Unbelievable...

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:24:49 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You're sounding like a real whackjob here, Rick.

Yeah, nothing crazier than someone who thinks that the law and its principles
should be followed...

Sure, yeah, you betcha. Eric Holder is the Attorney General,
he has said categorically, waterboarding is torture. If I
were you I'd just take his word for it.

Fair enough. Ken F. supports putting Obama on trial for "torture" (well,
really, there's no need for a trial, just a sentencing because Obama is guilty
according to Ken and Eric Holder), as well as conspiracy to commit torture, and
further, Ken F. feels that the AG's word is law. Beancounter will be
thrilled...

HTH,
R
Two words for ya..."Alberto" and "Gonzales"...

Like I said, you've moved way past pathetic and are hurtling
straight down the road to pathological. Your rabid anti-Obama
obsession is ****ing with your head. Your crazy, impossible,
twisted "logic" reads like the fevered imaginings of a paranoid
schizophrenic railing against "the voices".

Calm down, accept the fact that your guys lost the election in
November and try to keep your wits about you. Everything's gonna
be OK, really it is.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Like I said earlier in this thread, no reasonable person could
conclude that the United States did not torture people. And no
reasonable person would argue that waterboarding is not torture.

Then under your definition, there are a fair number of military officers, some
of whom refused to take any part in the interrogations, and another larger group
who didn't even know about them, who are guilty of "torture." Moreover, so are
the editors, publishers, and other management staff of Vanity Fair and other
publications and news outlets. Moreover, as Commander in Chief, Obama is guilty
of it. The good news is that your definition is wrong. And here's the funny
thing - a fair number of the "victims" of "torture" would be guilty of, at the
very least, conspiring to commit it under your definition.

It's as simple as this - "torture" is not defined for specific and legitimate
reasons. To reuse an example, giving someone nothing but ham sandwiches (and I
don't mean school cafeteria sandwiches on stale, moldy bread and fatty gristle -
I mean sandwiches that, for those that eat them, would be a sought-after
experience) to eat could easily be "torture." Giving someone nothing but beer
to drink could be. OTOH, the act of beating someone to death - _in and of
itself_ - might not be "torture," even under the most extreme definitions.

Moreover, until a judge (no, not a jury) applies the law to found facts (this
might be a jury), nothing is _legally_ "torture." This is not to say that
nothing should or would be ultimately found to be _legally_ torture, but rather,
just to state the legal process under which something is legally declared to be
"torture."

I was going to graciously ignore these three paragraphs but just
out of curiosity, what is the language in which they're written ?

It bears a remarkable resemblance to American English but that can't
be it because any parsing of the above according to the rules of
American English yields nothing but gibberish.

--
Ken Fortenberry

VIENNA (AP) - The U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to
prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies
that
approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism
suspects,
the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said Friday.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama left the door open to
prosecuting
Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for
gruesome
terror-suspect interrogations. He had previously absolved CIA officers
from prosecution.

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:

VIENNA (AP) - The U.S. is obligated.,,,, blah, blah, blather, blather.....

Amazing to me how many folks, who by simple accident of birth call
themselves Americans but have never really got what this country is all
about. Benefit from the freedoms and protections of the Constitution, but
really would be happier and more at home in Stalin's USSR or Saddam's
Iraq......

Too bad, beancounter, America woke up. You're welcome to go back to sleep
if it makes you feel better.

- JR

On Apr 25, 4:00*am, wrote:
Snip

Or shut right the **** on up,
R-


Richard, for a number of years you played this smirking game as to
many of the actions, policies and mistakes of the political party you
favored over another. Never a problem for you with anything that the
other team or even moderate Republicans or traditional conservatives
had with actions they believed tested the Constitution and the laws of
this country. No problem for you when the administration ignored court
orders and Congressional requests. No problem for you with no-bid
contracts, closed door meetings with lobbyists, lobbyists writing leg
for the administration, massive deficits, stealing, espionage, public
property give aways, voter intimidation, dirty tricks in elections,
swift boating, short changing soldier medical care, attempts to steal
social security accounts, on and on. All just a game for you. OK so
after a decade of hi-jinks for your team, the voters decided they
wanted to let some different folks have a go.

Now, you are having a conniption fit because some other citizens want
their day in court. Now Obama is a bad fellow because he can't make
the booboo all better. Get over it. Frankly you are surprising in that
I generally have not thought of you as someone who would react so
erratic in defeat.

