Bush to support the McCain anti-torture amendment 1977. (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Bush recently came out in support of the bill but what exactly does that bill entale?

Here's the exact defintions of torture as specified by McCain sponsored amendment 1977 specifically page S10909:

(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

Here's a link to the whole bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...f3cWm:e911694:

Here's the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth amendments:

Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel or unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment XIV -

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
__________________

Good to see that we're giving civil rights to terrorist suspects.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here are the key provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
New York, 10 December 1984:



Key Provisions


The prohibition against torture is absolute and, according to the Convention, no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including state of emergency or war or an order from a public authority may be invoked as a justification of torture. "Torture" is defined as:


"... any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."


States parties have the obligation to prevent and punish not only acts of torture as defined in the Convention, but also other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.


States parties have an obligation to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture from occurring on their territories. Measures mentioned in the Convention include the prohibition and punishability by appropriate penalties of all acts of torture in domestic criminal law; education and information regarding the prohibition against torture to be fully integrated into the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and others; the systematic review by State parties of interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as of arrangements for the custody and treatment of suspects, detainees and prisoners; guarantees for the promptand impartial investigation by competent authorities into allegations oftorture; the protection of witnesses; and the possibility for victims to obtain redress and fair and adequate compensation and rehabilitation.


In addition, States parties have an obligation not to expel, return or extradite a person to another State where he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. An act of torture is required to be made an extraditable offence and a State party is to take measures to establish its jurisdiction over crimes of torture committed in any part of its territory by one of its nationals and when an alleged offender is present on its territory and not extradited.


In order to monitor and review actions taken by States parties to fulfil their obligations, the Committee against Torture has four procedures at its disposal. The first is the obligation for all States parties to submit periodic reports to the Committee for examination, which results in the adoption of recommendations by the Committee to the State party in question. A particular feature of the Convention is that if the Committee receives reliable information indicating that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State party, the Committee may decide to initiate a confidential inquiry of the situation. Such inquiry would be carried out in cooperation with the State party concerned and would include country visits. The Committee can also consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party to the Convention. This may be done only if the State party concerned has declared that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and examine such complaints. As of 15 June 2000, 44 State parties had made such a declaration. Finally, a procedure of State-to-State complaints is provided for by the Convention, but has so far never been resorted to.

http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-9.htm

Notice that part in bold as specified by the amendments defintion of cruel and degrading treatment coercive treatment will herby be made illegal.

Good to see that we're tying the hands of the military from protecting us and themselves.

 

[JustMyPOV]

http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-9.htm

Notice that part in bold as specified by the amendments defintion of cruel and degrading treatment coercive treatment will herby be made illegal.

Good to see that we're tying the hands of the military from protecting us and themselves.

No, it's called living up to a higher standard so we're not viewed by the general populace of the greater middle-east as being just as bad as the enemy we fight. A terror suspect is just that, generally speaking, a suspect. So that guy that they've in custody may well have been a moderate who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. (It happens. Some detainees are released.) Our military slaps him around, makes him go hungry/thirsty, poops in his Koran, etc... How do you think he probably feels when they find out he was just some guy with no ties to terrorists, and he's released? He's probably going home and writing a letter to Zarqawi asking where to go to sign up for Al Qaeda in Iraq! This isn't how we're going to win the hearts and minds of the people of that region. I praise Bush for coming to his senses on this issue, and realizing that this war is going to take more than big guns and an iron fist to win.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No, it's called living up to a higher standard so we're not viewed by the general populace of the greater middle-east as being just as bad as the enemy we fight. A terror suspect is just that, generally speaking, a suspect. So that guy that they've in custody may well have been a moderate who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. (It happens. Some detainees are released.) Our military slaps him around, makes him go hungry/thirsty, poops in his Koran, etc... How do you think he probably feels when they find out he was just some guy with no ties to terrorists, and he's released? He's probably going home and writing a letter to Zarqawi asking where to go to sign up for Al Qaeda in Iraq! This isn't how we're going to win the hearts and minds of the people of that region. I praise Bush for coming to his senses on this issue, and realizing that this war is going to take more than big guns and an iron fist to win.

No it's called tying the hands of the military, no longer will any form of interogation be allowed if this bill goes through. You are skewing the issue in that you assume that if you are against the bill you are somehow pro torture, according to the new bill's defintion of torture of cruel and degrading acts it is now going to be such as you can't even yell at a suspect or threaten him, it's ridiculous and in effect it will tie the hands of the military it seems to me the libs won't be happy until we get attacked again. Which they infact do want so they can point at Bush and say see I told you so.

