Our freedom is on it's last legs.

The BBQ Pit
101

It’s salient alright, because it shows that you are a damn liar. I had friends and relatives there too, asshole. If I had stayed in NY, I would very possibly have been right there. So fuck you. It’s now known that the Congress was deliberately NOT given the whole story. The data had alrady been cherry picked. Take your talking points and shive them up your ass.

Bush Limited Access and Disclosures of Classified Information to only 8 Members of Congress per a policy memo. Therefore, Congress could not possibly have had access to the same intelligence information that the White House had. President Bush issued an order limiting access to classified intelligence only to 8 members of Congress – the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees. President Bush pulled classified intelligence access for 92 senators.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR:

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
THE DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

SUBJECT: Disclosures to the Congress

As we wage our campaign to respond to the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, and to protect us from further acts of terrorism, I intend to continue to work closely with the Congress. Consistent with the longstanding executive branch practice, this Administration will continue to work to inform the leadership of the Congress about the course of, and important developments in, our critical military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations. At the same time, we have an obligation to protect military operational security, intelligence sources and methods, and sensitive law enforcement investigations. Accordingly, your departments should adhere to the following procedures when providing briefings to the Congress relating to the information we have or the actions we plan to take:

i) Only you or officers expressly designated by you may brief Members of Congress regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information; and

(ii) The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate.

This approach will best serve our shared goals of protecting American lives, maintaining the proper level of confidentiality for the success of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations, and keeping the leadership of the Congress appropriately informed about important developments. This morning, I informed the House and Senate leadership of this policy which shall remain in effect until you receive further notice from me.

[signed:] George W. Bush

On Oct. 12, Bush dropped the limitations entirely. No actual public record rescinding the notice/memo of the initial policy is known.

From The First Senate Report

(U) Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community’s elimination of the caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments.

Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions in the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included in the unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded completely. In both cases in which there were dissenting opinions, the dissenting agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject matter experts on the issues in question. Excluding the names of the agencies provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the Intelligence Community regarding these issues.

Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002 White Paper on Iraq’s potential to deliver biological agents conveyed a level of threat to the United States homeland inconsistent with the classified National Intelligence Estimate.

102

Boy are you gullible.
Do you really believe he is going to shut up?

103

Scylla as a non-liberal, Reagan voting and supporting, in the military as the cold war ended Republican; I ask you what proof do you need of the corruptness and ineptitude of this administration.

104

To be honest? Yes.

105

Ah. A cite from the ACLU is going to shut up a card carrying, rabid, foam at the mouth right wing idiot?

Good luck.

You do know their opinion of the ACLU don’t you.

106

Well, I’m giving Scylla the respect due to an individual, and assuming he can make up his own mind.

107

While we’re at it, you shit for brains goat fucker, what the hell does 9/11, the WTC, or any other fucking talking point of yours have to do with our glorious war of liberation in Iraq? News Flash - Iraq had nothing to do with it, you moron. What do the Patriot Act, spying on private AMERICAN citizens have to do with 9/11 and the WTC, except as a fucking excuse by Der Bush to do whatever the fuck he wants? What does fucking torture of SUSPECTED (not proven or convicted) detainees have to do with 9/11 or the WTC?

The only thing they have in common, is YOUR president used 9/11 as his unified field theory for everyfuckingthing he does, even though the plans were already in place years before. No, I’m not going to provide more cites for you. Get off your ass and find them yourself. He isn’t my president, I voted against him twice and would do so again. He violates everything MY country stands for. Go pound sand. Just don’t you fucking DARE wave 9/11 or the flag in my face. I was in the fucking army, I’m from New York, my family worked in that immediate area AND IN THE BUILDING, I work for the fucking govenment now, with people who get rotated to Iraq all the fucking time and pray they come back safe. What do YOU do for the country, you flag waving Bushite bastard?

108

Ok. I’ll take this seriously. I’m not interested in the ACLUs interpretation when the raw documents are available. The ACLU I see, provides links to them, so that is good.

