You imply by your link Cheney dodged the draft...he did not
Not any more than Joe Biden...both received legitimate deferments....
tuff shit, but facts mean something to those of us that are not hacks....
Who agrees with Cheney?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
You imply by your link Cheney dodged the draft...he did not
Not any more than Joe Biden...both received legitimate deferments....
tuff shit, but facts mean something to those of us that are not hacks....
Sorry pinhead....Cheney will go down in history as a true statesmen that served his country for most of his life in many capacities....
You may not agree and may not like it...but thats the way its gonna read....
and Clinton will remain a President, a draft dodger, and an oval office embarrassment...with little if any legacy other than a stained blue dress....
and with the Obama election...Clinton may be forgotten altogether....
You may not agree and may not like it...but thats the way its gonna read....
and Clinton will remain a President, a draft dodger, and an oval office embarrassment...with little if any legacy other than a stained blue dress....
and with the Obama election...Clinton may be forgotten altogether....
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You're not a hack...you don't have the brains for it. Remember chuckles, it was YOU and your ilk who kept regurgitating that Clinton was a draft dodger, and Obama never served.
When folk point out that Clinton along with the folks you just mentioned, scammed the system legitimately to stay out of Vietnam, then you suddenly change your tune and lie, saying people ONLY accused Cheney. When people point out that military service is NOT a requirement to be President, you suddenly change the subject. You talk so much BS you don't realize that it's on your shoes...then you try to deny this, despite the recorded posts showing how hypocritical you are.
As I previously stated, Cheney was the chickenhawk to pushed a bogus war. He's full of it...just like his supporters. And for him to be running around with the same "if you don't do as I say, the terrorist will git ya!" BS every time Obama opens his mouth is pathetic.
Last edited:
You have no fuckin' idea what your rambling about...
Obama didn't serve....who cares...
military service is NOT a requirement to be President?
I didn't bring that up.....
scammed the system legitimately to stay out of Vietnam?
Clinton was the only one I accused of dodging the draft....
A legitimate deferment is legitimate...fine with me and a necessary rule...
A draft dodger that puts troops in harms way is by your definition a 'chickenhawk'....again ...I didn't being up the term at all....
try a course in reading comprehension before you post here....makes it more pleasant for all of us...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
*Sigh* You did the same exact BS on the Netscape posts...and you got thumped with the following:
All the above DID NOT advocate invasion/occupation.....that is why we had INSPECTORS on site in Iraq, a no fly zone, embargos. Iraq was contained, with his army at 1/3 strength, no comparable air force, no alliance with Al Qaeda.
The Shrub & company LIED to invade, hell they lied so much it's a joke [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o"]YouTube - WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP[/ame]
....they violated their burden of proof to Congress and their compliance agreement with the UN. www.bushlies.net
The result, over 4,000 dead, over 30,000 maimed....the majority of this AFTER we "won".
You can parrot all the old Rovian mantras, but history and the reality of those events will always be your undoing.
Well dung, what you gonna do...? The pathetic "Bush lied" crap has to seen in light of what the Dims were saying from 1996 through 2003.....
If Bush lied...every fuckin' body lied...for 7 years and 2 Presidents.....
Time for Leno...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're not a hack...you don't have the brains for it. Remember chuckles, it was YOU and your ilk who kept regurgitating that Clinton was a draft dodger, and Obama never served.
When folk point out that Clinton along with the folks you just mentioned, scammed the system legitimately to stay out of Vietnam, then you suddenly change your tune and lie, saying people ONLY accused Cheney. When people point out that military service is NOT a requirement to be President, you suddenly change the subject. You talk so much BS you don't realize that it's on your shoes...then you try to deny this, despite the recorded posts showing how hypocritical you are.
As I previously stated, Cheney was the chickenhawk to pushed a bogus war. He's full of it...just like his supporters. And for him to be running around with the same "if you don't do as I say, the terrorist will git ya!" BS every time Obama opens his mouth is pathetic.
Now I know you're not dealing with a full deck. YOU have several posts on this thread ranting on about Clinton is a draft dodger and about Obama not serving. Then you change your tune when shown that your boy Cheney is in the same boat as Clinton, and that military service is NOT a requirement to be the Commander in Chief. You can't have it both ways, dipstick.
No one said YOU brought the term, chickenhawk, genius...... I posted it as an apt description of a man who avoided the draft yet beat the drums of war and lied his ass off to invade Iraq...so much more to pity.
Face it chuckles, your scrambling so much NOT to have Cheney criticized, you're babbling. You'll just repeat your BS ad nauseum in various takes. Go right ahead, I'm done with you.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're not a hack...you don't have the brains for it. Remember chuckles, it was YOU and your ilk who kept regurgitating that Clinton was a draft dodger, and Obama never served.
