Where is this administration headed?
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/
Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible
Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday stopped short of entirely ruling out a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soilâ€"without trial.
Holder’s comment came in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul. Paul had sent a letter to President Obama’s CIA director nominee John Brennan asking for the administration’s views on the president’s power to authorize lethal force.
In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “
In a separate letter, Brennan told Paul that the CIA has no such authority.
The nomination passed its first hurdle Tuesday with the Senate intelligence committee voting to approve the nomination in a 12-3 vote. Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said he voted against the nomination because of inconsistencies in Brennan's testimony.
Earlier in the day, the White House agreed to provide legal documents written by Justice Department officials explaining the legal rationale for targeting Americans overseas who are involved in terror-related activities that threatened America or American interests.
To me the whole purpose of drone strikes is to attack a threat that's in hostile territory, ya know somewhere that's unfriendly to the US. What purpose does it serve to use an armed drone within your own country, land that you have access to anyway? I don't care what they say concerning drone strikes in the US, it's all far fetched 'legal gibberish'. Could they? Yeah. Will they? No. We have all kind of resources that we can use (FBI etc) before using a freaking high profile armed drone to get someone in the states. This is one of the many silly political things (on both sides of the aisle) that people get worked on so much, like... Obama will take your guns away, over my cold dead hands!!!... Global warming...the Benghazi incident...High capacity magazines etc etc etc.
Quote from: stephendare on March 06, 2013, 11:35:25 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 06, 2013, 11:19:59 PM
Where is this administration headed?
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/
Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible
Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday stopped short of entirely ruling out a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soil—without trial.
Holder’s comment came in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul. Paul had sent a letter to President Obama’s CIA director nominee John Brennan asking for the administration’s views on the president’s power to authorize lethal force.
In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “
In a separate letter, Brennan told Paul that the CIA has no such authority.
The nomination passed its first hurdle Tuesday with the Senate intelligence committee voting to approve the nomination in a 12-3 vote. Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said he voted against the nomination because of inconsistencies in Brennan's testimony.
Earlier in the day, the White House agreed to provide legal documents written by Justice Department officials explaining the legal rationale for targeting Americans overseas who are involved in terror-related activities that threatened America or American interests.
you believed in this kind of thing six years ago, not now.
Have you changed your mind now that a democrat is president?
You either really lack comprehension skills or you say things that are not true. Hmmm. I supported (and still support) the use of intelligence to locate and kill our enemies overseas. Using "drones", "bombs", or "bullets" is the same thing. I have always understood that and I support the President's use of drones in Asia, just as I supported the previous President. I believe the current President's practice of "personally" picking targets is a mistaken practice, but how he runs his administration is up to him. I have never, and would never, support any assassination of a US citizen on US soil (or anywhere in the world) unless they posed an immediate danger to human life.
It is you, StephenDare!, who has changed your stated opinions with the political winds. You now accept Gitmo. You accept targeted assassination of enemy forces via bombing. You have made no statements against this idea that Americans can be assassinated by the government on US soil. Not a peep from you about the failure of Obama appointee's to pay their income taxes, not a word about (illegally) shipping weapons to drug cartels, silence from you about the bombing campaign in Libya. While you called the previous President a "war criminal" for bombing and invading a country, you have been quite accepting of the current President invading Pakistan and killing several foriegn nationals there. Is President Obama a "war criminal" because he ordered the killing of a 16 year old American boy? As a matter of fact, all you seem to have focused on is 90% income tax rates (for certain people) and your personal belief that no one "needs" anything more than a "six shooter" for self defense.
I'm not surprised. I have always known you are a partisan drone. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.
In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “
That makes perfect sense. Especially when you consider that all enlistees in the US military take an oath promising to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
If, for example, a commercial airliner were hijacked and being flown towards a very large, occupied skyscraper in a major US city. Should the President order the Air Force (or similar) to shoot it down to save thousands of lives?
I'd think so.
Holder's statement constitutes a legal opinion based on the laws as they are now not a policy decision that he's making.
Hmmmmm...any chance the drone could be bribed to take out the incestuous, drug-smokin', drama-lovin' hillbilly neighbors down the street? It's a circus out there every night (and day). :P
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 09, 2013, 07:17:40 AM
Holder's statement constitutes a legal opinion based on the laws as they are now not a policy decision that he's making.