A first impression is that these autopsy reports are for the deaths of people who were being held by US forces.

I’m taking a quick look at this one, which happens to be the first homicide listed:

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/3146.pdf](http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=19298&c=36)

This one occured in Pashtun Afghanistan.

According to the autopsy he died as a result of injuries to his legs which caused an embolism and necrosis. These injuries are consistent with those of being kicked with a boot.

He also has ligature wounds consistent with being tied up.

Not being a Doctor or anything the impression this gives me is of a prisoner being forced to stand up while tied and then being repeatedly kicked in the legs until he fell to the ground. The force was so great that it caused massive bruising and damage, and blood cots then damaged his heart and/ or lungs.

It is easy to imagine this happening as a result of torture during interrogation. That’s the autopsy.

Ok, so far?

This is suggestive, but it’s not proof of anything, other than this man died while in US captivity. Since we don’t know how long he had been captured we don’t know whether he got these injuries before or after his capture. We don’t know if he was injured while in combat or in the process of being captured. We don’t know if he was captured and tortured/and or abused by other people before the US got him.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume he was captured healthy and got these injuries while in captivity. Who injured him? Did he get into a fight with a fellow captive? Did he attempt escape? Did he attack a guard?

For the sake of argument, lets assume these wounds were inflicted by guards without provocation. Was he being tortured under interrogation, or was he being abused?

This one, cannot be used to demonstrate torture based on the information you, or the ACLU has provided.
On this page, we have listed 14 homicides. Which, you may note, is shy of two dozen even if we assume (and it would be a big assumption) that they all died by torture. I note also, that the ACLU lists these documents as “excerpts.” Again, I don’t think partial information is conclusive.
I don’t think I’m being unfair in my analysis of this particular report, or cite.
You need to show proof of 24 deaths by torture by American forces in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

It’s a serious charge. You appear to have taken it seriously, and mean it. I meant what I said.

Hopefully, you will be reasonable and see that this cite does not equate to a standard of proof commensurate with your accusation.

Please feel free to cull out 24 or more instances of death by torture, or proof that such occured, if you feel they are in these documents.

109

Wow.

Prisoner in US custody is tied up and kicked so badly that he dies, and that’s not proof. Why, maybe he had life threatening injuries and he was placed in a cell instead of given medical aid. Maybe his captors bound him and let another inmate kick the shit out of him. Who knows, all is well in America’s global prisons. Especially the secret ones.

No, Scylla, I can’t find anybody saying “Hey, yeah, I tortured him to death, so what?”, and you know it. Heck, at this point I’m reasonably certain you’d disagree with that for some reason or another. (“So? Some guard says that, big deal. Where’s the video? Oh, there’s video? How do we know he died from that? Oh, he died from that, Well, how do we know he wasn’t a terrorist?”)

Moreoever, as you also know, deaths due to homicide are a subset of deaths during interrogation/torture, or if you really want to quibble, deaths due to wounds/damage suffered during said activities. That you want to parse torture from abuse is also absurd.

I guess you can go on hating Liberals, and saying that they hate America, and yadda yadda yadda. I should’ve known better.

You may not stop posting on the war, but I will stop reading what you have to say, as, juding from this thread, you’ve very little other than invective and slander for your fellow Americans. That the worst of your slander is reserved for those patriots who care most about our country and want it to take the moral high ground is, quite simply, abhorent.

I’ll be happy to see your thoughts on other subjects, but you sound like a Coulter clone right now, and I’ve no desire to communite with Ms. Coulter.

110

No. You’re the liar, or, possibly just a stupid asshole. What does the seven day restriction in 2001 which was repealed have to do with the information available during the two resolutions authorizing use of force that occured in 2002 and/or 2003?

And, for the record, a restriction like this, immediately following 9/11 seems wholly prudent and I’m gratified we were able to reinstate the normal flow of intelligence so swiftly.

I don’t see how anybody but a liar or a moron could could conclude that this affected intelligence available during the resolution process years later.

