Yesterday, on Meet the Press, this exchange took place between Chuck
Todd and Dick Cheney regarding the U.S. torture program and how it was
used on innocent prisoners:

CHUCK TODD: Let me go to Gul Rahman. He was chained to the wall of
his cell, doused with water, froze to death in C.I.A. custody. And it
turned out it was a case of mistaken identity.

DICK CHENEY: --right. But the problem I had is with the folks that
we did release that end up back on the battlefield. [...] I'm more
concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few
that, in fact, were innocent.

CHUCK TODD: 25% of the detainees though, 25% turned out to be
innocent. They were released.

DICK CHENEY: Where are you going to draw the line, Chuck? How are--
[...]

CHUCK TODD: Is that too high? You're okay with that margin for error?

DICK CHENEY: I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective.

- - - - - - - -

I'd love to hear Cheney repeat those words and other comments he's made
recently about torture while in the dock at the Hague.




--
Let’s elect a gay black woman with a latino lover president,
if only for the possibility of provoking a right-wing mass suicide.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:57:00 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Yesterday, on Meet the Press, this exchange took place between Chuck
Todd and Dick Cheney regarding the U.S. torture program and how it was
used on innocent prisoners:

CHUCK TODD: Let me go to Gul Rahman. He was chained to the wall of
his cell, doused with water, froze to death in C.I.A. custody. And it
turned out it was a case of mistaken identity.

DICK CHENEY: --right. But the problem I had is with the folks that
we did release that end up back on the battlefield. [...] I'm more
concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few
that, in fact, were innocent.

CHUCK TODD: 25% of the detainees though, 25% turned out to be
innocent. They were released.

DICK CHENEY: Where are you going to draw the line, Chuck? How are--
[...]

CHUCK TODD: Is that too high? You're okay with that margin for error?

DICK CHENEY: I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective.

- - - - - - - -

I'd love to hear Cheney repeat those words and other comments he's made
recently about torture while in the dock at the Hague.

From where came the numbers, Toad?
--

Here's hoping you have a very Merry Christmas, and a spectacular New Year!

On 12/15/14 4:51 PM, Toad Gigger wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:57:00 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Yesterday, on Meet the Press, this exchange took place between Chuck
Todd and Dick Cheney regarding the U.S. torture program and how it was
used on innocent prisoners:

CHUCK TODD: Let me go to Gul Rahman. He was chained to the wall of
his cell, doused with water, froze to death in C.I.A. custody. And it
turned out it was a case of mistaken identity.

DICK CHENEY: --right. But the problem I had is with the folks that
we did release that end up back on the battlefield. [...] I'm more
concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few
that, in fact, were innocent.

CHUCK TODD: 25% of the detainees though, 25% turned out to be
innocent. They were released.

DICK CHENEY: Where are you going to draw the line, Chuck? How are--
[...]

CHUCK TODD: Is that too high? You're okay with that margin for error?

DICK CHENEY: I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective.

- - - - - - - -

I'd love to hear Cheney repeat those words and other comments he's made
recently about torture while in the dock at the Hague.

From where came the numbers, Toad?



Ask Chuck Todd, ****-for-brains, if you dispute them. Cheney didn't.

--
Let’s elect a gay black woman with a latino lover president,
if only for the possibility of provoking a right-wing mass suicide.

In article ,
says...


There is no statute of limitation on murder or war crimes.
If the democrats are able to establish that a policy decision like the
interrogations were illegal, the drone strikes would be fair game for
the republicans or just the families of the innocents killed.

Nobody wants to open that Pandora's Box,.


