carlfense Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Ah.... You are really thick sometimes also. I, of course, do not believe BO is a war criminal. No more so than I do Cheney is one. War criminals are people like Hitler, stalin, Hussein. I was just giving you some of your own medicine to show how anyone can say anything when they start with the answer. You think Cheney is a war criminal so you have to find the evidence. You are not so good at realizing the differences between good people making hard decisions and manaical mad man killing people and detroying property for sheer personal or political gain. I do feel sorry for you though if that helps. Yeah. You were just kidding. Sigh. You don't have to be Hitler, Stalin, or Hussein to be a war criminal. Just ordering the torture of captives is sufficient. Cheney is a war criminal. I agree that he probably thought torturing captives was in the best interests of the United States. It simply doesn't matter. Torture is a war crime. Cheney ordered the torturing of captives. Therefore, Cheney is a war criminal. And no . . . I'm not kidding. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 And for what it's worth, I think Cheney is a war criminal BECAUSE of the evidence. You, on the other hand, weren't even aware of the existence of that evidence. I'm glad that I could help you along your path to enlightenment. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Ah.... You are really thick sometimes also. I, of course, do not believe BO is a war criminal. No more so than I do Cheney is one. War criminals are people like Hitler, stalin, Hussein. I was just giving you some of your own medicine to show how anyone can say anything when they start with the answer. You think Cheney is a war criminal so you have to find the evidence. You are not so good at realizing the differences between good people making hard decisions and manaical mad man killing people and detroying property for sheer personal or political gain. I do feel sorry for you though if that helps. Yeah. You were just kidding. Sigh. You don't have to be Hitler, Stalin, or Hussein to be a war criminal. Just ordering the torture of captives is sufficient. Cheney is a war criminal. I agree that he probably thought torturing captives was in the best interests of the United States. It simply doesn't matter. Torture is a war crime. Cheney ordered the torturing of captives. Therefore, Cheney is a war criminal. And no . . . I'm not kidding. Wheee, this fun in kiddie land going around on the carousel. Cheney is not and you are delusional if you think he is a war criminal. But, again, thanks to these great United Staes of America you can make any crazy assumptrion you want, it is not against the law. Have a great day and don't forget to ride the Matterhorn!! Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 And, again, if Cheney is (which he isn't) a war criminal then Bo may not be A&A but he is an acessory after the fact is he not. Why isn't he turning Cheney over to the international community? Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 And, again, if Cheney is (which he isn't) a war criminal then Bo may not be A&A but he is an acessory after the fact is he not. Why isn't he turning Cheney over to the international community? How is he an accessory after the fact? Please cite the law and apply the facts for me. I'm done doing your research for you. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Cheney is not and you are delusional if you think he is a war criminal. I just showed you how and why. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 </body> And, again, if Cheney is (which he isn't) a war criminal then Bo may not be A&A but he is an acessory after the fact is he not. Why isn't he turning Cheney over to the international community? How is he an accessory after the fact? Please cite the law and apply the facts for me. I'm done doing your research for you. Her you go Carly, the part of the law that you were looking for. An accessory to a crime is any individual who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime. An accessory is not typically present at the scene of the crime, but contributes to the success of the crime before or after the fact. A person charged as an accessory to a crime before the fact is one who incites, abets, or aids a person in the commission of a criminal act. An individual who is an accessory after the fact receives, shelters, comforts, relieves, or assists a felon after the crime has been committed. A person can be an accessory if they provide any support or assistance, whether financially, emotionally, or factually. Obviously if BO consideres Cheney a war criminal he is providing shelter from the international community. He is relieved & comforted in the notion that he won't be turned over to the authorities. Things that make you HMMMMM?!!? Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Cheney is not and you are delusional if you think he is a war criminal. I just showed you how and why. There are none so blind as those that will not see. I agree, what did you name your seeing eye dog???? Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 </body> And, again, if Cheney is (which he isn't) a war criminal then Bo may not be A&A but he is an acessory after the fact is he not. Why isn't he turning Cheney over to the international community? How is he an accessory after the fact? Please cite the law and apply the facts for me. I'm done doing your research for you. Her you go Carly, the part of the law that you were looking for. An accessory to a crime is any individual who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime. An accessory is not typically present at the scene of the crime, but contributes to the success of the crime before or after the fact. A person charged as an accessory to a crime before the fact is one who incites, abets, or aids a person in the commission of a criminal act. An individual who is an accessory after the fact receives, shelters, comforts, relieves, or assists a felon after the crime has been committed. A person can be an accessory if they provide any support or assistance, whether financially, emotionally, or factually. Obviously if BO consideres Cheney a war criminal he is providing shelter from the international community. He is relieved & comforted in the notion that he won't be turned over to the authorities. Things that make you HMMMMM?!!? How is he providing shelter? Specifics please. Saying "he provided shelter" isn't sufficient. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 On a related note to Carl's and Johnny's bickering, doesn't anyone find it somewhat amusing that the information that led to the Bin Laden kill operation was made possible through enhanced interrogations (some call it torture) at Gitmo? So, the big military, feather in the hat, victory of Obama would not have been possible if Obama and liberal dems had got their way with the Gitmo/Enhanced interrogation (torture) issues. Thanks for helping us get the info Dick but now we consider you a war criminal. Don't let the door hit ya in the arse. With friends/countrymen like that, who needs enemies? I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied. Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 On a related note to Carl's and Johnny's bickering, doesn't anyone find it somewhat amusing that the information that led to the Bin Laden kill operation was made possible through enhanced interrogations (some call it torture) at Gitmo? So, the big military, feather in the hat, victory of Obama would not have been possible if Obama and liberal dems had got their way with the Gitmo/Enhanced interrogation (torture) issues. Thanks for helping us get the info Dick but now we consider you a war criminal. Don't let the door hit ya in the arse. With friends/countrymen like that, who needs enemies? I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied. A few things: Who said we got the info from Guantanamo detainees via torture? Who are the people reacting "so mildly" to the war crimes of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, who are also "indignant" about Dick Cheney? This seems very much like a straw man. Who are the people who want us to fight wars with our hands tied? This also seems like a straw man. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 On a related note to Carl's and Johnny's bickering, doesn't anyone find it somewhat amusing that the information that led to the Bin Laden kill operation was made possible through enhanced interrogations (some call it torture) at Gitmo? So, the big military, feather in the hat, victory of Obama would not have been possible if Obama and liberal dems had got their way with the Gitmo/Enhanced interrogation (torture) issues. Thanks for helping us get the info Dick but now we consider you a war criminal. Don't let the door hit ya in the arse. With friends/countrymen like that, who needs enemies? I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied. A few things: Who said we got the info from Guantanamo detainees via torture? Who are the people reacting "so mildly" to the war crimes of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, who are also "indignant" about Dick Cheney? This seems very much like a straw man. Who are the people who want us to fight wars with our hands tied? This also seems like a straw man. Main articles: Death of Osama bin Laden and Osama bin Laden's hideout compound American intelligence officials discovered the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden by tracking one of his couriers. Information was collected from Guantánamo Bay detainees, who gave intelligence officers the courier's pseudonym and said that he was a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[32]In 2007, U.S. officials discovered the courier's real name and, in 2009, that he lived in Abbottābad, Pakistan.[33] Using satellite photos and intelligence reports, the CIA surmised the inhabitants of the mansion. In September, the CIA concluded that the compound was "custom built to hide someone of significance" and that bin Laden's residence there was very likely.[34][35] Officials surmised that he was living there with his youngest wife. It must have been enhanced interogation as this is from 2007 when Bush was in office. No persons who called Dick Cheney a war criminal have come out and outlined all the war crimes against Hussein, UBL or al Qaeda. I belive he is referring to those who are outspoken against enhanced interogation and do not want to interogate enemy combatants. Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 "Information was collected from Guantánamo Bay detainees" does not state that the method used was torture. I'm willing to believe it may have been - but we do not know. Quoting Wikipedia doesn't tell us anything. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 "Information was collected from Guantánamo Bay detainees" does not state that the method used was torture. I'm willing to believe it may have been - but we do not know. Quoting Wikipedia doesn't tell us anything. It does tell us that it could have been used and that the information was from the Bush Adm. And it won't tell us that if they used enhanced interrogation, other people used that term not the Bush adm. So few are willing to give Bush any credit for UBL's death. His adm. and what they did at Guantanamo bay was critical for BO to know where UBL was. BO couldn't have ordered the hit if not for the info from the Bush Adm. Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Yes, I've heard all that derp from Fox before. The Fox Plan: 1) Minimize the importance of the death of Osama bin Laden as it pertains to Barack Obama making the call to take him down. It wasn't strategically important, he was no longer the head of al Qaeda, etc. 2) Maximize the importance of the role the Bush Administration played in finding Osama bin Laden. It couldn't have been done without Bush's efforts, more credit should go to Bush, etc. It's quite comical, actually. Link to comment
Recommended Posts