Exactly.
In fact, I am standing by my previous statements. You can make up all kinds of things, but the facts are:
President Obama has maintained the prison in Cuba.
President Obama has invaded at least two countries militarily and killed people in those countries.
President Obama had argued for and successfully extended the Patriot Act.
President Obama has PERSONALLY approved and assigned assassinations by drone. Including at least two American citizens one of which was sixteen years old.
President Obama, in addition to the drone strikes, has approved bombing raids that have resulted in exactly the types of casualties that the previous administration did. The only difference now is that the Obama administration counts any male aged 16-65 that dies in these incidents as a "combatant".
Your memory, as always, is not as accurate as it should be. Your position on these issues speaks for itself. You are simply a Democrat shill.
For the rest of you, I am glad that Mr. Holder clarified his position. Perhaps a more detailed analysis of the authority of the President is called for. I would be interested in hearing your positions on the stated issues. Do you still oppose the policies of President Bush that President Obama has continued or even expanded? How do YOU compare waterboarding two or three of the worst individuals to assassinating ? (an unknown number), at least two of which were Americans and one was a juvenile? My position hasn't changed, StephenDare! (despite dancing around) has changed his spots (other than it is STILL Bush's fault). What say you?
Quote from: stephendare on March 09, 2013, 01:18:51 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 09, 2013, 01:16:40 PM
In fact, I am standing by my previous statements. You can make up all kinds of things, but the facts are:
President Obama has maintained the prison in Cuba.
President Obama has invaded at least two countries militarily and killed people in those countries.
President Obama had argued for and successfully extended the Patriot Act.
President Obama has PERSONALLY approved and assigned assassinations by drone. Including at least two American citizens one of which was sixteen years old.
President Obama, in addition to the drone strikes, has approved bombing raids that have resulted in exactly the types of casualties that the previous administration did. The only difference now is that the Obama administration counts any male aged 16-65 that dies in these incidents as a "combatant".
Your memory, as always, is not as accurate as it should be. Your position on these issues speaks for itself. You are simply a Democrat shill.
For the rest of you, I am glad that Mr. Holder clarified his position. Perhaps a more detailed analysis of the authority of the President is called for. I would be interested in hearing your positions on the stated issues. Do you still oppose the policies of President Bush that President Obama has continued or even expanded? How do YOU compare waterboarding two or three of the worst individuals to assassinating ??? (an unknown number), at least two of which were Americans and one was a juvenile? My position hasn't changed, StephenDare! (despite dancing around) has changed his spots (other than is is STILL Bush's fault). What say you?
Notnow. Did the US torture anyone under the Bush Administration during the Iraq War?
Yes. A very limited number normally under very restricted conditions.
Do you still support the PATRIOT ACT as it was introduced by Republican Congresses and pushed by the Bush Administration?
I did, and I still do support provisions of the PATRIOT ACT. In a time of war, I fully expect the Executive branch to utilize the powers of the office to protect the country. As the "war on terror" is denied or withdrawn from by the current administrtion (not knocking Obama for it, it's just what he is doing), then a return to "peacetime" should allow the PATRIOT ACT to expire.
Did Obama, on the first month of his presidency radically revise the PATRIOT Act?
No. The PATRIOT ACT has never been "radically" revised. President Obama used an "autopen" (for some reason) to reauthorize the PATRIOT ACT on May 26, 2011. The PATRIOT ACT has been revised almost constantly since its inception. Changes have been relatively minor.
Do you and Bridge Troll still support crushing the testicles of a prisoners child in order to extract information from them? Have you changed your mind? If so, what caused it?
I don't know what you are talking about. Could you point me to a conversation where I supported this act?
Easy questions. Can you answer them?
I can.
I am against torture or the practice of execution without due process.
So you oppose the practice of assassinating terrorist by ANY means that the Obama Administration currently uses. Is the Presidents behavior criminal? In your opinion, is it more acceptable to you that a terrorist is killed, rather than captured and waterboarded? The terrorist will continue to live after the waterboarding. Do you support the Bush administrations method of waterboarding or the Obama administrations method of assassination?
