Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Teh Jackwad: Nope, It's Not a "War"

It's not hard to figure out why the average citizen absolutely despises lawyers.

The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.

Shove it where the sun never shines, B Hussein.

31 comments:

Deekaman said...

That's a pretty broad interpretation of...well, nothing really. There is nothing anywhere that coveys anything remotely resembling the authority to do this without going through the (unconstitutional) War Powers Act.

Does Congress have the balls to deal with it?

Anonymous said...

Did Congress have the balls to deal with enhanced interrogation? There's your answer.

Deekaman said...

There is nothing illegal (in spite of what the Lefties profess, it is not torture) about enhanced interrogation. There is a very clear law regarding War Powers.

Anonymous said...

Lefties like St. Ronald Reagan and John McCain?

Deekaman said...

Ronald Reagan could not possibly have ruled on enhanced interrogation. McCain's vision of it is tainted. Further, since those techniques are still in use by The Chosen One and GITMO remains open and there is a deafening silence from the Left about those things and the (now 5) wars, I judge you all as hypocrites, only bent on destroying the country as it has been known for over 200 years. It is you who will be swept into the dustbin of history as more and more see your childish behavior, hypocrisy and fearmongering. It is you who do it, not us. We have been asleep for too long and are now awakened. It is you who wish to enslave the rest of us to your dystopian ideal of "equality of outcome". It is you who hate, it is you who want the elite to rule and the rest to suffer. It is you who invent the bogeymen of Halliburton and (because it is easier for you to spell), Koch. I accuse you and your ilk of treason against the rest of us. Your day of reckoning is much closer than you think. We continue to win hearts and minds while your childish antics continue to enrage those who would otherwise believe your lies.

I hate the Left because the Left has driven me to Hate. And I don't need a pill or therapy or any of the other remedies the Left espouses. I only need their disappearance from American life.

What arrogance makes the American Left think they can make a Socialist utopia work when it has not worked wherever it has been tried? Socialism is in its death throes all over the world, yet those who believe themselves to be "smarter" continue to follow the same path. The very definition of "insanity".

I'm done ranting (for now).

Anonymous said...

Deekaman--YAWN!

"McCain's vision of it is tainted."

Actually, it's spot on. Enhanced interrogation, if it includes waterboarding, goes against EVERYTHING JESUS STOOD FOR.

Besides, please tell me how the United States historically prosecuted waterboarders after World War II, during Korea, and in Vietnam, i.e. it is unconstitutional, immoral, and illegal, but under one presidency this tactic is deemed constitutional, moral, and legal. Hypocrites!

Eighth Amendment = No cruel or unusual punishment. This principle is UNIVERSAL and not the sole domain under which American citizens are protected by our government from barbaric practices.

Anonymous said...

And one more thing, Deekaman, Reagan did have an opinion regarding enhanced interrogation techniques...

www.drudge.com/archive/120429/reagan-admin-prosecuted-sheriff

Dad29 said...

Gee. I've read the entire NT and have yet to find any remarks by JC about waterboarding.

In fact, His remarks about soldiers were all very positive.

But maybe you have the super-decoder-ring that also shows where JC was actually only a community organizer, like Alinsky and Obozo?

Deekaman said...

Anon...you lose again.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God, I love goading you traitors. Everything you believe is dead wrong. And for you to invoke Jesus....wow. Do you even believe on Him?

You are all cowards and liars. You know nothing that is the truth. You spew lies and hatred, then claim it is us.

You trip to the dustbin has me laughing daily.

Oh, yeah...I suspect you have more than me. I am sure you are willing to redistribute to me to make me "equal" right? Bigger hose? Gimme. Nicer, newer car? Gimme. More money? Gimme. I mean, that's how you guys roll, right? If someone has less than you, you make sure they get some of yours, right?

Hypocrites. And cowards.

Deekaman said...

That's bigger "house", because I'm sure our anonymous "friend" has a teeny-weeny.

Anonymous said...

Dad29--Gee. I've read the entire NT and have yet to find any remarks by JC about waterboarding.

Wow, you are using that LAME excuse? Because you know DAMN WELL that Jesus, who died for our sins, would find it SINFUL for anyone to engage in the actions that led him to suffer for a prolonged period of time that resulted in death.


Besides, The RCC is ABSOLUTELY clear on this matter, and Jesus would fully endorse this message:

"Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator."

–Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II


Moreover, torture is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 2297) as “which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

Anonymous said...

