » wrote: I don't know about that Brattle. I'm pretty sure he has most people around here convinced that he's a liar, a nutcase and a partisan hack.
You're so desperate you seek support from a wackjob like Babble?
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
I defend those who followed policy that was declared legal by the Justice Dept. in order to defend our country.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:52 pm » wrote: You defend those who torture.
Self righteous windbags like you would have let thousands of Americans be butchered.
Because it had the faces of the operatives, who would have been endangered, and their families, Jackhole.Why did Jose Rodriguez destroy the tapes that showed people 'defending the country' Jackhole?
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
You're a proven Democrat Talking Point Liar with an obvious agenda.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:48 pm » wrote: Cheney also mentioned Rodriguez today. He's the guy who ran the whole torture program, so I guess he has no agenda, like maybe covering his own ***?
So we can safely ignore every single thing you write. Thanks for making that clear.
So you have no proof whatsoever of your claim. You can only smear your opponents, as usual.
Last edited by RichClem on 14 Dec 2014, 8:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
You smear those who defend the country, then demand I prove their innocence.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:38 pm » wrote: Nice talking points, but prove it.
Typical liberal.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
According to Rodriguez, a CIA operative on Fox today, Zubaydah cooperated sparingly and gave up only KSM's name, not his location, until he was waterboarded. Then he cooperated fully.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:17 pm » wrote: I told you ask Ali Soufan. He had Zubaydah talking until the CIA contractors showed up and put him in isolation for 47 days.
Try again, moonbat.
I mean, this is quite obvious. Some terrorists do have the stamina not to cooperate unless treated in a very, very harsh manner.
Do you seriously deny that?
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:24 pm » wrote:
So you don't have proof. Thanks for admitting that.
The "fact" is, little "torture" occurred as policy beyond the few who were waterboarded.
Those at Gitmo were treated harshly, but not tortured from anything I've seen.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
.Cannonpointer » 14 Dec 2014 7:05 pm » wrote: AAAAAHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
WHAT A FRAUD!
WE'RE WAITING FOR YOU TO NAME ONE SPY WHOSE CONVICTION FOR ESPIONAGE WAS A RESULT OF MCCARTHYISM, FRAUD.
Babble away, psycho.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
No, that is not a "fact." Prove it, moonbat.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:12 pm » wrote: The facts are that we tortured people, some of them innocent.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
Lots of points aren't made in interviews, or were made and cut out by some liberal journalist.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:12 pm » wrote: WTF does that mean? What someone says in an interview doesn't mean anything?
We tortured very, very few, even granting the term. It's probable that most of those released weren't.The facts are that we tortured people, some of them innocent.
Subjected to less severe forms of interrogations, yes, but not waterboarded or anything like that.
Do you have any proof they were? No?
Never thought you did.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
Name one that will induce a dedicated, fanatic terrorist to cooperate in a short period of time.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:09 pm » wrote: Because there are other ways of getting people to cooperate besides torture, moonbat.
Rotsa ruck.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
It was an interview. Big freaking deal. Lots of things are missed in interviews.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:07 pm » wrote: Even Cheney did not refute that figure.
You know what the facts are. Why are you dissembling?
Answer: because you're a hack and a psychopath.
As did Obama. That's the way the system works.So are you saying that Bush released a bunch of terrorists?
Why didn't you condemn him, too?
Because you're a hack.
Last edited by RichClem on 14 Dec 2014, 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
Lots of seemingly strong people cave once caught. There's a huge psychological shock to being caught and helpless.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:00 pm » wrote:You're saying that Abu Zubaydah, a senior Bin Laden official who played a key role in the East Africa embassy attacks was weak willed?
If he truly was strong willed, why would he have cooperated, moonbat?
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
First, the only thing you know is that they were released, not that they were innocent. What's the recidivism rate? Pretty high.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 6:59 pm » wrote:Cheney says he doesn't care that we tortured innocent people.
On today's Meet The Press former VP Dick Cheney was asked:
So Dick Cheney has no problem with the fact that 25% of the people he tortured were innocent.
Nice guy.
Second, three thousand Americans and perhaps thousands more would die if we didn't penetrate Al Qaeda.
Self righteous windbags and liars like you refuse to take that into account.
-
-
- Posts: 1274
-
I didn't say that I agree either. I don't know if any convictions occurred because of McCarthy or not. Neither do you.Cannonpointer » 14 Dec 2014 6:47 pm » wrote: Right.
Thousands accused, zero convicted - and you AGREE with those stats.
You dishonestly called me a fraud, when in fact McCarthy exposed a large Communist Underground, which was my point.
As usual, you lied.
Go f*** yourself.Thanks, lady.
Pull your panties up and keep walking, *******.