I am for the restoration of Habeus Corpus, which you and Bridge Troll argued against,
Once any emergency has passed, as stated in Article 1, Section 9 the privilege of writ of habeus corpus should return to normal.
I believe that our rights are universal, not limited to american citizens, as you have claimed.
I also believe in universal human rights. I believe that a wartime battlefield is not the place to look for careful application of human rights.
Nothing has changed my mind, and I can call something wrong no matter who is in office.
But you won't say it directly. You called Bush a monkey, a criminal and a murderer. Even though you hace ceded that Obama is carrying out the same policies, even beyond by selected, targeted assassination, you just can't bring yourself to say outright that he is wrong (in your opinion) much less call him the same names. That, StephenDare!, is hypocrisy.
Don't bother answering though. Your words are your condemner.
My words reflect the truth. President Obama is prosecuting the war in Afghanistan utilizing the weapons that reach our enemy. I support him in that effort, just as I supported President Bush on the same subject. Just as I did not always agree with the Bush administration, I do not always agree with the Obama administration. But I am consistent in my views. You have exposed yourself for what you are....again.
I have not removed a thing from this forum. Don't try to imply that I did. What has happened here (again) is that you have made statements that are not true. There are many, many things that you do not understand. Your lack of experience in several areas if forgivable. Your insistence on misrepresenting the facts in these areas is not.
Once again, you have shown us something about yourself. Hmm.
And the targeted assassinations of the Obama administration, personally picked and directed by the President, has gone on for going into his second term now. You still have not spoken out against it. In fact, like the vast majority of Democrats, you have simply ignored it. You called (some still call) President Bush a "war criminal", yet now so many Democrats have come to see that simply killing these guys avoids that whole little "torture" problem. Of course, that information stream is gone as well. But I can't blame Obama for wanting to avoid that trap. With your vast non-experience, how would you advise the President to prosecute the war in Afghanistan? Assuming you still don't want to hurt or kill anyone.
A conversation requires both parties to participate. Answer my questions, just as I have answered yours. Don't ask me what they were, if you need to review the previous posts please do so. You seem to enjoy the role of interrogator, don't you?
Quote from: NotNow on March 09, 2013, 10:24:34 PM
And the targeted assassinations of the Obama administration, personally picked and directed by the President, has gone on for going into his second term now.
Minor quibble: the President may sign off on these, but you (and I) had no way of knowing if he personally picks and directs these. It's highly unlikely he does.
I'll repeat my question:
With your vast non-experience, how would you advise the President to prosecute the war in Afghanistan? Assuming you still don't want to hurt or kill anyone.
I believe Stephen & Notnow are both actually on the same sides, but are in fact way too apologetic for their parties they believe in so strongly. Sure, there's varying degrees of which turd stinks less (which is what you guys are always arguing about), but ultimately both Presidents aren't that different.
If Obama was so interested in "walking back" things like the Patriot Act, NDAA & things of that sort, he sure has a funny way of going about it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-congress-passes-bill-extend-patriot-act-sen-rand-paul-delay-article-1.144631
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/
http://www.businessinsider.com/unbelievable-obama-administration-has-already-appealed-ndaa-ruling-2012-9
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/08/obama_138/
Like I said, both sides quibbling with each other is mostly a distraction & does nothing. Everyone, on both sides, have to come to the realization that most of these people aren't here for you, the country & its leaders no longer work for you, aren't your buddies, and are mostly interested in keeping it business as usual. That means war, that means fighting "terror", spying, taking away more of your rights, letting big business write the laws, keeping the rackets going, etc. So on his one hand while Obama is finding ways of stroking the base by talking about equal rights for gays in an inaugural speech, he's punching everyone in the metaphorical dick with the other hand. Men, women, gays, straights, white, black & brown.
Is there any doubt of this that's actually based in reality, and not just what someone "says" they may or may not do? I'd love to see it.
Adam,
The White House has made that claim. Read the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&pagewanted=print
Lengthy, but a good overview of the Presidents role in the drone strike program from his own administration.
