Italian judge issues EU arrest warrants for 22 CIA agents [article]

Nox

Wicknight wrote:

Only the person himself ringing up his wife and saying "I have been tortured"

If you went into a police station and said "I have just been kidnapped and tortured" would you expect the police to go "We will start investigating straight away", or would you expect them to go "Well where is your proof? You expect us to just believe you, don't be silly"

Hmmm ... I thought you Euros were always wanting proof about everything the US does or says. Not the same standard here. By the way, your analogy (even though I understand the point you are trying to make) is wrong. In your example, it is a First person account ... not a third person.

Wicknight wrote:

Or do you mean the whole WMD thing ... yeah you are right, it was a bit unreasonable for us Euros to expect proof for the justification for invading an entire country ... cause thats the same thing ..

Matter of belief here. I believe the WMD's were there. I believe the WMD's are in the portion of the Syrian Desert patrolled 24/7 by Predator aircraft.

Wicknight wrote:

No, what makes my point more likely is the fact that it is more likely ... maybe you want to deal with that point, rather than attempts at deflection.

If you think it is more likely that the Eygptians didn't torture the cleric, and that he was lying on the phone to his wife, please put forward an argument to back up that position up.

At the moment you seem to be saying "My position is as valid as yours, even though I have not put forward any arguments as to why, and if challange me on that you are simply being anti-American"

I really don't understand what you are trying to get at here. Whatever is your point ... you win. Does that make you feel better?

Wicknight wrote:

Actually you said the CIA have been blamed for a lot they didn't do, such as starting HIV (never heard that myself, but I will take your word on it). Why you mentioned this I am not quite sure, except it seems that again you are attempting to deflect from the issue again.

If you have an argument as to why the CIA didn't do the kidnapping please present that instead of simply saying some people some where at one time said the CIA did something they didn't, because that has very little bearing on this particular case.

You win.

I think I'll discontinue going over this item by item.

Seems to me that neither of us understands the points the other is making or trying to make.

So ... YOU WIN.

I have tried to explain my points. Either I am inept at the English language or incapable of cogently expressing myself. In either case ... You win.

By the way, did I happen to say ... You win.

O well.

Nox

Hobbes

Nox wrote:

Again, I know nothing of this site other than its existance (now). Are you claiming that the pictures and the captions are false?

I am saying the captions are biased. I only saw the site this morning but I generally read a few stories on a site to get a "general feel" for what the bias is.

why the UN won't acknowledge the existing geo-political borders, when it acknowledges the existence of the governments of same.

Which borders should it reconise? Israel has been taking/giving land since 2001 when they drove tanks into Palistine when the towers were falling (only got a mention on BBC America on the day).

Then you have the wall they built which is considered illegal. It is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

I love it ... you Euros use phrases like Fox News and O Rielly to describe how we get our biased news. Then you counter with this as what appears to be your source of news.

?

I read all news sites including fox news. All sites have bias and even lies can show you something about the news, the point is to reconise that bias and weigh it up against the other sides bias to determine the truth.

You said US news wasn't critical of the UN so I gave you some links that show this is incorrect. Incidently mediamatters is a US site not european.

The Corinthian

Nox wrote:

Matter of belief here. I believe the WMD's were there. I believe the WMD's are in the portion of the Syrian Desert patrolled 24/7 by Predator aircraft.

Santa spotted them too while flying over in his sleigh...

Nox

psi wrote:

I'd disagree based on my experience in Europe.

Europeans(at least those au fait with world politics) disliked Bush and his policies before he won the election.

The first or the second?

psi wrote:

Can you show me any conviction record or legal data that sets this aside from you commiting slander?

Other than what I saw on ABC, CBS, and NBC news ... NO.

psi wrote:

In your opinion.

True statement. ALL of what I write is my opinion. I would like to think that that fact was understood by all. I take what others write as their opinions and interpretations of facts as well.

Thank you for pointing that out. (Comment is totally serious)

psi wrote:

Among conservatives and republicans..... you left that bit out.

Yes I did and I indeed should have mentioned the glee it caused the war criminals' supporters. However, it was not all joy in Mudville (an allusion to an American poem 'Casey at Bat'). Example, many of the local Demo's as expressed in letters to the editor in the local rag really had a hard time with what they called 'European intervention'.

psi wrote:

I disagree, I don't think that we americans see ourselves as expanding democracy. I think some of us do, but I think some of us don't see past our own borders. I do think many of us see ourselves as expanding an empire. Which while a view shared with many europeans, does not make it a european view.