And if I hadn’t gotten married I might still work on the 11th floor, so fuck you, too. You’re whole line of argument is moronic. Being proximate to a disaster doesn’t lend your arguments any athority.

I said as much. The only think new is that the whole intelligence committe wasn’t given the whole story. There are good reasons for this. Sensitive information needs to be protected and restricted commensurate with its sensitivity, and should be done so to the extent possible that maintains a proper system of checks and balances.

You’ll note from your own cite that minority leaders were fully informed if there was cherry-picking or misinformation being given to everybody else that was different, why didn’t they speak up?

Why didn’t the Bipartisan committee mention it when they did their review. The bipartisan committee does not find any falsification of data or fraud.

You, as I said before, are full of shit.

Oh, the talking points meme. Yawn. Get original America hater traitor, go get Lewinskied.

So, what’s your conclusion here? Seriously. Are you this stupid? Are you really this big an asshole?

For SEVEN days after 9/11, Bush limited access to intelligence. For Seven days in 2001 immediately after 9/11.

What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that these seven days in 2001 or also somehow the seven days in which two resoltions authorizing war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003 were decided on? Are you saying that in those seven days there was some crucial piece of information that was never shared in the future?
Are you stupid, or do you just think I’m stupid? I don’t know whether to be insulted here, or to feel pity on you.

What the fuck does a temporary seven day restriction in 2001 have to do with the votes in '02 and/or '03?

Ok, so the intelligence community made a mistake in elimination to the public. We’re talking about what the Senators knew.

Again, this does not implicate the administration, and, interestingly, I thought it turned out the estimates on the UAVs turned out correct, IIRC

Your argument based on this is???

111

Mother of mercy I can’t fucking spell tonight.
“communicate” or “commune” not “communite” fucking stupid brain.

Ah well, logging off time.

112

Scylla, you really have gone off the rails. I can more than understand your hatred of liberal politicians, though why you hate them more than their counterparts on the right boggles the mind. Ain’t no saints in politics.

What I can’t understand is your willingness to grab the big brush and cast everyone who portrays any sort of “liberal” thought process as an american hating traitor.

And yeah, I think you are being unfair in your analysis of Finns cite. Sure it’s possible that they came in to custody at deaths door. It’s possible that I’m the spawn of Nessie and a leprechaun, but I’m not wearing a shamrock or typing with flippers.

By the by, if they came into custody beat all to fuck, the american authorities should have provided medical attention first and stress positions second.

113

But your proximity was valid? Fuck that.

So the checks and balances means that the congress which makes decisions about going to war is not entitled to full information just because a psycho president and his even more psycho vice president say it is sensitive info? Bull fucking shit.

Back to the America hater crap again. Well double fuck you. I got your Lewinski, right here. Same with your traitor shit. Some fucking American you are. Seig Heil. I wonder, if you’d have the balls to talk like this face to face. See you in hell.

114

  1. No. That would not be proof.

  2. That is not what the autopsy says. It does not say he was tied up and kicked so badly he died while in US custody.

Maybe.

Maybe. Maybe he was captured and tortured by the Mullahs (or whatever those warlords on our side were,) delivered to us and subsequently died of wounds.

Maybe his injuries occured while he was being captured.

Maybe his fellow inmates did it.

Maybe he got them assaulting a guard or attempting an escape.

Maybe he was simply abused by his captors.

Maybe he was tortured.
The autopsy report allows us any of these, or a multiplicity of other scenarios under which this person died. You don’t just get to choose one. You have to demonstrate it.

We had a deal. You promised proof. This isn’t it.

By the terms of the deal you accepted, if this is all you have you are a self-admitted hyperbolous lying wingnut and a traitor… or just another moron as the case may be.

Do you accept defeat?

I assure you, you give me reasonable proof of 24 deaths by torture and I will keep my promise.

I suppose it’s a mistake to expect you to demonstrate as much integrity, but we’ll see.