When folk point out that Clinton along with the folks you just mentioned, scammed the system legitimately to stay out of Vietnam, then you suddenly change your tune and lie, saying people ONLY accused Cheney. When people point out that military service is NOT a requirement to be President, you suddenly change the subject. You talk so much BS you don't realize that it's on your shoes...then you try to deny this, despite the recorded posts showing how hypocritical you are.
As I previously stated, Cheney was the chickenhawk to pushed a bogus war. He's full of it...just like his supporters. And for him to be running around with the same "if you don't do as I say, the terrorist will git ya!" BS every time Obama opens his mouth is pathetic.
Now I know you're not dealing with a full deck. YOU have several posts on this thread ranting on about Clinton is a draft dodger and about Obama not serving. Then you change your tune when shown that your boy Cheney is in the same boat as Clinton, and that military service is NOT a requirement to be the Commander in Chief. You can't have it both ways, dipstick.
No one said YOU brought the term, chickenhawk, genius...... I posted it as an apt description of a man who avoided the draft yet beat the drums of war and lied his ass off to invade Iraq...so much more to pity.
Face it chuckles, your scrambling so much NOT to have Cheney criticized, you're babbling. You'll just repeat your BS ad nauseum in various takes. Go right ahead, I'm done with you.
No doubt, you better be done with me....you've been clearly pwned in this round...
You're out of your gourd Skippy....
Post 14 by signalmankenneth brings up Cheney's deferments...
I responded...about Clinton and Biden's deferments...
In post 25 I mention other Democats that failed to serve and supported war....signalmankenneth's definition of a chickenhawk...
Nowhere in the entire thread did I mention Obama or his lack of service in the military...so you oughta learn to read....
You say...:"*Sigh* You did the same exact BS on the Netscape posts...and you got thumped with the following:
All the above DID NOT advocate invasion/occupation.
I've no clue WTF you rambling about here either... Netscape posts???
You might lay off the fuckin' Koolade Skippy....
And we aren't talking about invasion..Its Irrelevant.....we're talking about lies concerning Saddam/Iraq and ....you guessed it...WMD....shit the Democrats and Clinton were ranting about since 1996..... thats like discussing cars and you tell me you suck dicks....irrelevant....a non sequitur...
Thanks for playing, sorry to pwn you first time out, but thats the way it goes..
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yeh we know, water-boarding is not torture despite the fact that several Japanese practitioners were convicted for using the self same non-torture technique in WW2. Here are the thoughts of a former JAG.
Water-boarding Used to Be a Crime
By Evan Wallach (Source)
Sunday, November 4, 2007
As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "water-boarding."
That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, water-boarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied water-boarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.
The United States knows quite a bit about water-boarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for water-boarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call water-boarding.
In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's.
Consider this account from a Filipino water-boarding victim:
Q: Was it painful?
A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.
Q: Like you were drowning?
A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.
Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.
As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialled for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."
The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.
Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.
Water-boarding Used to Be a Crime
By Evan Wallach (Source)
Sunday, November 4, 2007
As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "water-boarding."
That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, water-boarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied water-boarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.
The United States knows quite a bit about water-boarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for water-boarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call water-boarding.
In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's.
Consider this account from a Filipino water-boarding victim:
Q: Was it painful?
A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.
Q: Like you were drowning?
A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.
Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.
As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialled for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."
The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.
Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're not a hack...you don't have the brains for it. Remember chuckles, it was YOU and your ilk who kept regurgitating that Clinton was a draft dodger, and Obama never served.
When folk point out that Clinton along with the folks you just mentioned, scammed the system legitimately to stay out of Vietnam, then you suddenly change your tune and lie, saying people ONLY accused Cheney. When people point out that military service is NOT a requirement to be President, you suddenly change the subject. You talk so much BS you don't realize that it's on your shoes...then you try to deny this, despite the recorded posts showing how hypocritical you are.
As I previously stated, Cheney was the chickenhawk to pushed a bogus war. He's full of it...just like his supporters. And for him to be running around with the same "if you don't do as I say, the terrorist will git ya!" BS every time Obama opens his mouth is pathetic.
Now I know you're not dealing with a full deck. YOU have several posts on this thread ranting on about Clinton is a draft dodger and about Obama not serving. Then you change your tune when shown that your boy Cheney is in the same boat as Clinton, and that military service is NOT a requirement to be the Commander in Chief. You can't have it both ways, dipstick.
No one said YOU brought the term, chickenhawk, genius...... I posted it as an apt description of a man who avoided the draft yet beat the drums of war and lied his ass off to invade Iraq...so much more to pity.
Face it chuckles, your scrambling so much NOT to have Cheney criticized, you're babbling. You'll just repeat your BS ad nauseum in various takes. Go right ahead, I'm done with you.