Quote from: peestandingup on March 10, 2013, 06:36:33 AM
I believe Stephen & Notnow are both actually on the same sides, but are in fact way too apologetic for their parties they believe in so strongly. Sure, there's varying degrees of which turd stinks less (which is what you guys are always arguing about), but ultimately both Presidents aren't that different.
If Obama was so interested in "walking back" things like the Patriot Act, NDAA & things of that sort, he sure has a funny way of going about it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-congress-passes-bill-extend-patriot-act-sen-rand-paul-delay-article-1.144631
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/
http://www.businessinsider.com/unbelievable-obama-administration-has-already-appealed-ndaa-ruling-2012-9
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/08/obama_138/
Like I said, both sides quibbling with each other is mostly a distraction & does nothing. Everyone, on both sides, have to come to the realization that most of these people aren't here for you, the country & its leaders no longer work for you, aren't your buddies, and are mostly interested in keeping it business as usual. That means war, that means fighting "terror", spying, taking away more of your rights, letting big business write the laws, keeping the rackets going, etc. So on his one hand while Obama is finding ways of stroking the base by talking about equal rights for gays in an inaugural speech, he's punching everyone in the metaphorical dick with the other hand. Men, women, gays, straights, white, black & brown.
Is there any doubt of this that's actually based in reality, and not just what someone "says" they may or may not do? I'd love to see it.
I don't think I'm being apoligetic to any party. I have clearly stated that I support President Obama in his prosecution of this war. And I am certainly not a Democrat. My point, which you have eloquently stated, is that President Obama has prosecuted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a very similar way that the Bush administration had done. He has even expanded the lethality via the drone strikes. And yet so many who participated in the name calling are now silent. That is hypocricy.
The thread, however, is about a completely different subject...using similar techniques, or even justifying, assassination on US soil. The first response from Mr. Holder was vague and simply said "yes, the President CAN order such a thing". Mr. Holder and the administration have since modified that statement. I believe it deserves honest discussion. What is the policy of using such a decision? Does the executive branch even have such power under the US Constitution? As Senator Paul pointed out, these are pretty important questions.
Quote from: NotNow on March 10, 2013, 06:47:49 AM
Adam,
The White House has made that claim. Read the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&pagewanted=print
Lengthy, but a good overview of the Presidents role in the drone strike program from his own administration.
Thanks, NotNow.
I guess it comes down to interpretation. I did read the article and it appears that he is presented with the nominated targets and then signs off on the nominations - so he makes the ultimate decision. So yes, in a sense could say he picks the target. But my point was that others are actually picking the people and he's approving them, which is what seems to be happening.
I'm no fan of the President, but I am glad to see he's taking responsibility for something so serious.
Quote from: NotNow on March 10, 2013, 06:57:30 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on March 10, 2013, 06:36:33 AM
I believe Stephen & Notnow are both actually on the same sides, but are in fact way too apologetic for their parties they believe in so strongly. Sure, there's varying degrees of which turd stinks less (which is what you guys are always arguing about), but ultimately both Presidents aren't that different.
If Obama was so interested in "walking back" things like the Patriot Act, NDAA & things of that sort, he sure has a funny way of going about it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-congress-passes-bill-extend-patriot-act-sen-rand-paul-delay-article-1.144631
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/
http://www.businessinsider.com/unbelievable-obama-administration-has-already-appealed-ndaa-ruling-2012-9
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/08/obama_138/
Like I said, both sides quibbling with each other is mostly a distraction & does nothing. Everyone, on both sides, have to come to the realization that most of these people aren't here for you, the country & its leaders no longer work for you, aren't your buddies, and are mostly interested in keeping it business as usual. That means war, that means fighting "terror", spying, taking away more of your rights, letting big business write the laws, keeping the rackets going, etc. So on his one hand while Obama is finding ways of stroking the base by talking about equal rights for gays in an inaugural speech, he's punching everyone in the metaphorical dick with the other hand. Men, women, gays, straights, white, black & brown.
Is there any doubt of this that's actually based in reality, and not just what someone "says" they may or may not do? I'd love to see it.
I don't think I'm being apoligetic to any party. I have clearly stated that I support President Obama in his prosecution of this war. And I am certainly not a Democrat. My point, which you have eloquently stated, is that President Obama has prosecuted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a very similar way that the Bush administration had done. He has even expanded the lethality via the drone strikes. And yet so many who participated in the name calling are now silent. That is hypocrisy.