Yes. I admit it. It’s true. I did know you were full of shit. That’s why I made such a strong statement and promise about it. It was a safe bet. Of course, that’s not the only form of proof. There could be other ways of doing it. It might even lurk in those ACLU pages.

There’s an important point here

YOU DON’T HAVE THE PROOF!

Yet, you stated as a fact that US forces had tortured and killed dozens! You said it, and you didn’t have the proof.

That makes you a liar. It makes you a traitor. Why do you hate American soldiers that you would make up such lies? If you don’t hate American soldiers, why are you willing to slander them so vilely?

What is it that you get from making up lies about our soldiers?

You know what pisses me off? Honestly. It’s that you do it so cheaply. There’s no real reason to do it at all.

Yet, these things start a meme, their misreported, they’re used for political fodder, and, eventually they disseminate across the world. When our soldiers are captured this kind of careless lie is used to justify what is done to them when they are tortured. It’s used to justify bombings and the killings of children.

At the very least it is grossly childish and irresponsible of you.

This is weak ass shit. You’re now making up lies about me, and complaining about things that you think I would have done had you actually offered something credible.

I can’t believe you’re complaining about how you think I would have acted had you offered something credible. That’s as much as an admission that you haven’t. But, it let’s you rationalize your way out of your “deal.”

Whatever.

[/quote]
Moreoever, as you also know, deaths due to homicide are a subset of deaths during interrogation/torture,
[/quote]

No. They are not. This is really an egregious and basic logical flaw. By no means do all homicides fall into a subset of interrogation/torture deaths. I trust that this is basic enough that I don’t need to explain it.

Why is it aburd? They mean two different things.

I did know better. I knew you were full of shit, and lying.

That was weak. You said “deal” and you made one half-assed attempt to fulfill your part of the deal.

Even if I accepted, for the sake of argument that all fourteen homicides were committed by American Forces whilst torturing, you still need to provide ten more.

You have not met the conditions you agreed to in any terms whatsoever.

By your own agreement you have admitted to being a traitorous hyperbolic wingnut.

Personally, I had thought you would do better, and would not fail so easily. I even wondered, as I clicked on the link, if I had lost.

I still may have. I haven’t read every document on that site. The proof might be there. It’s your job to show it to me though, and really it’s beside the point, because you don’t know, and didn’t know yet you made the slanderous accusation.

Shame on you.

115

Pardon me for showing you an iota of respect, you weren’t worth it.

116

No. I just don’t see any reason to hold back in this particular context.

We have a thread here with a lot of lying half-wits making really really stupid arguments.

I went off on Republicans on page 1. I mentioned that I renounced my Republicanism. The values I beleive in are simply not represented by either party.

Not at all. I know some superior intelligent liberals. Many on this board. It’s the wingnuts that piss me off, and also the intelligent people that act like wingnuts.

Ok. I’ll listen.

Your latter two examples are extremely unlikely. The first is not. There are a multiplicity of other scenarios that describe the death besides torture by American forces. You have to give me some reason why torture by American forces is a reasonable conclusion.

For proof, typically 95% certainty is what you need if you are doing science and you wish to make a valid conclusion.

The accusation against our forces of torturing dozens of people is a serious one, and before it can stated as a fact it needs to be demonstrated with an apporpriate level of rigor.

If it’s a fact, it can and should have huge consequences. If not, it shouldn’t. It shouldn’t just be thrown out there.

We don’t know if the example I used was subjected to stress positions. We don’t know when he came into custody.

Death from torture in the example I cited is a certainly a reasonable possibility, among others.

We don’t really know enough about the circumstances from that simple autopsy report to responsibly make any kind of conclusion.

This however, does not stop some, which is what pisses me off.

117

No. What this means is that you are a lying hyperbolic wingnut. You offered that restriction of intelligence information as proof that congress and the Senate were not full informed on intelligence when they authorized the war in Iraq.

Since the restriction occured for seven days, years previously, it has nothing to do with the intelligence available to congress and the intelligence subcommittees during the debate and resolution process.