 

[JustMyPOV]

No it's called tying the hands of the military, no longer will any form of interogation be allowed if this bill goes through. You are skewing the issue in that you assume that if you are against the bill you are somehow pro torture, according to the new bill's defintion of torture of cruel and degrading acts it is now going to be such as you can't even yell at a suspect or threaten him, it's ridiculous and in effect it will tie the hands of the military it seems to me the libs won't be happy until we get attacked again. Which they infact do want so they can point at Bush and say see I told you so.

Yes, it must be that vast, left-wing conspiracy I've heard about, and the 90-9 majority of Senate "libs" that voted for this bill are ALL in on it. Here are the names of some of those damned "libs" that voted to pass this ammendment :roll: :

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
George Allen (R-VA)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Kay Hutchison (R-TX)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Richard Luger (R-IN)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
John Sununu (R-NH)
John Warner (R-VA)

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes, it must be that vast, left-wing conspiracy I've heard about, and the 90-9 majority of Senate "libs" that voted for this bill are ALL in on it. Here are the names of some of those damned "libs" that voted to pass this ammendment :roll: :

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
George Allen (R-VA)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Kay Hutchison (R-TX)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Richard Luger (R-IN)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
John Sununu (R-NH)
John Warner (R-VA)

They've gone along with this crap because the liberal media has so misrepresented the facts of the McCain amendment that the public is now under the impression that if you don't support the bill then you are somehow in support of torture. These people want to get reelected it's as simple as that they've caved and the president has capitulated and in my opinion if we get attacked again it's going to be on all of their heads, the Libs and McCain for sponsoring it and the Reps for giving in. Besides that fact this is a tag on amendment to a military bill that if it did not include I believe S10909 I would support.

 

[jfuh]

Notice that part in bold as specified by the amendments defintion of cruel and degrading treatment coercive treatment will herby be made illegal.

Good to see that we're tying the hands of the military from protecting us and themselves.

THere is one set of guidlines that this country and all other civilized nations agreed to after WWII in 1949. That's the Geneva convention. It is the one set of guidlines that our military and all militaries of the world adhere to.
Sen. McCain said it best. THis is not about who they are, this is about who we are. If you allow our military to practice inhumane acts of torture against "enemy" combatants that are not classified as a traditional military, then we are then opening up our troops for the same if not more brutal means of torture by enemies, and our military will have future POW's.

They've gone along with this crap because the liberal media has so misrepresented the facts of the McCain amendment that the public is now under the impression that if you don't support the bill then you are somehow in support of torture. These people want to get reelected it's as simple as that they've caved and the president has capitulated and in my opinion if we get attacked again it's going to be on all of their heads, the Libs and McCain for sponsoring it and the Reps for giving in. Besides that fact this is a tag on amendment to a military bill that if it did not include I believe S10909 I would support.

McCain is of course Mr. Liberal himself. Yes damn the liberal media for providing the exact lines in which this admendment constitutes. Damn those who support this bill for being anti torture.

You seriously fail to provide any reasoning for how, and in what way this bill ties down the hands of our military. Mind you our military acted perfectly without the use of torture during Panama, the gulf war, WWII, and WWI. So why is it now that using torture is so important to our military that without it they can not fight?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

THere is one set of guidlines that this country and all other civilized nations agreed to after WWII in 1949. That's the Geneva convention. It is the one set of guidlines that our military and all militaries of the world adhere to.
Sen. McCain said it best. THis is not about who they are, this is about who we are. If you allow our military to practice inhumane acts of torture against "enemy" combatants that are not classified as a traditional military, then we are then opening up our troops for the same if not more brutal means of torture by enemies, and our military will have future POW's.



McCain is of course Mr. Liberal himself. Yes damn the liberal media for providing the exact lines in which this admendment constitutes. Damn those who support this bill for being anti torture.

You seriously fail to provide any reasoning for how, and in what way this bill ties down the hands of our military. Mind you our military acted perfectly without the use of torture during Panama, the gulf war, WWII, and WWI. So why is it now that using torture is so important to our military that without it they can not fight?

See this is your whole problem you seem to think that if you disagree with the McCain bill that you somehow support torture, I have shown you exactly how the McCain bill would tie the hands of the military ie after its passing no more coercive interogation techniques will be allowed which includes not being allowed to threaten detainees, the bill also stipulates that the definition of torture is 'cruel or degrading treatment,' tell me just what the hell does that even mean, it seems to me you won't be able to do anything to extract information perhaps when we catch Zarqawi we should offer him some icecream.

Your main problem is that you either haven't read the amendment or you lack the mental capacity to understand it.

 

[jfuh]

See this is your whole problem you seem to think that if you disagree with the McCain bill that you somehow support torture, I have shown you exactly how the McCain bill would tie the hands of the military ie after its passing no more coercive interogation techniques will be allowed which includes not being allowed to threaten detainees, the bill also stipulates that the definition of torture is 'cruel or degrading treatment,' tell me just what the hell does that even mean, it seems to me you won't be able to do anything to extract information perhaps when we catch Zarqawi we should offer him some icecream.