I agree, but its the same on both sides. Not you in particular, but Bush supporters were mostly silent back in the day too. Now they've all got their panties in a twist. Is it a sudden awakening, or the same type of hypocrisy?? My money is on the latter.
I can't argue with that :), the R's have their share of hypocrites as well. I apologize for the bickering with StephenDare!, I should know better.
Obama, seems to do what he wants and then tries to convince people otherwise. A kind of narcissistic approach to leadership, uses blame redirection as a kind of political outhouse, where he can relieve himself of the responsibility.
Post presidency, he should author a book, either "Narcissistic Leadership for Dummies", or "Never Question the Boss".
I don't agree with John McCain on virtually anything, but even he thought that US soil droning question that Rand Paul asked was ridiculous.
Quote from: stephendare on March 10, 2013, 09:41:51 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 10, 2013, 06:27:42 AM
I'll repeat my question:
With your vast non-experience, how would you advise the President to prosecute the war in Afghanistan? Assuming you still don't want to hurt or kill anyone.
So thats your answer?
You were completely wrong. or lying or worse.
To enforce your incorrect point of view you hysterically called people names and tried to rely on your alleged 'experience' as a cop during the Bush wars in Iraq, and this is your strategy?
Change points of view on a dime and then pretend you don't hear any of the questions?
Well Im sorry Notnow. You appear to have lied about torture, and you were for it anyways. You were for the policies set in place by Bush that Obama is continuing---to the dismay of many including myself.
You don't get to criticize. This is your policy, your world, your preferred method of conducting our public affairs.
Perhaps you can weep for the country now, but you didnt then.
So, its interesting you have criticisms, but its kindof like a prostitutes opinion on chastity isnt it?
Interesting, of course. But not very shipworthy.
Well of course very little of that makes any sense.
It was not an answer. It was a question...for you. Your memory of our discussions on the subject is as distorted as your logic. I have not "lied" about anything. I have stood by my view. Your "hysterical" defense of your lack of experience and your desparate attack on my military service do not change the facts. The President that you drooled over on these pages is killing the very people that you called President Bush every name in the book because he allowed them to be uncomfortable. Yet you remain silent unless I press you about it. None of the other posters who screamed "torture" seem to have a voice anymore either. I'm not "crying for my country" over this issue. I don't care if Obama continues the Bush policies or if he continues to kill people who are actively trying to kill Americans. I'm the one who has not change positions. I supported Bush then and I support Obama keeping those Bush policies. I also understand his move to assassination v. the enhanced interrogations (the "torture" that so infuriates you) and I support his program.
And your wrong, I DO get to criticize. I am doing so now, in answer to your personal attacks against me. I have pointed out your hypocrisy on assassiation, invading another country, and bombing cities. It is just OK when YOUR President does it. Or at least you will keep loyally quiet about it like a good little peaseant.
I started this thread because AG Holder bluntly stated that the President had the right to kill Americans on US soil using missles and/or drones. I disagree. Mr. Holder has since said the President can not kill an American on US soil who is not actively endangering lives. A much more thought out position. Of course, it still leaves open the thought that the President has the "power" to kill a citizen inside our borders. I think this deserves further discussion, but instead I have wasted three pages on your personal attacks against me in an amatuerish attempt to hide your own hypocrisy.
On a side note, you have stated publicly and in PM many times that it is against the policy of MetroJacksonville to call other posters "Liar". Has that policy changed? Can YOU now be called a "Liar"?
Quote from: stephendare on March 11, 2013, 11:56:19 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 11, 2013, 11:52:18 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 10, 2013, 09:41:51 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 10, 2013, 06:27:42 AM
I'll repeat my question:
With your vast non-experience, how would you advise the President to prosecute the war in Afghanistan? Assuming you still don't want to hurt or kill anyone.
So thats your answer?
You were completely wrong. or lying or worse.
To enforce your incorrect point of view you hysterically called people names and tried to rely on your alleged 'experience' as a cop during the Bush wars in Iraq, and this is your strategy?