Deekaman--Like any partisan, liberal or conservative, you cannot find yourself to concede a point. Truly pathetic! You proclaim how your hero Reagan "could not have possibly ruled on enhanced interrogation", yet it is CLEAR CUT that he had an opinion on the matter.

He eloquently stated after signing the United Nations Convention on Torture (1984), “The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”

The definition of torture, as defined by that convention, is "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/her or a third person information or a confession."

Furthermore, the FACT remains that the United States historically condemned waterboarding and prosecuted anyone who engaged in that practice...until Bush, Jr. and his henchmen chose to rewrite the rules.

And, as far as questioning the "size" of my "house", only an adolescent would go that route. Again, truly pathetic.


I challenge both of you to go through waterboarding, or even put your children through it. Go ahead, tell them it's not that bad. Because if they underwent that ordeal, you guys would be beside yourself, and rightfully so.

Dad29 said...

which uses physical or moral violence

But waterboarding does not use either.

It is merely a threat of drowning.

John Foust said...

Follow the Dad29 Logic: Restraining someone in order to repeatedly restrict their ability to breathe - not physical violence.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, John Foust. Talk about "tortured" logic on Dad29's part. Waterboarding involves a PHYSICAL act which is VIOLENT in nature. The threat is removed once the act is committed.


Violence -1. swift and intense force; 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment

The pouring of water over the face of an immobile person is a swift and intense force. Being under the water for an extended period of time is also a swift and intense force. Gagging as a result of having water poured over your face repeatedly is definitely a physical reaction. Repeated gagging results in dry heaving, which also is a swift and intense force. All of these actions are PHYSICAL in nature.


But, if it makes you feel better, continue to ignore these cogent points--1. Our country has historically defined waterboarding as torture and prosecuted offenders; 2. The Justice Department under the Reagan Administration authorized the prosecution of waterboarders. 3. The RCC is crystal clear regarding its position on torture, and waterboarding, by its very nature, is included in that definition.

In support of point #3, the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, No. 27, mentions torture in the same clause as abortion and genocide as assaults on human life and dignity. They are all intrinsically evil.

Deekaman said...

The "intrinsic evil" here is the manner in which the Left twists the words of truth to enslave people to the government.

I stand by all I have said. The Left is treasonous and cowardly; childish and selfish.

Their place is in hell with Lucifer himself along with all their ilk.

Man was meant to be free. You wish enslavement at the hands of those you believe to be "better".

Anonymous said...

It says much about your character, Deekaman, when all you have left is ad hominen attacks. You have done nothing to refute my statements.

Because IF the "left is treasonous and cowardly; childish and selfish", what does that make your idol Reagan for authorizing the prosecution of waterboarders? Ah, I see, I'm "twisting the words of truth".

When something is intrinsically evil, there are NO exceptions, and Reagan understood that concept well in this particular case!

Deekaman said...

You have postulated that waterboarding is torture and is therefore evil. I have postulated it is not. You refute my beliefs and I will refute yours. My point here is that you are making an argument agaist which there can be no argument, as am I. I am not
Catholic and I read nowhere in the New Testament that waterboarding is torture. Your only evidence is that someone you consider an "authority" says it is. I say it is not and have my authorities to back my point. We say it's not as you say it is.

I believe it is you Lefties (and I guess I am making an assumption that you are one) believe there is no right or wrong; no good or evil except where you say. That makes you a hypocrite. I believe I am consistent in my beliefs. You are not.

Other than a Drudge report, you better give me something better than your say-so that Reagan authorized prosecution of waterboarders, since the military has been using waterboarding as a training tool for SEALs since the 70's.

I stand by my comments regarding your treason.

Anonymous said...

"Your only evidence is that someone you consider an "authority" says it is."

The authority is the Roman Catholic Church and the pope. Your boy Dad29 constantly refers to it as THE SOURCE! Now you are distancing yourself from it?
Furthermore, the "evidence" I cite is also federal policy that had been routinely followed (regarding the prosecution of waterboarders). And you have the audacity to call me a traitor???


1--"You have postulated that waterboarding is torture and is therefore evil. I have postulated it is not. You refute my beliefs and I will refute yours. My point here is that you are making an argument agaist which there can be no argument, as am I."

Now you're speaking like a liberal! You tout day after day on this site that one side is "right" and another side is "wrong", and now you are inferring there is no such thing? My, my, my, Mr. Moral Relativist.


"I believe it is you Lefties (and I guess I am making an assumption that you are one) believe there is no right or wrong."

Um, hello, anybody home? Your statement (1) from above is EXACTLY what you are doing! Keep spinning your wheels, hypocrite. There is a RIGHT SIDE and a WRONG SIDE to things. Waterboarding is torture. Period! The RCC and our government has declared it as such repeatedly and consistently. Declaring that you and I will be unable to rectify our positions, and therefore neither one of us is right or wrong, followed by saying how lefties have no sense of right and wrong, is circular logic. You make no sense!



"Other than a Drudge report..."

Dude, there are other sources regarding Reagan's prosecution of waterboarders. Look it up!


"since the military has been using waterboarding as a training tool for SEALs since the 70's."

And here is the DIFFERENCE! Soldiers WILLINGLY VOLUNTEER to undergo that training to prepare themselves for the possibility that they may be waterboarded. They have to be BATTLE TESTED for this TORTURE TECHNIQUE!


Keep painting yourself into a corner and firing blanks!

Dad29 said...

Look at all those pixels spent by some guy who claims to know, with absolute moral precision, that waterboarding IS 'torture' by the standards of the RC church.

Wow.

To be fair, where there is doubt, it is morally best to be conservative--in this case, to 'include' waterboarding rather than to exclude it.

(Interesting that the Left doesn't apply the 'doubt' standard above to abortion.)

All of that given, I am not convinced that waterboarding IS torture, even under the definitions given by Anony.

Would I personally use it? Prolly not. But then, I wouldn't pull the switch at a State-condoned execution, either.

Deekaman said...

I am not Catholic and do not recognize the Pope's "infallibility". Nor do I believe Reagan to be infallible. I agree with him fiscally and Constitutionally, but not regarding waterboarding, therefore, I do not believe it to be "intrinsically evil". That is my belief. It is influenced only by my standards. The particular standard being that bad guys are just that...."bad". Waterboarding is uncomfortable. Tough. Using children and the retarded as suicide bombers is far worse on any moral scale. I would not waterboard certain individuals, any more than I would execute someone for jaywalking but I have no problem with those like KSM being waterboarded. I do not find it to be torture because you (and the Pope) say so.

I don't play the "precautionary principle" game. If, when I get to Jesus he says, "Dude, that was torture", I will, with a clear conscience be able to say, "Sorry". Will Anon be able to say the same of abortion?

Anonymous said...

Deekaman--"That is my belief. It is influenced only by my standards."

Well, then, as a moral relativist, you should be able to accept a person's reasoning if abortion does not constitute murder in their eyes lest you be a hypocrite. You cannot simultaneously claim that you are able to decide for yourself what is right/what is wrong while chastising those who employ the same logic on issues you personally disagree with.


"Waterboarding is uncomfortable. Tough. Using children and the retarded as suicide bombers is far worse on any moral scale."

More "lefty logic". BOTH are EQUALLY immoral. I note how you use "uncomfortable" to describe waterboarding! Try it sometime, and we'll see how "uncomfortable" is this technique!


"I do not find it to be torture because you (and the Pope) say so."

Sorry, that's not how the real world operates. Get your head out of the clouds.


Dad29--"To be fair, where there is doubt, it is morally best to be conservative--in this case, to 'include' waterboarding rather than to exclude it."

No, no, no. Dead wrong there. There is thing as "morally best" in the eyes of GOD! It is either right or wrong, moral or immoral. Just quit while you're behind with your silly statement.

Deekaman said...

You remain wrong. I am not a moral relativist. That would mean that something would be ok if I did it, but not if you did it. I don't change my moral compass with the socio-political winds.

By the way, to equate Reagan prosecuting a law enforcement official for waterboarding a prisoner with the military waterboarding a terrorist is absurd.

At what point are you going to answer the original question regarding the REAL illegal wars in Libya, Yemen and who-knows-where else.

Dad29 said...

There is thing as "morally best" in the eyes of GOD! It is either right or wrong, moral or immoral. Just quit while you're behind with your silly statement.

Dear Certainly-Most-Moral-Knower:

Explain "lying" about Jews in your house, then---dumbass.

Anonymous said...

Deekaman--"That would mean that something would be ok if I did it, but not if you did it."

You can't escape this one, Mr. Moral Relativist. You continue to claim that you do not have to follow what "experts" or "authorities" tell you, in this case regarding the illegality and immorality of torture. That means you can simply ignore them because according to your own standards they are wrong.
Society does not work that way, my friend. The United States historically has condemned waterboarding and prosecuted its citizens and foreigners over this action. What, dare you imply then that America was "wrong" all of those years? How dare you besmirch the greatest country on earth!

The Roman Catholic Church has made it clear that waterboarding, under its own criteria, is an affront to humankind, regardless if the perpetrator committed a heinous act. Acting like a barbarian because someone else acted like a barbarian leads us to become a brute, an animal with no respect for life.


Deekaman--"By the way, to equate Reagan prosecuting a law enforcement official for waterboarding a prisoner with the military waterboarding a terrorist is absurd."

In your eyes, Mr. Moral Relativist, yes. But torture is torture, no matter how you slice it. If it's wrong in one situation, then it is wrong in all situations. There is no grey area. inhumane treatment to those who commit inhumane acts constitutes barbarity on a grand scale!


Dad29--Dear Certainly-Most-Moral-Knower:
Explain "lying" about Jews in your house, then---dumbass.

Stay on point and don't pull an Alinsky maneuver, we're not talking about me lying to save Jews, we are talking about how waterboarding stinks in the nostrils of God.

At least your argument has more clout when you call me names /sarcasm

One more time...there is no such thing as "morally best" in the eyes of God. He is the source of all truth!

Deekaman said...

You remain wrong and you continue to dodge the original question.

So, we should not train our servicepeople to withstand torture because it requires a measure of that torture? Is that correct?

Your premise is wrong. Waterboarding is not torture, therefore, everything that follows is wrong.

have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Deekaman--"So, we should not train our servicepeople to withstand torture because it requires a measure of that torture? Is that correct?"


Now you're putting words in my mouth! Try to keep up, ok?

American soldiers are not only “willing” to undergo waterboarding as part of their resistance training, but they are required to undergo it as well.

The reason, of course, is that waterboarding constitutes a method of coercive interrogation so severe, that American soldiers need to be familiar with it so that they can learn how to counteract it if ever they are captured on the field of battle. They are not undergoing waterboarding resistance training because the experience is fun and delightful. They are undergoing it because they need to be prepared to resist-–dare we say it-–torture.

There is a difference between what American soldiers go through as a part of their resistance training, and what detainees/prisoners go through. An American soldier’s waterboarding during resistance training can and will stop if a doctor finds that the soldier in question is in medical danger. The waterboarding of a detainee/prisoner may be halted by a doctor, but that will only be to ensure that the detainee/prisoner in question is not permanently harmed, so that the waterboarding-–and the interrogation associated with it–-can continue.

To equate the two experiences, and to argue as a consequence that waterboarding is not torture because American troops undergo waterboarding as part of their resistance training, is sheer folly and ignorance, Mr. Moral Relativist!

Deekaman said...

No, there really is no difference. In your world, they are not volunteering, but rather forced to do so if they wish to continue their career.

And besides, if the act is "torture" for the bad guys, how can it be other for the good guys. Would bamboo under the fingernails be ok if it was for resistance training?

Just asking where your limit is.

And while we are at it, any answer to my original question? Or do support the (truly) illegal war in Libya?

Dad29 said...

to ensure that the detainee/prisoner in question is not permanently harmed

So. How does Vox Dei/Anony define THAT? "Torture-interruptus?" "Torture-Lite?"

And how does that comport with the requirements you outlined above?

(Hint: it doesn't comport at all.)

Anonymous said...

Deekaman--No, there really is no difference. In your world, they are not volunteering, but rather forced to do so if they wish to continue their career.

You are officially off of the rails. My 7:15 p.m. post is EXACTLY what our generals have stated repeatedly, to have American soldiers properly equipped to deal with any situation that comes there way. So my position is not in "my world", but it is official policy as outlined by our commanders in the field of battle. Our fine men and women MAKE A CHOICE TO SERVE and to ENDURE THAT HORRIFIC EXPERIENCE. They know full well of the potential risks involved and are not being forced to do anything against their will.

Are you AGAINST this training? Do you want to JEOPARDIZE our military personnel in the future as a result of your "protest"? And you have the audacity to call me a traitor, Mr. Moral Relativist?

The fact remains that our government has historically prosecuted waterboarders and the RCC has also declared forms of torture as “contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity”.
Sorry, the rules do not magically change for those whom we consider to be our enemies. Barbarism is barbarism. Who told me so? GOD DID! Prove it otherwise.


Dad29--And how does that comport with the requirements you outlined above?

I have explained that part already in my past posts. Read for meaning!


I'm done here. Both of you have been thoroughly thrashed in this debate. I can sleep well tonight!

Deekaman said...

Mypoint here is at what point does it cease to be training and turns into torture? Apparently there are degrees of this stuff? Does the threat of waterboarding constitute torture?

No, you have not "thoroughly thrashed" anyone. You haven't even answered the original question so, by your own logic, I can make the assumption you support the war in Libya?