Noted.

psi wrote:

Well you may just be easily amused. I agree though, seeing as most of the powers that be in american are just resettled europeans anyway.

I don't think I understand what you mean. But I do laugh at EU things like the Cheese war ... Something that's not funny to the Euro's but proof to me as why they will never be anything more than an exceedingly weak confederation capable of doing nothing. Even their RDF is a joke. The "R" depends on US airlift capabilities. And as Larry the cable-guy (a popular American comedian) says, "I don't care who you are ... that's funny".

psi wrote:

You should have seen it before the EU funding for infrastructure.

I was in Ireland 20 years ago for a very short stay ... saw a few tourist things but can't say I paid much attention to infrastructure other than the roads ... which were excellent. You make it sound like I was lucky.

psi wrote:

My heart isn't really in this post. I've no real interest in debating american politics with people who (A) believe they speak for the nation when its obvious that they don't, (B) resort to using terminology with the intent of being slyly offensive and most importantly (C) have no interest other than throwing propaganda about as if its fact (which many on the flip side of the debate do too - so don't worry I'm not being discriminatory).

a) Not so.

b) Only because I am responding in kind. Being nice paid no dividends.

c) False. What you may deem as propaganda ... I see as fact. Opinions have a way of doing that.

Nox

Hobbes

Nox wrote:

True statement. ALL of what I write is my opinion. I would like to think that that fact was understood by all. I take what others write as their opinions and interpretations of facts as well.

correct which is generally why people will ask you for sources so they can determine how you came to a particular conclusion.

ut I do laugh at EU things like the Cheese war ... Something that's not funny to the Euro's but proof to me as why they will never be anything more than an exceedingly weak confederation capable of doing nothing.

What is the cheese war? First I have ever heard of it.

I was in Ireland 20 years ago for a very short stay ... saw a few tourist things but can't say I paid much attention to infrastructure other than the roads ... which were excellent. You make it sound like I was lucky.

You were or you were in Northern Ireland. Prior to EU funding Irish roads were a joke.

GuanYin

Nox wrote:

The first or the second?

The First.

Other than what I saw on ABC, CBS, and NBC news ... NO.

But he hasn't been convicted of war crimes by any miltary or international court, nor are any pursuing him in such a manner, ergo your name calling is basically prejudiced slander.

I take what others write as their opinions and interpretations of facts as well.

Well perhaps you need to learn to discriminate.

While many here express opinions, many also proide facts.

My main issue is when biased opinion is seen as a counter to balance of probability.

There is a horrible tendency among people in general to use subterfuge and mud-slinging (ie. War criminal) as a tactic to back up what is a basic refusal to accept which way the evidence is pointing.

Accepting this, doesn't make your opinion less, nor is it admitting liability - it is however balanced common sense.

Yes I did and I indeed should have mentioned the glee it caused the war criminals' supporters. However, it was not all joy in Mudville (an allusion to an American poem 'Casey at Bat'). Example, many of the local Demo's as expressed in letters to the editor in the local rag really had a hard time with what they called 'European intervention'.

Again, comments like this add nothing to your argument, paint yourself and anyone on your side of the debate in a poor light and basically strips you of credibility.

I don't think I understand what you mean. But I do laugh at EU things like the Cheese war ... Something that's not funny to the Euro's but proof to me as why they will never be anything more than an exceedingly weak confederation capable of doing nothing. Even their RDF is a joke. The "R" depends on US airlift capabilities. And as Larry the cable-guy (a popular American comedian) says, "I don't care who you are ... that's funny".

To be honest, neither Europe nor the US capable of functioning progressively without each other, Europe may be weak in some areas but the US is equally weak in others. Rubbing it in each others faces doesn't help and it all probably explains alot of the populations antagonism towards each other.

a) Not so.

You have, on several occasions taken the liberty of generalizing US and EU opinion. Your continued use of the term "Euros" and phrases such as "we americans" highlight this. While they may in instances be demographically supportable, they are not nationally.

b) Only because I am responding in kind. Being nice paid no dividends.

Then you have no business partaking in cvil discussion.
Two wrongs don't make a right and honestly, every such comment you make reduces the credability of your argument.