Change points of view on a dime and then pretend you don't hear any of the questions?
Well Im sorry Notnow. You appear to have lied about torture, and you were for it anyways. You were for the policies set in place by Bush that Obama is continuing---to the dismay of many including myself.
You don't get to criticize. This is your policy, your world, your preferred method of conducting our public affairs.
Perhaps you can weep for the country now, but you didnt then.
So, its interesting you have criticisms, but its kindof like a prostitutes opinion on chastity isnt it?
Interesting, of course. But not very shipworthy.
Well of course very little of that makes any sense.
It was not an answer. It was a question...for you. Your memory of our discussions on the subject is as distorted as your logic. I have not "lied" about anything. I have stood by my view. Your "hysterical" defense of your lack of experience and your desparate attack on my military service do not change the facts. The President that you drooled over on these pages is killing the very people that you called President Bush every name in the book because he allowed them to be uncomfortable. Yet you remain silent unless I press you about it. None of the other posters who screamed "torture" seem to have a voice anymore either. I'm not "crying for my country" over this issue. I don't care if Obama continues the Bush policies or if he continues to kill people who are actively trying to kill Americans.
And your wrong, I DO get to criticize. I am doing so now, in answer to your personal attacks against me. I have pointed out your hypocrisy on assassiation, invading another country, and bombing. It is just OK when YOUR President does it. Or at least you will keep loyally quiet about it like a good little peaseant.
I started this thread because AG Holder bluntly stated that the President had the right to kill Americans on US soil using missles and/or drones. I disagree. Mr. Holder has since said the President can not kill an American on US soil who is not actively endangering lives. A much more thought out position. Of course, it still leaves open the thought that the President has the "power" to kill a citizen inside our borders. I think this deserves further discussion, but instead I have wasted three pages on your personal attacks against me in an amatuerish attempt to hide your own hypocrisy.
On a side note, you have stated publicly and in PM many times that it is against the policy of MetroJacksonville to call other posters "Liar". Has that policy changed? Can YOU now be called a "Liar"?
Sorry, notnow. Your opinion is literally worthless. Until you can explain why you claimed that the US did not engage in torture, and why you called people liars and questioned their patriotism, and now you claim the same thing, your opinion is literally not worth the electricity it took for you to type these messages.
In fact, you suppported W. Bush's 'non enemy combatant' category that you now disagree with. Another sea change in your alleged 'beliefs'.
curiouser and curiouser.
That's a nice little declaration. Pretend like what you say has any bearing on anything. You not only misrepresent the facts, you don't even understand what the critical factors are in this discussion or even what the facts themselves are. The next time you want to tell me what I support, or have supported, post a reference. You have a proven history of "misstating" what other posters have said.
Speaking of experience, seriously, you should stick to subjects that you have some comprehension of.
You keep mentioning "liars". Is it, or is it not the policy of MetroJacksonville not to allow posters to call other posters "liar"?
Making people uncomfortable is not torture in my opinion. But if I am using the dictionary definition:
Definition of TORTURE
1a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining
then I must honestly concede that the enhanced interrogation techniques caused "anguish of mind".
I thought it obvious to any thinking person the differences between the "torture" such as that suffered by our POW's in N. Vietnam and Iraq that caused serious bodily injury and deformation to our fighting men v. the procedures that you call "torture" that was utilized in enhanced interrogations. I was wrong in assuming others could see that. I was wrong in assuming that others would not seize on terminology and innuendo for political gain.
I would point out that the two or three individuals who were "waterboarded" lived without any mental or physical repercussions. Supposedly to await trail for murdering thousands of American citizens. Just killing them seems to quiet the criticism from Democrats though. It has certainly quieted the Democrats on this site.
Your being an "idiot" is something that you have made up in your own mind. You deal with it.
I will ask one more time before it is obvious that you are simply refusing to answer. Is it, or is it not, the policy of MJ not to allow posters to call each other "liar"?
Can you read? Or answer questions? It is obvious that your intent is to twist truth into some kind of political knot that makes you feel better about yourself. The facts are as plain as the nose on your face. No insults or ignoring your own rules can change the truth. Your refusal to answer questions and your refusal to even acknowledge your own position tells us all we need to know.