To represent otherwise, is to lie. It’s why I don’t trust you. Your conclusions are based on lies.

Finn’s conclusions are based on… lies as well. He literally has no proof for his very damaging and slanderous conclusions.

If you are going to tell lies and slander and attempt to disgrace your country based on false information, you deserve to be treated with contempt.

118

Tell me why you would state as a fact that American forces tortured and killed dozens when you did not know it to be true.

I don’t see how you can do such a thing, and expect to be treated with respect.

119

Screw it. It’s official, I’m a hater and a traitor. I guess me and fellow hater Jimmy Carter have something in common, even though I didn’t much like him either. Fancy that. According to the True Believer definition, an ex-president is an America hater and a traitor too.

“Everywhere you go, you hear, ‘What has happened to the United States of America? We thought you used to be the champion of human rights. We thought you used to protect the environment. We thought you used to believe in the separation of church and state,’” Carter said Friday at Unity Temple.

“I felt so disturbed and angry about this radical change in America,” he said.

He placed responsibility for that moral crisis largely on the Bush administration, citing a pre-emptive war policy, inadequate attention to the environment, and the use of torture against some prisoners.

CARTER: Well, I think the decision to go into Iraq as a war was made before Bush was elected President George W. Bush, and I think that it was before 9/11 because some of the top officials in his government now decided after the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait under George Bush, Sr. that he should have gone all the way to Baghdad and have removed Saddam Hussein from power. So that decision was made by some of them long before George Bush even was elected.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that lately, as John McCain has pointed out, and as 90 of the 100 Senators have approved that our government has illegally and improperly been torturing prisoners, so John McCain and others are trying to have in the law just now being considered we should not be permitted to torture prisoners. This has been a part of our nation’s policy ever since I can possibly – well for more than 100 years at least.

KING: But we didn’t – we didn’t have a 9/11.

CARTER: Well but we had the Second World War, which was a lot more destructive for our people. In fact, my own uncle, Tom Gordy (ph), was captured by the Japanese about two weeks after Pearl Harbor and he was a prisoner for four years. He was tortured severely, only weighed 85 pounds when he came out of prison. He was almost dead.

And after that the Geneva Accords were written, which was approved by and even negotiated by the United States and we agreed that in order to protect our own reputation and in order to prevent our own service people from being tortured if they were captured that we would not torture prisoners who were held by us.

That in a radical way is now being rejected by many people in our government and it’s not a unanimous thing even within the Bush administration. There’s a big debate going on whether the CIA should be permitted or the Defense Department should be permitted to torture people.

I think it’s completely wrong. It’s completely damaging to our country and it’s never been done before. That’s just another one of the principles that bothers me.

KING: Do you think the Iraq War based on the title of your book, do you think it’s immoral?

CARTER: Do I think it’s what?

KING: Immoral.

CARTER: I don’t think it was necessary. I think it was begun under false pretenses. I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan because I was convinced the 9/11 attacks were planned and originated and financed through Afghanistan. I fully agreed that we had to take military action there.

After 9/11 there was a unanimous approbation and sympathy for our country around the world. We had the opportunity then, Larry, of forming a phalanx of almost every nation on earth to join in a concerted team effort to root out and to minimize the adverse effect or threats from terrorism.

We frittered that away by unnecessarily going into Iraq under false pretenses and now, of course, we have had more than 2,000 of our young people die, in my opinion heroically but in an unnecessary war.

PS: This is the last post I am going to waste on this thread. Obviously you put Bush before country. Fucking traitor.

120

Oh get off the cross, and don’t try to pull Jimbo up there with you. We’re not talking about what Jimbo said, we’re talking about you said. Jimbo’s a private individual who’s not privy to any of the intelligence committee’s.

As I pointed out Three??? times. I’m not a fan of Bush any more. My opinions on the war are held in spite of the fact that Bush supports them.

Were you lying with this last potshot, or just stupid and forgot?