"I'm not biased but I'll use biased terminology" - hrmmmmmm

c) False. What you may deem as propaganda ... I see as fact. Opinions have a way of doing that.

A few minutes ago you said it was all opinion or interpretation of fact.So do you see it as fact or your interpretation of fact? Big difference.

Many of your facts come from biased sources. By biased I mean far either conservative/republican leaning.

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

I thought you Euros were always wanting proof about everything the US does or says.

Well you were wrong

Nox wrote:

Matter of belief here. I believe the WMD's were there. I believe the WMD's are in the portion of the Syrian Desert patrolled 24/7 by Predator aircraft.

Well it seems just like your theory that the CIA probably didn't illegally kidnap this guy, your theory that the WMDs were there and were moved also seems to be largely baseless. By the way that isn't my opinion that is the opinion of your intelligence services

"Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information - never "a piece," said one - indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere."
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_wmd_011805,00.html

It is unlikely Iraq shipped banned weapons material into Syria before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to report released by the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA/Pentagon team searching for Iraqi weapons programs.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/

Nox wrote:

I really don't understand what you are trying to get at here. Whatever is your point ... you win. Does that make you feel better?

More deflection ... My point was -

People on this thread have said it looks like the CIA kidnapped this guy, transportered him to Eygpt where he was tortured. Thats what the Italian prosectutor thinks happens, that theory seems to be supported by the evidence. Based on the history of the CIA it also is very crediable and likely.

You came on and said you don't think the CIA would actually do that, and that it is more likely the Italians are lying.

Naturally, the rest of the posters here replied saying hold on a minute, all the evidence seems to support the idea they did do it, what argument do you have to support the idea they didn't, or that the Italians are lying?

You, I can only imagine because you don't actually have an proper argument, launched into a You Euros don't accept anyone who doesn't agree with you rant. That sir, is deflection

No one here objects to you disagreeing, but you have to put something forward as an argument for your position, and be willing to defend that position with proper arguments, not deflect criticism of your argument with You-Euros-Just-Hate-America style rants.

Nox wrote:

I have tried to explain my points.

No, you haven't, which is why people were objecting in the first place.

In fact back on page 3 Dub in Glasgo asked a very simple question -

"And you are assuming that the US have no case to answer, why is that?"

Instead of actually backing up your position you launched into a rant along the lines of

"But then I shouldn't expect Euro's to ever do anything wrong. After all, everything is the fault of the USofA."

You seem to think people here are just assuming the CIA did somethign wrong for the hell of it, with out any evidence, and that this is some how unfair to the CIA.

What you are ignoring is that all the evidence of the case suggests the CIA did something wrong. That, and the fact the the CIA have a long (and recent) history of doing illegal taking of suspects, is the reason why people assume the CIA is to fault.

They aren't just making this up for the hell of it.

What is the argument, the logic, to believe the Italians would be lying and yet proceeding with this case knowing they gave permission to the CIA to carry out this kidnapping?

Sorry, but if you are not going to back up what you say with anything other than somethign along the lines of "This is my opinion, i have a right to it, and I am sticking to it", don't expect people to just accept your points for the hell of it.

Nox

Hobbes wrote:

correct which is generally why people will ask you for sources so they can determine how you came to a particular conclusion.

Good point. However, being a political junkie it is difficult to track down a specific source. If I happen to read it in a book a la Saddams tortures/victims, then that is easy ... a specific book and a Discovery Channel program showing films of same. For over-all political opinions ... just an accumulation of daily info.

Hobbes wrote:

What is the cheese war? First I have ever heard of it.

Involved the naming of specific types of cheese. As I remember it, the French, Dutch, and Greeks were primary players.

Hobbes wrote:

You were or you were in Northern Ireland. Prior to EU funding Irish roads were a joke.

No. Took a ferry to Ireland from Wales. Drove from where ever the port was (forgot the name and too lazy to look it up) to Waterford then to Blarney Castle (had to kiss the stone). Next to Dublin to spend a saturday night in an Irish Pub (had a great time). Went to the post office at 8 pm on a saturday night ... and it was still open. I hope I don't forget to mention how impressed I still am ... Went to Saint Pat's Cathedral next day (sure is little for a cathedral) and then walked past a food store whose first prize in whatever contest they were running was a trip to New York City for St. Patricks Day. All the folks walking down the sidewalk kept starring at me as I stood there with my mouth hanging open in disbelief that an Irishman would want to go the NYC for St. Pats Day. I digress ...