Coercive interogation of course has produced countless credible results allowing the apprehension of more terrorist right? It is a well known fact that prisoner's under torture will admit to anything you want them to producing worthless results. Even the Isralie supreme court has banned all uses of cruel and degrading treatment.
If you can read cruel and degrading, I don't see as to why you don't understand what that means. Why must imprisionment involve cruel and degrading punishments or tortures? Obviously you've been watching too much TV.

Your main problem is that you either haven't read the amendment or you lack the mental capacity to understand it.

I suggest you refrain from mudslinging and accusing my mental capacity. Unless you are no better then to use such form to argue when you can not come up with any better argument.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Coercive interogation of course has produced countless credible results allowing the apprehension of more terrorist right? It is a well known fact that prisoner's under torture will admit to anything you want them to producing worthless results. Even the Isralie supreme court has banned all uses of cruel and degrading treatment.
If you can read cruel and degrading, I don't see as to why you don't understand what that means. Why must imprisionment involve cruel and degrading punishments or tortures? Obviously you've been watching too much TV.



I suggest you refrain from mudslinging and accusing my mental capacity. Unless you are no better then to use such form to argue when you can not come up with any better argument.

During the height of the IRA terrorist campaign against the U.K. British MI6 decided to tell IRA captives that they were to be killed by being pushed out of helicopters so they would blind fold them take them up and threaten to push them in some cases they did push them out about two feet above the ground, this was considered mock execution and therfor the public was outraged and the practice was outlawed, MI6 says they never recieved such credible intel again after the practice was outlawed. K.S.M. broke under two minutes of waterboarding, we stopped a dirty bomb attack on U.S. soil by using coercive techniques, your assumption that coercive interogation isn't effective is just plain wrong I think it's you who's been watching to much liberal media.

 

[jfuh]

During the height of the IRA terrorist campaign against the U.K. British MI6 decided to tell IRA captives that they were to be killed by being pushed out of helicopters so they would blind fold them take them up and threaten to push them in some cases they did push them out about two feet above the ground, this was considered mock execution and therfor the public was outraged and the practice was outlawed, MI6 says they never recieved such credible intel again after the practice was outlawed. K.S.M. broke under two minutes of waterboarding, we stopped a dirty bomb attack on U.S. soil by using coercive techniques, your assumption that coercive interogation isn't effective is just plain wrong I think it's you who's been watching to much liberal media.

Source? Or is this another one of those fictitious stories that fundamentalists in the republican far right are pushing forth.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Source? Or is this another one of those fictitious stories that fundamentalists in the republican far right are pushing forth.

Well if the Washington Post is a Republican far right newspaper then ya sure :roll: this is just one of the many corroborative articles that I have found which, despite the leftist lies to the contrary, confirms the fact that coercive interogation does indeed work:

To understand what difference a ban on torture will make, I spoke this week with British sources about the interrogation techniques used against the Irish Republican Army in the early 1970s. The British were facing a hideous IRA bombing campaign, and to stop the bombers, the British army and police in Northern Ireland tried to squeeze information from their IRA prisoners.

The British recognized what every cop knows -- that interrogation is much easier if the prisoner is disoriented. So the British put hoods on their IRA prisoners, just as U.S. interrogators have done in Iraq. The British approved other, harsher methods: depriving IRA prisoners of sleep, making them lean against a wall for long periods, using "white noise" that would confuse them.

The clincher for British interrogators was mock execution. The preferred method in the mid-1970s was to take hooded IRA prisoners up in helicopters over the lakes near Belfast and threaten to throw them out if they didn't talk. Sometimes, they actually were thrown out. The prisoners didn't know that the helicopter was only a few yards above the water. I'm told that technique nearly always worked. (So, too, with the "waterboarding" that U.S. interrogators used to break al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed.) The British eventually had to give up their extreme techniques because of public outcry, and I'm told they got less information. But they eventually prevailed against the IRA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501438.html

 

[FinnMacCool]

Thats an op-ed article. not a very good source.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Thats an op-ed article. not a very good source.

It's actually an article trying to make the case against torture which it does a **** poor job of considering the fact that it proves my point that coercive interogation techniques get the job done. It's the perfect source it's a liberally slanted article that proves my point.

 

[FinnMacCool]

It's actually an article trying to make the case against torture which it does a **** poor job of considering the fact that it proves my point that coercive interogation techniques get the job done. It's the perfect source it's a liberally slanted article that proves my point.

noooo. . .it doesn't prove your point because its an OP ED piece. If you want to acknowledge that as actual "evidence" then you better acknowledge Farenheit 9/11 as actual evidence.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

noooo. . .it doesn't prove your point because its an OP ED piece. If you want to acknowledge that as actual "evidence" then you better acknowledge Farenheit 9/11 as actual evidence.