Whatever even some Dems think, Obama cannot stop the requests winding
thru the courts for release of documents, reports and images (or the
lawsuits) that might show that crimes were intentionally committed.
The Obama administration has refused to continue the Bush DOJ policy
of ignoring and stalling FOI and other laws that hid much of this
stuff. The ability of the Bush/Rove Whitehouse and the RNC to
intimidate the press from following these stories is much diminished
and the media, as gutless as they are has smelled blood. For better or
worse the torture thing and the involvement of those below President
Bush will see the light of day in the Courts.

As much as I would like to see some of the main miscreants get jail
time, there may come a point in the next few months when your team
gets over the "crybaby" phase and comes to realize that a Bi-partisan
reconciliation commission might offer some advantages all around, and
possibly lessen the probability of jail time for some. But right now I
am doubtful enough of the R leadership can get over being RushParrots
to actually lead the shattered elements of the Rs in a constructive
direction but one can always hope.

Dave

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:46:38 -0700 (PDT), 4F 3rd Class Duck
wrote:

I don't know, I don't have any answers to even simple, straightforward questions, and plus
I'm a huge honking loon...

...no, really, I'm a certified, USDA Grade A Prime Select kook...I don't think you realize
just how completely bananas I am: I drool my lithium-laced oatmeal down my bib, ****
and **** on myself, drink Kool-Ade through my nose, and see little green men trying to
pull the dresses down on my dollies - I'm bats, coo-coo for Cocopuffs, oh, me Lucky
Charms totally ****ing nutsasscrazy...

Daffy

There...

HTH,
R

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:29:43 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Like I said, you've moved way past pathetic and are hurtling
straight down the road to pathological. Your rabid anti-Obama
obsession is ****ing with your head. Your crazy, impossible,
twisted "logic" reads like the fevered imaginings of a paranoid
schizophrenic railing against "the voices".

Calm down, accept the fact that your guys lost the election in
November and try to keep your wits about you. Everything's gonna
be OK, really it is.

Sure thing, Dave Jr., whatever you say...

HTH,
R

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:51:09 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Like I said earlier in this thread, no reasonable person could
conclude that the United States did not torture people. And no
reasonable person would argue that waterboarding is not torture.

Then under your definition, there are a fair number of military officers, some
of whom refused to take any part in the interrogations, and another larger group
who didn't even know about them, who are guilty of "torture." Moreover, so are
the editors, publishers, and other management staff of Vanity Fair and other
publications and news outlets. Moreover, as Commander in Chief, Obama is guilty
of it. The good news is that your definition is wrong. And here's the funny
thing - a fair number of the "victims" of "torture" would be guilty of, at the
very least, conspiring to commit it under your definition.

It's as simple as this - "torture" is not defined for specific and legitimate
reasons. To reuse an example, giving someone nothing but ham sandwiches (and I
don't mean school cafeteria sandwiches on stale, moldy bread and fatty gristle -
I mean sandwiches that, for those that eat them, would be a sought-after
experience) to eat could easily be "torture." Giving someone nothing but beer
to drink could be. OTOH, the act of beating someone to death - _in and of
itself_ - might not be "torture," even under the most extreme definitions.

Moreover, until a judge (no, not a jury) applies the law to found facts (this
might be a jury), nothing is _legally_ "torture." This is not to say that
nothing should or would be ultimately found to be _legally_ torture, but rather,
just to state the legal process under which something is legally declared to be
"torture."

I was going to graciously ignore these three paragraphs but just
out of curiosity, what is the language in which they're written ?

It bears a remarkable resemblance to American English but that can't
be it because any parsing of the above according to the rules of
American English yields nothing but gibberish.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say...Dave Jr....

HTH,
R

On Apr 25, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:46:38 -0700 (PDT), 4F 3rd Class Duck
wrote:

I don't know, I don't have any answers to even simple, straightforward questions, and plus
I'm a huge honking loon...
...no, really, I'm a certified, USDA Grade A Prime Select kook...I don't think you realize
just how completely bananas I am: *I drool my lithium-laced oatmeal down my bib, ****
and **** on myself, drink Kool-Ade through my nose, and see little green men trying to
pull the dresses down on my dollies - I'm bats, coo-coo for Cocopuffs, oh, me Lucky
Charms totally ****ing nutsasscrazy...
Daffy

There...

HTH,
R

It is interesting what you wrote. Given that the issue in this thread
is the Bush administration's use of torture (or not), some of the
sentences you wrote as a poke at me . . . get close to some of the
adjunct "softening up" tactics coming to light in the released
materials, images and the testimony of tortured people. Its almost
like you are developing the ability to channel Cheney. Kool.

Dave
But doesn't Cheney already have a stunt double?