Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Without addressing your argument, let me just say you have no credibility on this sort of thing.

False.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Catch 22 needs to be rewritten for today.

Yes, and with the theme that Adder proposed -- "issuing pardons as the only way to establish that torture is, in fact, illegal"

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Also,

3. We think torture achieved all sorts of wonderful things that we can't tell you about because of national security.
4. The Senate doesn't know everything.
5. Because of 4., the Senate can't prove 3. is wrong.

Congratulations -- I think you've found an even lower level of the argument hierarchy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

So what do people think about issuing pardons as the only way to establish that torture is, in fact, illegal?

If Obama is not going to prosecute anyone -- and he isn't -- then it's hard to imagine anyone else ever doing it. So a pardon seems like better than nothing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Without addressing your argument, let me just say you have no credibility on this sort of thing.

You know, I don't think I like your tone.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Obama is not going to prosecute anyone -- and he isn't -- then it's hard to imagine anyone else ever doing it. So a pardon seems like better than nothing.

Wouldn't a pardon be the President formally saying "it's okay, I forgive you for torturing people and lying to the government about it"?

Doing nothing would be preferable to doing something wrong.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I believe the CIA's position today is as follows:

1. Because we took action based on enhanced interrogation techniques, regardless of whether that action was effective or the information we based it on accurate, EIH produced actionable intelligence and thus ehanced our mission (even if it did not optimize it).
2. Regardless of whether EIT produced AI and so can be considered mission enhancing even if not mission optimal, both our agents and Dick Cheney enjoyed it.

I'm just sorry that we no longer have anyone here who will explain that this was all just fine. Spanky to say that the "ticking time bombs" (with the 3-year fuses, I guess) justify anything, and Slave to explain how "forced rectal feeding" isn't really any worse than the therapeutic enemas that liberal Hollywood celebrities pay for. That sort of thing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm just sorry that we no longer have anyone here who will explain that this was all just fine. Spanky to say that the "ticking time bombs" (with the 3-year fuses, I guess) justify anything, and Slave to explain how "forced rectal feeding" isn't really any worse than the therapeutic enemas that liberal Hollywood celebrities pay for. That sort of thing.

Am I to take from this that you have a problem with forced rectal feeding? That doesn't seem like a big deal, really. Why don't we just get Megyn Kelly to demonstrate on air, and then maybe these libtards will stop calling it torture.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Wouldn't a pardon be the President formally saying "it's okay, I forgive you for torturing people and lying to the government about it"?

Doing nothing would be preferable to doing something wrong.

"I forgive you because you acted on poor legal advice."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Obama is not going to prosecute anyone -- and he isn't -- then it's hard to imagine anyone else ever doing it. So a pardon seems like better than nothing.

That's kind of where I'm at.

This is going to have interesting fall out abroad, though.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"I forgive you because you acted on poor legal advice."

As the report seems to say that they went beyond what was approved, it might need to be a little broader than that.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"I forgive you because you acted on poor legal advice."

Question -- If you put "Acted on poor legal advice" into a translation program, and have it translated into German and back into English, does it come out "Just following orders"?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's kind of where I'm at.

This is going to have interesting fall out abroad, though.

It will be worse if Obama pardons the people involved.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It will be worse if Obama pardons the people involved.

Hm. Not so sure there is any difference between pardoning and not prosecuting. What do you have in mind?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Question -- If you put "Acted on poor legal advice" into a translation program, and have it translated into German and back into English, does it come out "Just following orders"?

To be clear: I wish Obama had (a) cooperated with Feinstein's effort, and (b) prosecuted some people at the CIA, pour encourager les autres, as Voltaire put it. Failing the latter, pardoning people is a way to establish some sort of precedent that what they did was illegal. I would like to see the law changed in a more durable way than executive order.


Admiral Byng, executed for the loss of Minorca.