You said it, I saw below where you equivocated.... But the question still stands... Do you really belive that!?
APP - Whats he afraid of?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
You said it, I saw below where you equivocated.... But the question still stands... Do you really belive that!?
I'll repeat what I said since you refuse to actually read more than the one post.
I said:
True that. I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them.
Now that I've "read" it to you, are you going to continue to pretend that your question has any merit? To call it "equivocation"? I've been straight forward and clear on what I believe, and what I think the VP is doing by justifying his current statements.
You said...
"I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage..."
Then you said something contradictory...
"...I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them."
Your two statements are in contradiction to each other, thus the question stands, do you really belive your first statement?
What is true, your first statement of your second? And, as to the one you say is untrue, why did you write it if it were untrue?
"I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage..."
Then you said something contradictory...
"...I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them."
Your two statements are in contradiction to each other, thus the question stands, do you really belive your first statement?
What is true, your first statement of your second? And, as to the one you say is untrue, why did you write it if it were untrue?
If you truely belive your second statement, "...I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them." and not your first...
Then another question stands, What is Cheney really afraid of? Not how does he "justifies it in his mind".
Then another question stands, What is Cheney really afraid of? Not how does he "justifies it in his mind".
In justifying it, that is what he "fears". I don't think he allows a full rendering of the issue even to himself, that introspection is not one of his strong suits. It would take a personal belief that he had done something wrong, instead he works out justification.
I believe both of the statements.
I see, so you have it both ways, in your mind...!
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
that's just silly.....if the UN treaty were the supreme law of the land, the constitution would be looking to the treaty for authority, rather than the other way around.....
now if you just want to say the constitution makes the treaty valid law, (which I still would disagree with), your statement at least wouldn't be nonsense....
That would be something he would need to find out through introspection. It may be that he has no personal fear. You project your own thoughts onto him, then expect others to think exactly as you do, if they give a different answer you talk about how it is "in their head."
I don't think he has anything to personally fear at all, and also I do not believe that anybody will be prosecuted.
Does that mean I think that "enhanced interrogation" is necessary and that it should be done? No, it doesn't.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, in spite of your wish that the UN supersedes the Constitution as well as common law, it doesn't. Sorry.
WHere have I expected others to "think exactly as I do"?
SO what do you belvie Cheney was "justifying"?
More often than not past administrations remain silent. I think he justifies going public with opinions using exactly what I said.
You expect me to "think exactly as you do" in a belief that he is personally afraid of something, when I give a likely and different point of view you say it is "in my mind." If you wish to practice a bit of personal introspection it is right there before you.
I do not believe that Cheney is personally afraid of anything here, and have given my reason why. I think he justifies his current action using exactly what I said he uses. And lastly, since you insist he "fears" something, I believe that at most he "fears" the crippling of HUMINT.
I disagree with the "necessity" of specific types of HUMINT, because it makes the fields more difficult for soldiers if the "enemy" is sure that we will use certain techniques, it makes the "enemy" less likely to surrender.
maineman
Banned
nowhere have I said that the UN supercedes the constitution. Common law does not apply when statute clearly defines torture, and that definition is, according to OUR constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Mirriam Webster's definition is absolutely irrelevant.
sorry
maineman
Banned
have you ever READ the constitution?
From Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
It binds the judges and executives of each state to that particular law, it does not supersede the constitution itself. One law cannot supersede that which gives it authority. It specifically excludes the Constitution of the US and says only that it supersedes the constitutions of the States.
I do not expect you to belive that he is afraid of anything, to me when you answered my question, "what is he afraid of" by saying...
"I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage..."
You are saying that you do not belive he is afraid of anything. I later asked you if you really belived that to which you directed me to your second post...
"...I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them."
which made me belive you felt he was "justifying" something that he was really doing out of fear.
Now that I have had the chance to examine you, I understand what you are saying more thoroughly!
I can repeat it but why?
I'll just copy and paste it.
Here I answer your question:
I do not believe that Cheney is personally afraid of anything here, and have given my reason why. I think he justifies his current action using exactly what I said he uses. And lastly, since you insist he "fears" something, I believe that at most he "fears" the crippling of HUMINT.
Here I give my personal opinion:
I disagree with him on the "necessity" of specific types of HUMINT, because it makes the fields more difficult for soldiers if the "enemy" is sure that we will use certain techniques, it makes the "enemy" less likely to surrender.
I believe that at most he "fears" Obama's actions crippling future HUMINT.
Now you can continue to pretend you cannot comprehend my opinions, or that you have never participated in a conversation where people have made a statement and then further elucidated on that same central theme, but it becomes more inane the further you try to take this. You are beginning to compete for the most personally disingenuous poster.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what does this mean:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i don't think that is right....if recall...the treaty the treaty uses, in part, amend viii of the constitution....which is not clearly defined and has been defined by federal common law....
imo...without going back and reading the treaty, i believe federal common law can be used to define torture by the US under the treaty.....and sometimes, dictionaries are uses to define terms.....