All of the roads I traveled at that time were great.

Nox

Hobbes

Nox wrote:

All of the roads I traveled at that time were great.

Nox

Which would of been EU funded. Prior to that roads were seriously a joke. It was a great way to determine where the NI border was though, when your car stopped jiggling you were in NI.

lazydaisy

The Corinthian wrote:

It would not bother you that that your nations sovernty had been ignored? Or that perhaps the NYPD had also wanted to question the individual in question, as he is also a threat to the US? Or the Italian authorities hadn’t bothered to share the evidence? Or that the entire process ignores a number of fundamental international laws??

Not if sharing the evidence compromised the catching of someone who was going to or was involved with flying planes into buildings, destroying my city or burning to death people I went to school with or their family, or myself, then no. I wouldn't mind it either if they were going to do this to protect innocent Italian lives either. Dont get me started on the NYPD. Please.

QUOTE=The Corinthian]
And incidentally, the bone of contention is very much that no one was tipped off.[/QUOTE]

The Corinthian wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that all this would be perfectly acceptable by you. At least you have the courage to respond though; I’ll give you that.].

You can believe what you like. Are you saying Im a liar? I dont find it "perfectly acceptable". I would prefer to be in world where these things don't happen, but I do recognise them as a necessary evil, if you will.

The Corinthian wrote:

What’s the relevance of this?

Irellevancy was my point too. I was respondint to BTS' statement about his sympathies for those fighting the US, [I guess he means jihadists??] because he lives in a country that was once colonized by the British.

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Not if sharing the evidence compromised the catching of someone who was going to or was involved with flying planes into buildings, destroying my city or burning to death people I went to school with or their family, or myself, then no. I wouldn't mind it either if they were going to do this to protect innocent Italian lives either.

Ok what if these people were Afganistan/Iraqi or North Korean instead of Italian?

lazydaisy

Give me a context please.

The Corinthian

lazydaisy wrote:

Not if sharing the evidence compromised the catching of someone who was going to or was involved with flying planes into buildings, destroying my city or burning to death people I went to school with or their family, or myself, then no.

But no one has at any stage suggested that the sharing of evidence would compromise the catching of anyone.

You can believe what you like. Are you saying Im a liar? I dont find it "perfectly acceptable". I would prefer to be in world where these things don't happen, but I do recognise them as a necessary evil, if you will.

I never implied you were a liar, actually I think you’re intellectually far more honest than Nox. However, you do find them perfectly acceptable the moment that you accept them as “necessary”.

Irellevancy was my point too. I was respondint to BTS' statement about his sympathies for those fighting the US, [I guess he means jihadists??] because he lives in a country that was once colonized by the British.

Sorry, how is this related to what I’m talking about, as it appeared to be in response to me?

The Corinthian

lazydaisy wrote:

Give me a context please.

Wicknight already did:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50605720&postcount=170

Nox

psi wrote:

But he hasn't been convicted of war crimes by any miltary or international court, nor are any pursuing him in such a manner, ergo your name calling is basically prejudiced slander.

False. This lying slime-bag ADMITTED to this in testimony before the US Senate in the 1970's.

Not only that ... but the LIAR never spent the Christmas that he "so vividly remembers" in Cambodia.

Just to save a few keystrokes ... get a geograpical map of Viet Nam and take a look at Cam Rahn Bay, the Mekong, and Cambodia. You don't even have to believe what's written in 'Unfit for Command' ... just let your own lying eyes make your determination.

I say again ... WAR CRIMINAL ... and add ... 'SELF CONFESSED'.

psi wrote:

There is a horrible tendency among people in general to use subterfuge and mud-slinging (ie. War criminal) as a tactic to back up what is a basic refusal to accept which way the evidence is pointing.

Accepting this, doesn't make your opinion less, nor is it admitting liability - it is however balanced common sense.

See above. There is ZERO subterfuge ... and what you call "mud-slinging" is called in reality ... FACT. A fact that apparently you choose to not accept.

psi wrote:

Again, comments like this add nothing to your argument, paint yourself and anyone on your side of the debate in a poor light and basically strips you of credibility.

Interesting point ... and I accept same.