Noo . . . because it's an op-ed piece that disagrees with my point of view yet unwittingly makes my case for me it would be like me using Farenheit 9/11to prove that Bush is a good president that is what makes it such a good source and the part which I selected is factually accurate this is not the first place I heard it from it's just the first place I found it on the web.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Noo . . . because it's an op-ed piece that disagrees with my point of view yet unwittingly makes my case for me it would be like me using Farenheit 9/11to prove that Bush is a good president that is what makes it such a good source and the part which I selected is factually accurate this is not the first place I heard it from it's just the first place I found it on the web.

Wrong. It doesn't prove anything because its an op-ed piece, regardless of the persons political affiliatation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wrong. It doesn't prove anything because its an op-ed piece, regardless of the persons political affiliatation.

When's the last time you actually read a newspaper? The New York Times prints op-ed pieces on their front page all time and passes it off as actual journalism, you know that NSA article on the NYT's front page the other day? It was, by any rational definition of the word, an op-ed piece and it's being used by the Senate as the catalyst to push for investigations into the presidents phone tapping allegation and stopped the Patriot Act from being renewed. Op-ed pieces contain fact as well as opinion the part that I used was the fact not the opinion. What do I have to track down these MI6 agents myself for my argument to be credible to you? Seriously I got the time.

 

[FinnMacCool]

When's the last time you actually read a newspaper? The New York Times prints op-ed pieces on their front page all time and passes it off as actual journalism, you know that NSA article on the NYT's front page the other day? It was, by any rational definition of the word, an op-ed piece and it's being used by the Senate as the catalyst to push for investigations into the presidents phone tapping allegation and stopped the Patriot Act from being renewed. Op-ed pieces contain fact as well as opinion the part that I used was the fact not the opinion. What do I have to track down these MI6 agents myself for my argument to be credible to you? Seriously I got the time.

You certainly do. Why don't you do that? Because otherwise this article will prove absolutely nothing to me or anyone here.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You certainly do. Why don't you do that? Because otherwise this article will prove absolutely nothing to me or anyone here.

Only for those who lack the mental capacity to disseminate fact from opinion in an editorial luckily I give most people on this forum more credit than you do.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Only for those who lack the mental capacity to disseminate fact from opinion in an editorial luckily I give most people on this forum more credit than you do.

Thats funny coming from you.

 

[jfuh]

It's actually an article trying to make the case against torture which it does a **** poor job of considering the fact that it proves my point that coercive interogation techniques get the job done. It's the perfect source it's a liberally slanted article that proves my point.

When you left out the source in the first place, that discredits your argument. The second time around you actually list your source, but you edited everything to use for your own twisted cause. Particularly the portion of responsibility as well as taking out the provisions of "anything goes".
Finally, opinion editorials are called Opinion for exactly that reason. They are an opinioin of the author, not facts. This is also why these portions of a newspaper have thier own section.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

When you left out the source in the first place, that discredits your argument. The second time around you actually list your source, but you edited everything to use for your own twisted cause. Particularly the portion of responsibility as well as taking out the provisions of "anything goes".
Finally, opinion editorials are called Opinion for exactly that reason. They are an opinioin of the author, not facts. This is also why these portions of a newspaper have thier own section.

Can you challenge the assertion that coercive interogation works? Everything you post is opinion you haven't offered one fact yet, I've offered up quotes from British intelligence and get back: "you found that quote in an op-ed so it doesn't count." Hay guess what that was a fact found in an op-ed . . . . it boggles the mind doesn't it? :roll: Catch a clue people you have no arguments only fallacies.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Can you challenge the assertion that coercive interogation works? Everything you post is opinion you haven't offered one fact yet, I've offered up quotes from British intelligence and get back: "you found that quote in an op-ed so it doesn't count." Hay guess what that was a fact found in an op-ed . . . . it boggles the mind doesn't it? Catch a clue people you have no arguments only fallacies.

O! Who has no real arguments? You certainly don't. An Op-ed piece is nothing. Its zip. zero. You have absolutely no evidence of that. And even if I were to sit down and call it evidence it wouldn't be enough to convince me of this contrary to respected gov't officials and military who say different. nice try though.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

O! Who has no real arguments? You certainly don't. An Op-ed piece is nothing. Its zip. zero. You have absolutely no evidence of that. And even if I were to sit down and call it evidence it wouldn't be enough to convince me of this contrary to respected gov't officials and military who say different. nice try though.

Direct testimony from British Intelligence would hold up in any court of law as evidence you are the one without an argument, you offer no reasons why coercive interogation doesn't work because there are none . . . nice try though.