- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/31/16 at 8:04 pm to WhiskeyPapa
I don't know all of the "advanced interrogation" /torture techniques used but waterboarding is very minor.
Yes I have been waterboarded many times as part of training.
To trained people it is very ineffective.
Yes I have been waterboarded many times as part of training.
To trained people it is very ineffective.
Posted on 12/31/16 at 8:14 pm to WhiskeyPapa
You need to brush up on the elements of the allegations. 
Posted on 12/31/16 at 10:19 pm to braindeadboxer
quote:
Liberals have short memory though. I mean they forgot how bad socialism is already and it hasn't even been 30 years since the Cold War ended.
They want to remember, they're even trying to start a new Cold War to aid their recall.
Posted on 12/31/16 at 10:23 pm to joshnorris14
I remember when you were an intellectual.
Now you're a political sport junkie.
Now you're a political sport junkie.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 12:18 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I would bet a fair bit of money that I'm to the right of you fiscally
Which type of ancap are you? At worst I'll push
Posted on 1/1/17 at 12:18 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
I remember when you were an intellectual.
Now you're a political sport junkie.
Winning political sport junkie*
Posted on 1/1/17 at 2:56 am to joshnorris14
Honesty, there are lots of things that needed to investigated like the missing billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the chemical weapons we denied finding, holding prisoners without charge at Guantanamo, domestic spying, torture of American citizens, the redacted pages of the 9/11 reports, the corrupt wasting of dollars slated for natural disasters, his AG "losing" thousands of emails and then "forgetting" what happened, the SEC and FBI completely shiktting the bed on the Bernie Madoff and Stanford scandals, the f$&ked up subprime mortgage situation, the amazing disappearing bailout and stimulus funds, ect.
However, what the DNC wanted to investigate him for was chicken shiite bs.
No administration, especially one as wantonly corrupt as the one leaving in January, should be beyond the reach of sunlight, and prosecution for crimes committed against and/or paid for by the American people.
However, what the DNC wanted to investigate him for was chicken shiite bs.
No administration, especially one as wantonly corrupt as the one leaving in January, should be beyond the reach of sunlight, and prosecution for crimes committed against and/or paid for by the American people.
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 2:59 am
Posted on 1/1/17 at 4:56 am to BBONDS25
quote:
You need to brush up on the elements of the allegations.
bullshite Hell. What is it with people like you and Dale?
Support your position in the record. frick.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 5:27 am to kingbob
quote:
However, what the DNC wanted to investigate him for was chicken shiite bs.
What Bush did falls before a "reasonable man" standard. A resonable man would have taken the position that Iraq was "invasion proof" by American forces because a stable Iraq was in the best interests of the United States.
Even Dick Cheney knew that:
Cheney in 1994
Iraq was also a bulwark against Saudi Arabia - one that WE removed on behalf of Israel - but one that would have always given the worthless arse Saudis pause. Now Saudi Arabia is unrestrained in its efforts to cause us ill.
The big takeaway here is that our government will work against our best interests and send our young people to die for Wall Street profits. Hillary Couldn't WAIT to crank up the largest war possible just for the purpose of serving the Military/Congressional Industrial Complex.
How should it work over there? What is our best policy? Using history as our guide always, we can look at the Brits going back to the Golden Age under Elizabeth.
Spain ascendant? Support the Dutch. France Ascendant? Support the Spanish. Russia a problem? Ally with France and support Turkey. Germany ascendant? Support France. Germans at your throat again? Support France again. Unceremoniously ejected from the continent? Enlist the United States.
That policy works. It worked for the Brits for 300 years. We are doing exactly the opposite in our policy. The ally we need in that region is IRAN. We pretty much shanghaied them into being our ally in the 1950's. After their revolution we should have enlisted them as such again. The Irans have a large population they have a long and proud history and they are NOT Arab. They hate the Arabs. THEY could act as a foil to Saudi Arabia.
Supporting the second strongest power in a region against the strongest is a proven policy.
We don't pursue that policy because the Jews don't like it.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 5:28 am to MrCarton
quote:
Keep preaching.
Thanks.
That is nice to hear when so many of these fricking morons are such bad citizens.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 9:23 am to WhiskeyPapa
Instead of posting articles and further showing your ignorance. Perhaps list the specific statutes or code sections you claim were violated. Then post the elements required to meet the standard. Then post precise actions which satisfy those elements. That way those of us that think you are insane will know exactly how to point out what you are missing.
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 9:24 am
Posted on 1/1/17 at 9:51 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Instead of posting articles and further showing your ignorance. Perhaps list the specific statutes or code sections you claim were violated. Then post the elements required to meet the standard.
The Secretary General of the United Nations said that the invasion of Iraq violated international law.
You don't like hearing that - I don't really care.
War Criminals Bush And Cheney Can No Longer Travel Outside The U.S.