[sarcasm]Be advised ... using YOUR rule ... I expect YOU to source all of your statements ... lest YOU loose YOUR credibility.

The fact that at this point in time I am unable to prove my statement via News Journal links (they do not keep open files), I guess I must say that I am a pitful liar and have attempted to deceive others with unverifiable allegations.[/sarcasm]

psi wrote:

To be honest, neither Europe nor the US capable of functioning progressively without each other, Europe may be weak in some areas but the US is equally weak in others. Rubbing it in each others faces doesn't help and it all probably explains alot of the populations antagonism towards each other.

True.

psi wrote:

You have, on several occasions taken the liberty of generalizing US and EU opinion. Your continued use of the term "Euros" and phrases such as "we americans" highlight this. While they may in instances be demographically supportable, they are not nationally.

I do not remember using the phrase "we americans" but I'll take your word for it. I have used the phrase Euro's on more than several occasions. I should probably be more specific in identifying geographic locations ... but since I am not in receipt of any information about contrary opinions coming from Europe (your press seems as monlithic as ours minus the WSJ) it is easy for me to lump you all together keeping in mind that there is no such thing as unanimity of opinion. And as far as 'nationally' ... my view from this side of the pond is that they (European governments - at least in public) are in lock-step when it comes to the US. Individually and behind the scenes may be a different story, but like you, I am not privy to that information.

psi wrote:

Then you have no business partaking in cvil discussion.
Two wrongs don't make a right and honestly, every such comment you make reduces the credability of your argument.

True. Unlike you, I have already had it pointed out to me that I was not being civil by a mod. Yes indeed, the mods statement was correct. And yes indeed, the mod only used my comment as an example ... which was the correct thing to do. However, that did not prevent one of the other "civil" posters to shove that down my throat with the implication that only I was guilty. Now, you may be of the personality type to ignore that. I am not.

Now in terms of credibilty of/for argument ... now YOU have to decide on whether you are going to judge a post by substance or by style. You have made the point already about linking ... and I understand that ... now if you are going to link style to substance, then how does that principle apply to legal contests? And since we battle semantics here ... the analogy is sound.

psi wrote:

A few minutes ago you said it was all opinion or interpretation of fact.So do you see it as fact or your interpretation of fact? Big difference.

Totally true. Now this is way off topic but I shall address it.

There are many 'facts' in history and even current world events. It is how each of us view the same 'facts' that gives our different opinions. You've heard this before ... Same car wreck viewed by 5 different people has 6 different facts.

Now back to the question ... YES, I view my opinion of the 'Facts' as FACT. Just as you do of YOUR opinion. If you did not ... it would not be your opinion.

psi wrote:

Many of your facts come from biased sources. By biased I mean far either conservative/republican leaning.

Totally true. And whenever or wherever you can point out to me ANY unbiased source ... I PROMISE that I will always use that one. Now as far as the conservative/republican leaning ... TRUE. And from what I have gathered from reading your replies (about Kerry) ... YOUR sources are liberal/Democratic leaning. Therefore, you have the same guilt as I.

Nox

lazydaisy

TC,

After the British police shot the wrong man in the London Tube, I was initially horrified, and though I recognise it as a tragedy, the willfull end of an innocent life, I do also see the position the London police were in, and I find it really difficult to have a static position on that event.

An entirely different circumstance, I realise, but Im using it to illustrate that when we are faced with these new threats, that there are times when desperate and not so pristine measures are demanded. If a bureacracy is in the way of deterring these dangers, as in Katrina, or in some countries' court systems, then sometimes a law has to be broken, if is has not been changed to accomodate a new circumstance.

Please stop saying "perfectly acceptable". This is not my perspective and I already told you that.

You did say, "I find it hard to believe you would find it ...." that implies you think Im lying. But I accept your clarification.

My quip about living in a former colony, I thought was in reponse to BTS irrelevent self explanations. That was who it was intended for.

Nox

Hobbes wrote:

Which would of been EU funded. Prior to that roads were seriously a joke. It was a great way to determine where the NI border was though, when your car stopped jiggling you were in NI.

I get your joke. It's even funnier because I was in Ireland January 1985. I really want to go back. It's not called the 'Emerald Isle' without reason. Middle of January ... Green. Went back to Plattsburgh NY ... White.

