Oddly silent

BlazerBob wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: Isn't that about the same logic you use to give credence to another Ferguson investigation? Procedural issues with how the DA handled it?

Hardly.

Huh. You are dismissing the dissenting report as problematic because it is based on "procedural, analytical, and methodologies" rather than any dispute of the facts.

In the Ferguson DA finding I do not recall any dispute of the facts or finding only the procedural methods of the DA. On that basis you think another grand jury is called for.

So, what part of that am I getting wrong?

I'm really not sure I'm going to be making any sense in trying answer your question, BlazerBob - I think I'm coming down with something nasty - but I'll try.

The reason I'm claiming apples and oranges comparisons is because of the differences in the two scenarios you present.

In the Ferguson case, there was no differing view allowed. The process was straightforward from the DA's perspective, and the members of the Grand Jury were all involved in the process.

In the torture case, members of the Senate Committee were allowed to participate, but were not required to do so in the publication of the final report. Their differing views report validates this. That the report came out with an 11-3 vote in favor of its publication substantiates my original position this was bi-partisan in nature in my view.

In Ferguson, the Grand Jury's purpose was not to question the process, either procedurally or analytically. Their purpose was to look at the evidence presented and make a decision as to whether or not to take this case to trial. The procedural and analytical aspects of the investigation, itself, by the Ferguson PD and the DA's Office wasn't the mission of the Grand Jury. So, "officially", there is really no-one in an "official" capacity to question those procedural and analytical aspects - unless, of course, one considers the U.S. DOJ doing their own investigation into the Ferguson PD in this regard.

In the torture case, the goal of the study was to try to determine whether torture was used and whether EITs went beyond legal limitations, some of which the CIA admitted went beyond those legal limitations. The differing views, from what I read, didn't appear to me to be concerned with this. Rather, the differing views seemed more intent on tearing apart the report. It could be inferred from their stance they were more interested in validating what the CIA and their contractors did, rather than on helping to determine whether or not it might be wrong.

Bottom line from my perspective, is that the two cases do have similarities in some regards - that is a concession to your question. Those similarities, however, do not, in my opinion, render them identical.

Hope that makes a little sense - my head is really clogged up right now.

FredHayek wrote: You remind me of Michael Dukakis when he was asked what he would want to do if his wife was raped, and he responded with the legal answer instead of the human one.

So there never is an example where those rules are worth breaking?
Is that what you would tell the residents of DC after the capital was hit with a dirty bomb?
ZHawke: Sorry DC, our hands were tied. We could have found out the name of the boat that had the nuke but international law forbid our waterboarding the prisoner. Millions dead and dying, but we were morally and legally correct.
Rights of the many over the rights of the one?

And you seem "oddly silent" on whether an unemotional, methodical, analytical analysis of torture as specified in both the CIA and Senate Committee Reports should have been posed with, and predicated upon, the question you posed. Your question appeals solely to emotion. Nothing more. Do what you will and let the dust settle afterward. That's not how a "legal" compendium of laws and regulations is even remotely supposed to work, Fred.

Politics aside, the fact both reports said what they did leads me to believe torture was, in fact, used. Whether that torture was/is justified is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I just do NOT believe we, and by "we" I mean the U.S., can possibly accuse any other country anywhere of human rights abuses while engaging in activities like these. That doesn't mean for one second my emotional response isn't similar to yours in response to your question. That's a natural human response as far as I'm concerned. I just believe we, as a nation, should try in all instances to rise above our own personal emotions and look at whether what we are doing in response to an atrocity is morally and ethically above reproach. I won't get into personal experience in this regard, but suffice to say I do have it.

I know this is going to ruffle some Tea Party supporters and members here in The Courthouse simply because of the user name of this Twitter user. I'd ask everyone to look past that and to focus on the conundrum being presented instead. Thanks.

ZHawke wrote: I know this is going to ruffle some Tea Party supporters and members here in The Courthouse simply because of the user name of this Twitter user. I'd ask everyone to look past that and to focus on the conundrum being presented instead. Thanks.

Clearly with a Twitter name Tea Party Cat they have to be a TEA Party member? Only to twits.
Now consider political prisoners in Cuba vs war criminals and terrorists. See any difference Z? It wasn't meant to be rhetorical, but me expecting an actual answer is bordering on insanity.

HEARTLESS wrote: Clearly with a Twitter name Tea Party Cat they have to be a TEA Party member? Only to twits.

Not even close, H. The username is meant to be satire geared toward the Tea Party to the nth degree. Sheeesh!

HEARTLESS wrote: Now consider political prisoners in Cuba vs war criminals and terrorists. See any difference Z? It wasn't meant to be rhetorical, but me expecting an actual answer is bordering on insanity.

The "war criminals" you reference are not considered "war criminals". Terrorists? Yes. War criminals? Not so much. They are considered enemy combatants which is why the legal limitation for EITs was placed at the standard that it was. That's why the current brouhaha over this issue is ongoing. That's why it's hypocritical for the U.S. to condemn another country for human rights violations given what the U.S. has admitted to engaging in. See the difference, H? Not rhetorical either.

A Tea Party is what little girls have, TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party is a group trying to reform the out of control expansion and spending in our no longer representative government.
So the ISIS members that have killed many children are only terrorists and not war criminals? They are both, but haven't been tried for their crimes against humanity. Political prisoners that are held in Cuba simply don't follow the Communist doctrine that our Liberals in this country do. Huge difference, to anyone that can see.

Still don't "get it", do you? Now THAT is a rhetorical question.

Does an exercise in futility count as exercise?

You didn't say who you were directing your comment toward. In that vein, I'd say HEARTLESS should be vewwy, vewwy offended.

Couch it any way you like (speaking to no one specifically, and everyone generally), but this one resonates as far as I'm concerned: