Quiet down everybody... Leon is about to speak.

So what the purpose for it then?

dumbass.

Change we can laugh at.

"If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt." - Former CIA operative Robert Baer

I wouldn't call him a dumbass. I'd say Leon's highest priority is his political agenda and is perfectly comfortable substituting untrue talking points for objective facts when it advances his interest, which is most of the time.

Translation: He's a lawyer.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Impeach Lord OBAMA

Welfare Xmas: Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Impeach Lord OBAMA

I posted that a few weeks ago and got my arse reamed by the Obamamaniacs... take cover for the incoming.

The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, Panetta said Friday.

Critics like Eric Holder? Like that federal judge?

The real question becomes why the fark not?

ipsofacto: The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, Panetta said Friday.

Critics like Eric Holder? Like that federal judge?

The real question becomes why the fark not?

Why would it make sense to prosecute the CIA officers and not prosecute the guys who gave them the orders?

dwrash: Welfare Xmas: Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Impeach Lord OBAMA

I posted that a few weeks ago and got my arse reamed by the Obamamaniacs... take cover for the incoming.

I don't think laughing about how stupid those statements are counts as "getting [your] ass reamed. But, whatever.

I said in November that Obama's cabinet was going to be a joke. I had no idea it was going to be this bad though.

The Dems have such a shallow pool of real talent to draw from, much of it has been corrupted.

Leon was a crap choice. He is not Intelligence material.

ipsofacto: The real question becomes why the fark not?

the argument against it is that the agents should be able to trust the legal advice from above, more or less, and shouldn't have to be constantly second guessing it worrying that they might be prosecuted for following orders.

now, i think there are definitely weaknesses with that argument...

Is Panetta a grey-reptilian hybrid according to that one list? Because it seems to me a grey/reptilian/grey-reptilian hybrid would be more skilled at politics than this.

change we can WHARRGARBL!!

Edsel: Why would it make sense to prosecute the CIA officers and not prosecute the guys who gave them the orders?

No.

burndtdan: the argument against it is that the agents should be able to trust the legal advice from above, more or less, and shouldn't have to be constantly second guessing it worrying that they might be prosecuted for following orders.

now, i think there are definitely weaknesses with that argument...

I think history would agree.

The guys doing the torturing are legally obligated not to follow an unlawful command, but when the chickenhawks in power are spinning the definition of what is "legal," a bit of a conundrum is created. My guess is if the administration is going to prosecute anyone, it'll be the former goons in charge, not the grunts or whatever. It's politically more significant anyway.

Phil Herup: He is not Intelligence material.

That's funny coming from one of Fark's biggest morans.

Phil Herup: I said in November that Obama's cabinet was going to be a joke. I had no idea it was going to be this bad though.

The Dems have such a shallow pool of real talent to draw from, much of it has been corrupted.

Leon was a crap choice. He is not Intelligence material.

CynicalLA: Phil Herup: He is not Intelligence material.

That's funny coming from one of Fark's biggest morans.



Keep thinking that. You are just a moonbat anyway.

Phil Herup: I said in November that Obama's cabinet was going to be a joke. I had no idea it was going to be this bad though.

The Dems have such a shallow pool of real talent to draw from, much of it has been corrupted.

Leon was a crap choice. He is not Intelligence material.

Both approve of you Herps

Phil Herup: CynicalLA: Phil Herup: He is not Intelligence material.

That's funny coming from one of Fark's biggest morans.



Keep thinking that. You are just a moonbat anyway.

Oh crap, you're not alts of each other, are you?

Phil Herup: CynicalLA: Phil Herup: He is not Intelligence material.

That's funny coming from one of Fark's biggest morans.



Keep thinking that. You are just a moonbat anyway.

Nope, voted Republican a couple of times and might in the future. You are just a dipshiat.

burndtdan: the argument against it is that the agents should be able to trust the legal advice from above, more or less, and shouldn't have to be constantly second guessing it worrying that they might be prosecuted for following orders.

now, i think there are definitely weaknesses with that argument...

I agree that there are weaknesses, don't get me wrong.

But, I also feel there's a difference between a CIA agent asking his boss "Is this legal?" and being told "yes" than a CIA agent asking the Department of Justice "Is this legal?" and being told "yes".

Looks like the same people that got to Cooper got to Panetta.

Ruling over the little people with an quiet iron fist. I like change.

dwrash: Welfare Xmas: Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Impeach Lord OBAMA

I posted that a few weeks ago and got my arse reamed by the Obamamaniacs... take cover for the incoming.

Funny, the same thing happened to me last night.

Gonz: But, I also feel there's a difference between a CIA agent asking his boss "Is this legal?" and being told "yes" than a CIA agent asking the Department of Justice "Is this legal?" and being told "yes".

No, no, no, no, farking NO. It's up to each individual to determine what's too far, and up to their superiors to restrain that even more, not stretch it.

SmitetheRighteous: The guys doing the torturing are legally obligated not to follow an unlawful command, but when the chickenhawks in power are spinning the definition of what is "legal," a bit of a conundrum is created. My guess is if the administration is going to prosecute anyone, it'll be the former goons in charge, not the grunts or whatever. It's politically more significant anyway.

That, and you can ask Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo about their experiments into acquiescence, regardless of whether those following orders are military or not.

IlGreven: That, and you can ask Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo about their experiments into acquiescence, regardless of whether those following orders are military or not.

My "farking NO" above was linked to the Milgram experiment. Thanks, fark filter.

Man, that first national security briefing must be a doozy.

/First, the good news. That thing in Roswell really was a weather balloon. And Oswald acted alone.
//That's the last good news you'll hear for the next two hours.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Funny, the same thing happened to me last night.

Not only do you have an annoying habit of jumping to conclusions about what Panetta said, you also have an annoying habit of calling one person who disagrees with you "getting your ass reamed by Obamamaniacs."

Note the plural.

whidbey: Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Funny, the same thing happened to me last night.

Not only do you have an annoying habit of jumping to conclusions about what Panetta said, you also have an annoying habit of calling one person who disagrees with you "getting your ass reamed by Obamamaniacs."

Note the plural.

They can't hear you up on their crosses.

dwrash: Welfare Xmas: Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Impeach Lord OBAMA

I posted that a few weeks ago and got my arse reamed by the Obamamaniacs... take cover for the incoming.

No, you got reemed for using talking points started by an ugly Senator with huge cankles.

whidbey: Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Funny, the same thing happened to me last night.

Not only do you have an annoying habit of jumping to conclusions about what Panetta said, you also have an annoying habit of calling one person who disagrees with you "getting your ass reamed by Obamamaniacs."

Note the plural.

I think he just has severe paulbotism. Symptoms may include internet insanity, victim mentality and frequent use of the caps lock.

Edsel: ipsofacto: The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, Panetta said Friday.

Critics like Eric Holder? Like that federal judge?

The real question becomes why the fark not?

Why would it make sense to prosecute the CIA officers and not prosecute the guys who gave them the orders?

So you're saying the Nuremberg Defense is valid? Prosecute them all, top to bottom. I have absolutely no problem with that.

whidbey: Not only do you have an annoying habit of jumping to conclusions about what Panetta said, you also have an annoying habit of calling one person who disagrees with you "getting your ass reamed by Obamamaniacs."

Note the plural.

Whidbey! You disappeared from that last thread, I understand it was late and all, but I figured you gave up after I didn't see anything else from you.

There's no conclusion to "jump" to, and I don't know how much more clearly you want it put. The [presumed future] director of the CIA considers torture an option, ergo acceptable; qualify it if you will but fark the law, it's on the table. If there's some other testimony not contained in the article[s] which exonerates him of this charge, I'm happy to read it.

While the lackeys under Bush (and this article) are another matter, the "well, they said it was ok" defense doesn't fly with me, nor with the law. Did you even watch the video (and then the article) I linked? It explains why the individual taking responsibility is so profoundly important.

Now I can see where you'd think I called, or rather considered those who disagreed "obamaniacs". I didn't explicitly call anyone that, nor have I made any other non-argument attacks against anyone disagreeing on this. Hell, if it was interpreted that I implied it, that was not my intention. On the other hand:

Murkanen: A bitter Paulbot playing the old and busted "But both parties are the same!11!1!!" card? Say it ain't so, Whidbey, say it ain't so.

Halli: I think he just has severe paulbotism. Symptoms may include internet insanity, victim mentality and frequent use of the caps lock.

Car_Ramrod: They can't hear you up on their crosses.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: There's no conclusion to "jump" to, and I don't know how much more clearly you want it put. The [presumed future] director of the CIA considers torture an option, ergo acceptable; qualify it if you will but fark the law, it's on the table. If there's some other testimony not contained in the article[s] which exonerates him of this charge, I'm happy to read it.

You know what happens when you assume, don't you? :)

Stop jumping to conclusions. Stop it with the lameass "same as the old boss" crap, it isn't flying either.