TOPICS:
Eric Blair
MARCH 13, 2012
Everyone in the world seems to recognize the obvious crimes perpetrated by the Bush/Cheney regime. Their overwhelming negative status in the world has now confined them to personal prisons where they can no longer travel abroad for public events. It appears they’re only welcome in heavily-secured private dragon lairs for the rest of their waking years. But even those locations are shrinking for these torturers and mass murderers.
Cheney, scheduled to speak in Toronto with his daughter next month, had to cancel the speaking appearance due to “security concerns stemming from their experiences in Vancouver in September 2011,” according to a press release about the event.
The September event referred to in the press release was hardly a public event at all. It cost $500 a ticket to attend and took place at the Vancouver Club which the Canadian Press called “one of Vancouver’s most exclusive clubs.” Still, the public caught wind of the event and staged a rambunctious protest calling for Cheney’s arrest. The angry crowd caused Cheney to be locked in the club for seven hours longer than he was scheduled.
In February of last year, George W. Bush had to cancel a speaking engagement in Switzerland because human rights groups put pressure on the Swiss government to arrest him over torture allegations if he enters the country. Even though officials claimed Bush had diplomatic immunity because he was a former head of state, they recognized that torture is a legitimate crime under international law. Organizers of the event felt the “atmosphere had become too threatening” and the gala went on without Bush."
LINK
It's too bad that the outcry for justice is greater in other countries than it is here.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 9:55 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Support your position in the record. frick.
What would you accept as evidence, and do you apply the same standards to your own positions?
Posted on 1/1/17 at 9:58 am to joshnorris14
quote:
Which type of ancap are you? At worst I'll push
I said I was to the right of him, and the vast majority of this board. I didn't say I was to the right of everyone. You gave me shite for being a minarchist far too long for me to make that assertion
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:00 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
What Bush did falls before a "reasonable man" standard.
Violations of law or ceasefire agreements are not in the area of a "reasonable man" standard.
Using that standard--one that you find to be a deciding factor-- would you accept initiating a military action...or stopping an ongoing one...based on a "reasonable man" standard?
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:03 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Keep preaching.
Thanks. That is nice to hear when so many of these fricking morons are such bad citizens.
Keep melting.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:06 am to WhiskeyPapa
Top Judge: US and UK Acted as Vigilantes
By Richard Norton-Taylor
Guardian
November 18, 2008
One of Britain's most authoritative judicial figures last night delivered a blistering attack on the invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law, and accusing Britain and the US of acting like a "world vigilante". Lord Bingham, in his first major speech since retiring as the senior law lord, rejected the then attorney general's defence of the 2003 invasion as fundamentally flawed. Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith's advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: "It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had." Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions "passes belief". Governments were bound by international law as much as by their domestic laws, he said. "The current ministerial code," he added "binding on British ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to 'comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations'."
LINK
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial,
By Aaron Glantz
OneWorld
August 25, 2006
A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars - Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council."
LINK
But - the United States DID invade Iraq AFTER the Security Council refused to sanction it.
That is EXACTLY what Hitler did when he invaded Poland.
Bush and Hitler - quite a pair.
When the US pisses on the United Nations it pisses on our dead of World War Two. Why? Because WE WROTE THE CHARTER.
By Richard Norton-Taylor
Guardian
November 18, 2008
One of Britain's most authoritative judicial figures last night delivered a blistering attack on the invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law, and accusing Britain and the US of acting like a "world vigilante". Lord Bingham, in his first major speech since retiring as the senior law lord, rejected the then attorney general's defence of the 2003 invasion as fundamentally flawed. Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith's advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: "It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had." Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions "passes belief". Governments were bound by international law as much as by their domestic laws, he said. "The current ministerial code," he added "binding on British ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to 'comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations'."
LINK
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial,
By Aaron Glantz
OneWorld
August 25, 2006
A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars - Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council."
LINK
But - the United States DID invade Iraq AFTER the Security Council refused to sanction it.
That is EXACTLY what Hitler did when he invaded Poland.
Bush and Hitler - quite a pair.
When the US pisses on the United Nations it pisses on our dead of World War Two. Why? Because WE WROTE THE CHARTER.
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 10:07 am
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:07 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
The Secretary General of the United Nations said that the invasion of Iraq violated international law.
You are aware the the presence of coalition troops (yes...it wasn't just evil 'Merica troops) in Iraq was voted on every year by the UN, and every year the UN mandated the forces stay and continue operations?
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:11 am to WhiskeyPapa
More articles. When I prosecuted if I thought people were guilty of crimes I had to file a bill of information including specific statutes. Elements and then prove their actions met those elements.
Why does that seem to be so hard for you to produce anything along those lines? I couldn't care less what someone at the UN says. That is a silly standard
Either you are trolling or you are willfully ignorant.
Why does that seem to be so hard for you to produce anything along those lines? I couldn't care less what someone at the UN says. That is a silly standard
Either you are trolling or you are willfully ignorant.
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 10:14 am
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News