Re: You (all) lie!
 

This asshole?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

wow, change we need, indeed! I really expected better of Obama.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Re: You (all) lie!
 

So. Should we be subjecting the tighty-whities bomber to "enhanced interrogation?"

I remember those old, simpler times when the idea was that this would be OK provided that we had a ticking time bomb in Peoria, but to judge from GOP talking heads these days, apparently we've moved beyond that.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

No.

Next question:

Did he smuggle anything on board that didn't comply with the rules (other than by being an explosive, of course)? In other words, did he have less than 3 ozs of liquid?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

you should say what you mean when you try to be smug. i assume you saw some R say something, but I really have no idea what.

you are aware there is a lot of media being generated, with lots of people saying lots of things?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I applaud your call for better clarity in posting, Hank.

maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

I'll give this a pass, but the next time one of you tries to imply I am a dick, or post no substance, remember Gatti's response.

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

Smooches, Hank.

To answer your query about what GOP talking heads could possibly be saying such things in this Babel of voices in today's crazy media landscape, here are a few.

Smilin' Bill Kristol.

Frownin' Pat Buchanan.

The Wall Street Journal.

Some Schmuck From The Bush Administration.

Michael Goldfarb, ex-McCain Schmuck.

And Rasmussen suggests that 58% of Americans, after all these years, are only so far away from Salem. Remember, Hank. If he floats, he's a witch.

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

58% of Americans favor waterboarding? I thought you were saying it was just a few crazed republicans?

and I read the WSJ and it only says we might have considered not making the guy a criminal so we can interrogate him at all, nothing about waterboarding.

one thing about you, you really keep amount of concern focused on how credible your posts here come off.

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

Slave has been spreadin' the word, Hank. No more namby-pamby "legal" or "illegal" shit. Time to own it.

"This increasing terror tempo makes the Obama Administration's reflexive impulse to treat terrorists like routine criminal suspects all the more worrisome. It immediately indicted Mr. Abdulmutallab on criminal charges of trying to destroy an aircraft, despite reports that he told officials he had ties to al Qaeda and had picked up his PETN explosive in Yemen. The charges mean the Nigerian can only be interrogated like any other defendant in a criminal case, subject to having a lawyer present and his Miranda rights read.

"Yet he is precisely the kind of illegal enemy combatant who should be interrogated first with the goal of preventing future attacks and learning more about terror networks rather than gaining a single conviction. We now have to hope he cooperates voluntarily."

Hank, you're telling me that WSJ is advocating classifying him as an enemy combatant, but NOT for enanced interrogation! No. We just, you know, want to ask him a question or two. Nicely. Maybe serve him some tea.

But never mind. My original question was whether we should or should not waterboard the guy. Your inclination is to discuss, instead, posters' underlying motivations in writing it in the first place and the adequacy of supporting information.

Again.

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

what are you talking about? really.*



you are really a simple fuck. waterboarding doesn't work remember? can any interrogation work? is it just wrong to ask the guy some questions?

that was your honest question? do you draft advocate documents in your practice, because I don't think you express yourself well.


*don't bother answering- you are to foo.

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

Really? Well, since you went down this particular path, here I'm talking about conservatives in the media using the Detroit Failed Bomber as a reason to (continue to) push for enhanced interrogation techniques. Even though there's no apparennt ticking time bomb out there, which was the supposed rationale for such techniques a few years ago.

And that these conservatives point with a sense of vindication to this poll. I don't think the poll makes a lot of sense, but regardless, it doesn't matter. We're supposed to be a nation of laws, which doesn't decide to ignore them just because of what a fucking poll says. Conservatives used to hold those kinds of principles.


Smooches again, Hank.

It's good to hear that you've come around on this point. We'll file it away for later. I'm not sure the WSJ has come around, though.

Whoa, shit. You're getting all Zen on us now. Yes, Hank. I think some interrogations can work.

No. But here's the thing, Hank. Even in a criminal setting, one can ask the guy some questions. I know you know that, Hank. You're not a simple fuck.

Smooches yet a third time.

Feel free to ignore me, but please don't turn this into a public declaration that You're Just Not Listening Any More. You and Sidd have been carrying on with that routine for a couple of years now, and after a while it's hard to ignore the plain evidence of the pining and the vulnerability sitting just under the surface.

Re: maybe it's better if he goes back to simply parroting Ty?
 

let's try to dumb this down a bit.
do you feel miranda provides a suspect any protection? Let's assume you do. Then not given this guy miranda rights might result in our getting some information we won't get now, correct?

thanks.

and with that you and I are done. so for you, the pb is now a place with no one on the other side even reading what you dribble on the screen. Enjoy!

Re: You (all) lie!
 

say it ain't so weed

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...es_Into_Effect