Now I can see where you'd think I called, or rather considered those who disagreed "obamaniacs". I didn't explicitly call anyone that, nor have I made any other non-argument attacks against anyone disagreeing on this. Hell, if it was interpreted that I implied it, that was not my intention.

Naaaaaaa, you only agreed with the person who brought it up. That's different. *coughs*

On the other hand:

Well see, there's REAL CRITICISM that you're ignoring, and then there's the annoying cynical trainspotting that's out to get Obama even if they have to put words in someone's mouth, or make inferences that clearly are not there.

I'm guessing you probably went Paultard at some point, and it wasn't forgotten. I don't know, I wasn't there...

Fart_Machine: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt." - Former CIA operative Robert Baer

Why, do they mummify them when they're done, or just feed them to the crocodiles and hippos down in the Nile?

whidbey: Stop jumping to conclusions. Stop it with the lameass "same as the old boss" crap, it isn't flying either.

Actually, this is worse.

Old boss: It's not torture, so it's ok.
New boss: Oh it's definitely torture, which is illegal, but it's still an option.

whidbey: Well see, there's REAL CRITICISM that you're ignoring, and then there's the annoying cynical trainspotting that's out to get Obama even if they have to put words in someone's mouth, or make inferences that clearly are not there.

I'm guessing you probably went Paultard at some point, and it wasn't forgotten. I don't know, I wasn't there...

Now you're just trolling.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: whidbey: Stop jumping to conclusions. Stop it with the lameass "same as the old boss" crap, it isn't flying either.

Actually, this is worse.

Old boss: It's not torture, so it's ok.
New boss: Oh it's definitely torture, which is illegal, but it's still an option.

Technically the new boss said it's torture, it's illegal, and I refuse to let it happen while I'm in charge. But the guys right under him can't seem to make up their minds.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Now you're just trolling.

Not at all. A bunch of Farkers jumped your sh*t, and they were probably right.

Old boss: It's not torture, so it's ok.
New boss: Oh it's definitely torture, which is illegal, but it's still an option

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Jumps to an unfounded conclusion, sticks to it in the face of opposition

Again, there is no guarantee that said "option" would be met with Obama's "OK, let's torture terrorists, then." None.

You're a cynic. I got that last night. I'm getting that now. And your inferences are just a little annoying.

You don't trust your government and you probably didn't even vote for Obama. Fine.

But you don't really have anything here but your cynicism.

Falcc: Technically the new boss said it's torture, it's illegal, and I refuse to let it happen while I'm in charge. But the guys right under him can't seem to make up their minds.

Hm, I might've been misleading in my last post, I'm talking about the former and proposed directors of the CIA, not Barack Obama.

whidbey: Again, there is no guarantee that said "option" would be met with Obama's "OK, let's torture terrorists, then." None.

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about his appointee for head of the CIA. Now, that said, I think Obama's choice reflects upon him.

whidbey: But you don't really have anything here but your cynicism.

The proposed director of the CIA considers torture, an illegal act, an option for which he would seek approval if he felt is were necessary, in opposition of the law. In this context, I don't care how unlikely the scenario is, or whether or not his superior would refuse his request or not. I'd say my cynicism is rather justified in the light of that revelation.

Now stop arguing against my motivation instead of my point. I'm running out of ways to rephrase it and reiterating is getting old.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Now I can see where you'd think I called, or rather considered those who disagreed "obamaniacs". I didn't explicitly call anyone that

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: dwrash: Welfare Xmas: Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Impeach Lord OBAMA

I posted that a few weeks ago and got my arse reamed by the Obamamaniacs... take cover for the incoming.

Funny, the same thing happened to me last night.

Hmmmmm.....apparently your definition of "the same thing" differs from mine.

Car_Ramrod: Hmmmmm.....apparently your definition of "the same thing" differs from mine.

Keep reading:

Hell, if it was interpreted that I implied it, that was not my intention.

Get me on board with the idea that the CIA director-nominee shouldn't be advocating torture in any way, shape or form.

Absolutely none, and it's despicable he's still a nominee if that's what he has said.

Now, go go gadget LURK!

Halli: whidbey: Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Funny, the same thing happened to me last night.

Not only do you have an annoying habit of jumping to conclusions about what Panetta said, you also have an annoying habit of calling one person who disagrees with you "getting your ass reamed by Obamamaniacs."

Note the plural.

I think he just has severe paulbotism. Symptoms may include internet insanity, victim mentality and frequent use of the caps lock.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

Is a bird not a plane because it has two wings and flies?! It's all apples to oranges in this alien infested world. Let's just cut the asphalt and cry about our loss of humanity while fingering a dolphin.

STOP PICKING ON ME