Nox

lazydaisy

The Corinthian wrote:

Wicknight already did:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50605720&postcount=170

TC-

I was responding to Hobbes. I dont know enough about WKs scenario to offer a position on it. And Im not going to talk about anymore what ifs here. Ive already supplied an answer to one, yours, and if that's not good enough, well I'll just have to live with that and so will WK & Hobbes.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

I do also see the position the London police were in, and I find it really difficult to have a static position on that event.

He was shot dead because the person who was supposed to be watching the building he lived in was taking a piss. His death didn't protect anyone, it didn't stop any bombing and it didn't save any lives. It was a pointless mistake.

That is the entire point as to why things like this a supposed to be not acceptable, because the police, CIA, intelligence services etc are only human and cannot be expect to always be right.

The entire reason we have a system of accountability in our legal systems in Western worlds is to safe guard the rights of people against mistakes (malicious or otherwise) of the police services.

If we accept that the police services should be allowed do what they like when hunting criminals that opens the door for huge possibility that innocent people will suffer, like the poor Brazilian on the Tube.

And you kinda have to wonder then what is the point, if people who are supposed to protect us are as free to be as bad as the terrorists they are protecting us from.

lazydaisy

WK- I get what your saying, but what if it wasnt a mistake and they shot someone who was wired up with explosives?

He was shot dead because the person who was supposed to be watching the building he lived in was taking a piss.

Sorry WK can you explain?

The Corinthian

lazydaisy wrote:

After the British police shot the wrong man in the London Tube, I was initially horrified, and though I recognise it as a tragedy, the willfull end of an innocent life, I do also see the position the London police were in, and I find it really difficult to have a static position on that event.

But this is the dilemma that the West finds itself in - certainly there is a terrorist threat and certainly it would be much easier to combat it and make the populous safer if we need not concern ourselves with due process or law, but where would that leave us?

"Do not do battle with monsters, lest you become a monster; and when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks into you."

An entirely different circumstance, I realise, but Im using it to illustrate that when we are faced with these new threats, that there are times when desperate and not so pristine measures are demanded.

I accept your point, with my above reservations, but as you’ve noted yourself, it’s an entirely different circumstance and your above argument does not apply to the scenario we’re discussing.

The reality is that it is perceived as another example of the US acting in an imperial fashion - imposing it’s agenda regardless of sovernty or law.

Please stop saying "perfectly acceptable". This is not my perspective and I already told you that.

It may not be your perspective, but that is what it amounts to. When we deem something necessary, then it becomes acceptable. It’s very difficulty to escape that.

I dont know enough about WKs scenario to offer a position on it. And Im not going to talk about anymore what ifs here. Ive already supplied an answer to one, yours, and if that's not good enough, well I'll just have to live with that and so will WK & Hobbes.

In fairness, that’s what debate is about. You supply an argument and either it stands up to examination or it does not. If it doesn’t then you can certainly argue a point of “agreeing to disagree”, but your argument will still have failed to stand up to examination.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

WK- I get what your saying, but what if it wasnt a mistake and they shot someone who was wired up with explosives?

Well that is the big question that each country facing terrorism has to ask itself.

Is protecting the people against a percieved threat worth allowing the police services the freedom to make terrible mistakes and abuse to rights of citizens who have actually not commited a crime?

When does the good begin to be out wayed by the bad.

lazydaisy wrote:

Sorry WK can you explain?

The house the Brazilian lived in was supposed to be being watched to identify who was leaving. The police agent doing the watching missed the Brazilian leaving and therefore did not identifiy him as not being a threat.

When the police realised that someone had left the house they did not know who it was. They panicked and assumed it was one of the Islamic fundamentalist living in the house. They went into action stations, and ordered that he be taken down.

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Give me a context please.

What senario do you want? One that fits your morals.

- Afgan warlord believes some guy in NYC is developing a weapon that will kill people in his country or change the balance of power. So he sends people to kidnap him.

- Muslim fanatics fearing that a book written by some guy in MA is against Allah and order that the person be kidnapped and tourtured. (thought I'd go with a liberal state to make it bit harder to choose ).

Or to put it a better way under what senario would you allow say North Korean spies to kidnap a US citizen from the US and you know will be tourtured?

lazydaisy

The Corinthian wrote:

But this is the dilemma that the West finds itself in - certainly there is a terrorist threat and certainly it would be much easier to combat it and make the populous safer if we need not concern ourselves with due process or law, but where would that leave us?.

Yes in principal I agree with you, but the law process is behind why it took so long for the rescue efforts to begin after Katrina and why so many suffered for longer than they should have. My point is that there is a time factor involved. Bureucracy has all the time in the world whereas potential victims dont. How do you reconcile these two things?

The Corinthian wrote:

It may not be your perspective, but that is what it amounts to. When we deem something necessary, then it becomes acceptable. It’s very difficulty to escape that..

Ok, but not perfectly. I dont find it all that digestible. Its a bitter pill I swollow.

The Corinthian wrote:

In fairness, that’s what debate is about. You supply an argument and either it stands up to examination or it does not. If it doesn’t then you can certainly argue a point of “agreeing to disagree”, but your argument will still have failed to stand up to examination.

Yes, but I began with it depends on context. I said that from the start.

This debate is not about posters supplying me with numurous exempla [that don't have sufficient context I might add] and me elaborating on those scenarios.

lazydaisy

Hobbes wrote:

What senario do you want? One that fits your morals. ?

Rude.

Hobbes wrote:

- Afgan warlord believes some guy in NYC is developing a weapon that will kill people in his country or change the balance of power. So he sends people to kidnap him.

- Muslim fanatics fearing that a book written by some guy in MA is against Allah and order that the person be kidnapped and tourtured. (thought I'd go with a liberal state to make it bit harder to choose ).

Or to put it a better way under what senario would you allow say North Korean spies to kidnap a US citizen from the US and you know will be tourtured?

You dont know what context is. Hmnnn.... Its all becoming clearer.

Hobbes

"I do not think it means what you think it means"

What exactly do you mean by Context then?

As for rude... *shrug* any senario you will agree/disagree with will be based on your morals. Currently you agree to infringing the rights of a soverign country and your own country, I just want to see if you have no problem with countries that the US has deemed as enemies or if it is just friendly countries you don't mind breaking laws in.

lazydaisy

Hobbes wrote:

"I do not think it means what you think it means"

What exactly do you mean by Context then?

As for rude... *shrug* any senario you will agree/disagree with will be based on your morals. Currently you agree to infringing the rights of a soverign country and your own country, I just want to see if you have no problem with countries that the US has deemed as enemies or if it is just friendly countries you don't mind breaking laws in.

You provided one sentence definition, which guess what, doesnt show it being used in context! Nor is applicable in this context. Are you deliberately being funny?

Even by that, you still demonstrate by your disanalagous exempla that you dont know or understand context or how it works.

Your world is pretty black and white, huh? Must be very cushy in there.

Think what you like. Im sure you already have your mind made up.

Nox

Wicknight wrote:

Well it seems just like your theory that the CIA probably didn't illegally kidnap this guy

This assessment is too simplistic. My point was that I wasn't convinced that the Italian Government wasn't involved ... despite their claims. THAT would make the kidnapping other than illegal.

Wicknight wrote:

your theory that the WMDs were there and were moved also seems to be largely baseless. By the way that isn't my opinion that is the opinion of your intelligence services

To you YES. However, having been inside the Intel circuit as part of the military, it is not baseless. And the intel services ... ever hear of a cover story?

a) There would not be 24/7 coverage by Predators of that part of the Syrian Desert if there wasn't anything there.

b) Any additional explanations as to why would require answering the question of "How do you know this"? If you've noticed ... ALL of the high government officials do not deny the WMD's existence. They give a brush off answer and refuse to state no. It's only the lower level ... intel services that do that. And even then their answers are evasive. I don't think you realize the cost involved in that Predator operation ... not only in terms of money ... but also in terms of assets which are wanted and needed elsewhere.

Wicknight wrote:

"Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information - never "a piece," said one - indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere."
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_wmd_011805,00.html

It is unlikely Iraq shipped banned weapons material into Syria before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to report released by the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA/Pentagon team searching for Iraqi weapons programs.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/

Look at the wording carefully. "officials" is hardly the OFFICIAL statement. These are a bunch of unnamed folks. For your point to be true ... then Senator (fill in the name) on the Intelligence oversight committee said thus and so. This is called plausible deniability. And you notice the word 'unlikely'. Far from a definate. This is political double-speak at its finest.

Wicknight wrote:

You came on and said you don't think the CIA would actually do that, and that it is more likely the Italians are lying.

False. Those are not my words.

Wicknight wrote:

Naturally, the rest of the posters here replied saying hold on a minute, all the evidence seems to support the idea they did do it, what argument do you have to support the idea they didn't, or that the Italians are lying?

Just as much as you have to say they are truthing. Your argument says the CIA did stuff in the past. Same can be said of the Italians.

Wicknight wrote:

You, I can only imagine because you don't actually have an proper argument, launched into a You Euros don't accept anyone who doesn't agree with you rant. That sir, is deflection

Let me get this straight ... you are claiming that YOUR speculation constitutes a valid argument while mine does not? Hmmm ...

Wicknight wrote:

No one here objects to you disagreeing, but you have to put something forward as an argument for your position, and be willing to defend that position with proper arguments, not deflect criticism of your argument with You-Euros-Just-Hate-America style rants.

And I have ... you just don't accept it. And as far as your last seven words in the above clip ... :eek:

Wicknight wrote:

No, you haven't, which is why people were objecting in the first place.

No. You folks are in lock-step about believing the Italian version. I am not. And it appears that I am a majority of one (maybe two). But in any event ... it doesn't make me wrong.

Wicknight wrote:

In fact back on page 3 Dub in Glasgo asked a very simple question -

"And you are assuming that the US have no case to answer, why is that?"

Instead of actually backing up your position you launched into a rant along the lines of

"But then I shouldn't expect Euro's to ever do anything wrong. After all, everything is the fault of the USofA."

And if you read closely, my point was ... maybe the Italians aren't truthing.

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to think people here are just assuming the CIA did somethign wrong for the hell of it, with out any evidence, and that this is some how unfair to the CIA.

What you are ignoring is that all the evidence of the case suggests the CIA did something wrong. That, and the fact the the CIA have a long (and recent) history of doing illegal taking of suspects, is the reason why people assume the CIA is to fault.

They aren't just making this up for the hell of it.

What is the argument, the logic, to believe the Italians would be lying and yet proceeding with this case knowing they gave permission to the CIA to carry out this kidnapping?

It is the same logic you use.

Wicknight wrote:

Sorry, but if you are not going to back up what you say with anything other than somethign along the lines of "This is my opinion, i have a right to it, and I am sticking to it", don't expect people to just accept your points for the hell of it.

You do not have to accept it. I do not accept your position. I think it's called disagreeing. For some reason you are under the assumption that because you believe it, I should too. I do not expect to change your mind, nor have I. All I expect is maybe you respect my right to disagree with you. Apparently, that's expecting too much.

Nox

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Think what you like. Im sure you already have your mind made up.

No I don't rather then look for examples from me, hows about you tell me under what situation would you find that North Korean spies would be allowed to kidnap a US citizen and tourture them?

Well? You have already said its ok for Italians is the same senario ok for North Koreans?

You are purposely avoiding the question.

Nox wrote:

To you YES. However, having been inside the Intel circuit as part of the military, it is not baseless. And the intel services ... ever hear of a cover story?

If you are so sure there are WMD, can you do me a favour. TELL BUSH. I am sure he would love to know where they are to vidicate his war. Especially after his own inspection teams he planted into Iraq said there weren't any.

Also if they were so sure they were there why did they not race to secure these WMD instead of racing to secure the oil fields?

ALL of the high government officials do not deny the WMD's existence. They give a brush off answer and refuse to state no. It's only the lower level ... intel services that do that.

I am just curious, where does the administration get its intel from that it can contridict its own intelligence services? I am very curious how that works.

False. Those are not my words.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50596835&postcount=41

Where you mention that the Italians are probably lying about the CIA snatch.

Your argument says the CIA did stuff in the past. Same can be said of the Italians.

While that is true do you have recorded instances of Italians kidnapping nationals from other countries?

btw, two wrongs don't make a right. I believe what you are doing there again is called deflection.

You do not have to accept it. I do not accept your position.

and that is fine and dandy however you are going on as if what you are saying is actual fact but not giving any facts to back it up. You should prehaps start with "IMHO" so there is no confusion that your observerations are not based on facts (or at least facts you can't back up).

Manic Moran

The US army shot anyway, which seems to be the policy to shoot at anything moving.

As someone who has been there, done that, and got the T-shirt, I would just like to express my most vocal and emphatic disagreement with that comment.

NTM