Drone strikes on enemies who choose to hide among "non-combatants" in
unreachable territory, Pakistan eg, and torturing "detainees," are
different matters.
The alternative to drone strikes is invasion, artillery barrages, or
carpet bombing, and occupation - all if you're ambitious.
With Pakistan, the next step is nuclear conflagration.
Is that what you really want?
You called torture "interrogation" Torture is torture.
They concealed that they were torturing. Why?
Because it is a criminal activity.
Drone strikes aren't concealed. They aren't illegal.
So unless drone attacks are declared illegal, quit crying about them.
Republicans and Democrats are free to support torture and drone strikes
alike. Let them stand up and declare it.
I'll point out to you, as I did to Luddite, that this isn't a political
matter. It's a question of law, which is derived from values.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


There is no statute of limitation on murder or war crimes.
If the democrats are able to establish that a policy decision like the
interrogations were illegal, the drone strikes would be fair game for
the republicans or just the families of the innocents killed.

Nobody wants to open that Pandora's Box,.


Drone strikes on enemies who choose to hide among "non-combatants" in
unreachable territory, Pakistan eg, and torturing "detainees," are
different matters.

How do you the 'hidden' party is guilty of anything?

The alternative to drone strikes is invasion, artillery barrages, or
carpet bombing, and occupation - all if you're ambitious.

Which would be the proper course of action - or capturing the
individual and granting him 'due process'.

With Pakistan, the next step is nuclear conflagration.
Is that what you really want?

Pakistan has nukes now?

You called torture "interrogation" Torture is torture.

But being blown to smithereens without due process is OK?

They concealed that they were torturing. Why?

Gosh, you must totally believe anything Democrat witch-hunters have to
say.

Because it is a criminal activity.
Drone strikes aren't concealed. They aren't illegal.
So unless drone attacks are declared illegal, quit crying about them.
Republicans and Democrats are free to support torture and drone strikes
alike. Let them stand up and declare it.
I'll point out to you, as I did to Luddite, that this isn't a political
matter. It's a question of law, which is derived from values.

You make little sense. On the one hand you preach 'law', but on the
other you justify the 'lawlessness' of drone strikes on 'possible'
terrorists who 'may' be guilty of something besides being intermingled
with civilians.

Sneer as you will, but you're right up there with the Toad when it
comes to your liberal logic.
--

Here's hoping you have a very Merry Christmas, and a spectacular New Year!

On 12/16/2014 8:08 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


There is no statute of limitation on murder or war crimes.
If the democrats are able to establish that a policy decision like the
interrogations were illegal, the drone strikes would be fair game for
the republicans or just the families of the innocents killed.

Nobody wants to open that Pandora's Box,.


Drone strikes on enemies who choose to hide among "non-combatants" in
unreachable territory, Pakistan eg, and torturing "detainees," are
different matters.
The alternative to drone strikes is invasion, artillery barrages, or
carpet bombing, and occupation - all if you're ambitious.
With Pakistan, the next step is nuclear conflagration.
Is that what you really want?
You called torture "interrogation" Torture is torture.
They concealed that they were torturing. Why?
Because it is a criminal activity.
Drone strikes aren't concealed. They aren't illegal.
So unless drone attacks are declared illegal, quit crying about them.
Republicans and Democrats are free to support torture and drone strikes
alike. Let them stand up and declare it.
I'll point out to you, as I did to Luddite, that this isn't a political
matter. It's a question of law, which is derived from values.




You certainly have a tortured soul. It would help if you came to grips
with reality.

--
Patriotic Americans dump on Krause.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:22:08 -0500, Toad Gigger
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


There is no statute of limitation on murder or war crimes.
If the democrats are able to establish that a policy decision like the
interrogations were illegal, the drone strikes would be fair game for
the republicans or just the families of the innocents killed.

Nobody wants to open that Pandora's Box,.


Drone strikes on enemies who choose to hide among "non-combatants" in
unreachable territory, Pakistan eg, and torturing "detainees," are
different matters.

How do you the 'hidden' party is guilty of anything?

The alternative to drone strikes is invasion, artillery barrages, or
carpet bombing, and occupation - all if you're ambitious.

Which would be the proper course of action - or capturing the
individual and granting him 'due process'.

With Pakistan, the next step is nuclear conflagration.
Is that what you really want?

Pakistan has nukes now?

You called torture "interrogation" Torture is torture.

But being blown to smithereens without due process is OK?

They concealed that they were torturing. Why?

Gosh, you must totally believe anything Democrat witch-hunters have to
say.

Because it is a criminal activity.
Drone strikes aren't concealed. They aren't illegal.
So unless drone attacks are declared illegal, quit crying about them.
Republicans and Democrats are free to support torture and drone strikes
alike. Let them stand up and declare it.
I'll point out to you, as I did to Luddite, that this isn't a political
matter. It's a question of law, which is derived from values.

You make little sense. On the one hand you preach 'law', but on the
other you justify the 'lawlessness' of drone strikes on 'possible'
terrorists who 'may' be guilty of something besides being intermingled
with civilians.

Sneer as you will, but you're right up there with the Toad when it
comes to your liberal logic.

===

Pakistan has had nukes for a long time. That's one of the big risks
in the Middle East given their political instability. It's not clear
how much longer they will be able to withstand the combined threats of
a hyper religious populace, the Taliban, Al Queda and ISIS.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:23:32 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:22:08 -0500, Toad Gigger
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


There is no statute of limitation on murder or war crimes.
If the democrats are able to establish that a policy decision like the
interrogations were illegal, the drone strikes would be fair game for
the republicans or just the families of the innocents killed.

Nobody wants to open that Pandora's Box,.


Drone strikes on enemies who choose to hide among "non-combatants" in
unreachable territory, Pakistan eg, and torturing "detainees," are
different matters.

How do you the 'hidden' party is guilty of anything?

The alternative to drone strikes is invasion, artillery barrages, or
carpet bombing, and occupation - all if you're ambitious.

Which would be the proper course of action - or capturing the
individual and granting him 'due process'.

With Pakistan, the next step is nuclear conflagration.
Is that what you really want?

Pakistan has nukes now?

You called torture "interrogation" Torture is torture.

But being blown to smithereens without due process is OK?

They concealed that they were torturing. Why?

Gosh, you must totally believe anything Democrat witch-hunters have to
say.

Because it is a criminal activity.
Drone strikes aren't concealed. They aren't illegal.
So unless drone attacks are declared illegal, quit crying about them.
Republicans and Democrats are free to support torture and drone strikes
alike. Let them stand up and declare it.
I'll point out to you, as I did to Luddite, that this isn't a political
matter. It's a question of law, which is derived from values.

You make little sense. On the one hand you preach 'law', but on the
other you justify the 'lawlessness' of drone strikes on 'possible'
terrorists who 'may' be guilty of something besides being intermingled
with civilians.

Sneer as you will, but you're right up there with the Toad when it
comes to your liberal logic.

===

Pakistan has had nukes for a long time. That's one of the big risks
in the Middle East given their political instability. It's not clear
how much longer they will be able to withstand the combined threats of
a hyper religious populace, the Taliban, Al Queda and ISIS.

Oh what a dummy - I was thinking 'Palestine' when I read his rant.

Sorry BAO, I take that 'one' line back.
--

Here's hoping you have a very Merry Christmas, and a spectacular New Year!

On 12/16/14 8:22 AM, Toad Gigger wrote:


Pakistan has nukes now?


Have you been living in a cave in Afghanistan? Both Pakistan and India
have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has had them for nearly 20 years.


--
Let’s elect a gay black woman with a latino lover president,
if only for the possibility of provoking a right-wing mass suicide.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:49:53 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/16/14 8:22 AM, Toad Gigger wrote:


Pakistan has nukes now?


Have you been living in a cave in Afghanistan? Both Pakistan and India
have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has had them for nearly 20 years.

Mis-read Toad. Not something you've ever done!
--

Here's hoping you have a very Merry Christmas, and a spectacular New Year!