One correction: You have posts on these BOARDS regarding Obama not serving. On this thread, you agreed with Cheney that Obama is making the country less safe. (like Cheney did a bang up job).
One apology: As your posts are a dead ringer for another neocon blowhard on the old boards, I assumed you were the same person. If you are not, then I apologize.
But you did print in bold that Clinton was a draft dodger...and you maintained that Cheney wasn't. You can't have it both ways.
And YOU were the one posting all the Dem quotes about WMD's....you conveniently left out WHO was pumping that "information" 24/7 www.bushlies.net
Once again, I've proven you to be nothing but a neocon parrot deluded by his own convoluted logic. Carry on!
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're not a hack...you don't have the brains for it. Remember chuckles, it was YOU and your ilk who kept regurgitating that Clinton was a draft dodger, and Obama never served.
When folk point out that Clinton along with the folks you just mentioned, scammed the system legitimately to stay out of Vietnam, then you suddenly change your tune and lie, saying people ONLY accused Cheney. When people point out that military service is NOT a requirement to be President, you suddenly change the subject. You talk so much BS you don't realize that it's on your shoes...then you try to deny this, despite the recorded posts showing how hypocritical you are.
As I previously stated, Cheney was the chickenhawk to pushed a bogus war. He's full of it...just like his supporters. And for him to be running around with the same "if you don't do as I say, the terrorist will git ya!" BS every time Obama opens his mouth is pathetic.
Now I know you're not dealing with a full deck. YOU have several posts on this thread ranting on about Clinton is a draft dodger and about Obama not serving. Then you change your tune when shown that your boy Cheney is in the same boat as Clinton, and that military service is NOT a requirement to be the Commander in Chief. You can't have it both ways, dipstick.
No one said YOU brought the term, chickenhawk, genius...... I posted it as an apt description of a man who avoided the draft yet beat the drums of war and lied his ass off to invade Iraq...so much more to pity.
Face it chuckles, your scrambling so much NOT to have Cheney criticized, you're babbling. You'll just repeat your BS ad nauseum in various takes. Go right ahead, I'm done with you.
One correction: You have posts on these BOARDS regarding Obama not serving. On this thread, you agreed with Cheney that Obama is making the country less safe. (like Cheney did a bang up job).
One apology: As your posts are a dead ringer for another neocon blowhard on the old boards, I assumed you were the same person. If you are not, then I apologize.
But you did print in bold that Clinton was a draft dodger...and you maintained that Cheney wasn't. You can't have it both ways.
And YOU were the one posting all the Dem quotes about WMD's....you conveniently left out WHO was pumping that "information" 24/7 www.bushlies.net
Once again, I've proven you to be nothing but a neocon parrot deluded by his own convoluted logic. Carry on!
We really should give credit to the other Democrats that received briefings by the CIA on interrogation techniques too....
They are just a responsible for saving US lives as Cheney and Bush...
Nancy Pelosi
Bob Graham
Shelby
Rockefeller
Harry Reid
John Murtha
Evan Bayh
Barbara Mikulski
Russ Feingold
Carl Levin
Dianne Feinstein
Bill Nelson'
Sheldon Whitehouse
Jerrod Nadler
Bobby Scott[/QUOTE]
Yes, they also absolutely deserve credit and recognition!
apple0154
MEOW
Which ones, who were waterboarded, shot someone in the face?
In any case the Police catch people who shoot others. Once in custody they do not waterboard them.
Mafia kingpins who were apprehended most likely knew about plans to kill others (contracts). Were they waterboarded?
What about gang members who know about drug sales to kids? Were they waterboarded?
apple0154
MEOW
Regarding Cheney, it's a dangerous individual who has no sense of shame or embarrassment when their lies and misrepresentations are so evident.
Regardless of what Obama accomplishes the fact he stopped the continuation of the Republican administration is reason enough to be forever grateful.
Regardless of what Obama accomplishes the fact he stopped the continuation of the Republican administration is reason enough to be forever grateful.
apple0154
MEOW
Considering the passion, the vehemence of Cheney's need to blow up all the middle eastern countries, to torture.....oops, enhanced interrogation....of people from that region, I wonder if, in his youth, he discovered a gentleman of ME extraction boinking his girlfriend. That could shed a lot of light on his current thinking.
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
I like to think that Cheney has engineered his own bathroom toilet to only emit short bursts of water directly onto his freshly laid turds, giving the impression that it's going to depart down the u-bend forever, but ceasing at the very last minute.
Topspin
Verified User
So you're saying he bought a British Public Toilet?
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
That may very well be the case.
I can't be sure as i've steadfastly refused to defecate in a public toilet since 1985.
(i certainly didn't anticipate typing that particular sentence when i woke up this morning.)
So you're saying you use the park and blame it on your cat?
(Wow, you're on fire today! Either that or I'm on fire... doubt it, because Darla told me I'm not funny.)