Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on April 07, 2009, 08:19:08 AM
-
If the president releases the Bush torture memos, Republicans are promising to “go nuclear” and filibuster his legal appointments. Scott Horton reports on a serious threat to Obama’s transparency.
Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public.
The source says these threats are the principal reason for the Obama administration’s abrupt pullback last week from a commitment to release some of the documents. A Republican Senate source confirms the strategy. It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-05/are-republicans-blackmailing-obama/
And about that Republican Sanctioned Torture:
Report Calls CIA Detainee Treatment 'Inhuman'
Medical officers who oversaw interrogations of terrorism suspects in CIA secret prisons committed gross violations of medical ethics and in some cases essentially participated in torture, the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a confidential report that labeled the CIA program "inhuman."
...
Previously, top Bush administration officials defended the interrogation methods, saying they were legal and necessary to prevent terrorist attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040603654.html?hpid=topnews
What filth the Republican party is. First torture and now blackmail to cover up the details of that torture.
-
haha if you have nothing to hide... ;)
-
haha if you have nothing to hide... Wink
You mean like Obama having his Birth Records sealed ?
-
You mean like Obama having his Birth Records sealed ?
the state of hawaii said the certificate is valid.
we now go down the road of asking ourselves - is an entire US State in on some vast conspiracy to sneak a kenyan to lead our nation?
Is this the kind of scenario you're implying?
-
the state of hawaii said the certificate is valid.
we now go down the road of asking ourselves - is an entire US State in on some vast conspiracy to sneak a kenyan to lead our nation?
Is this the kind of scenario you're implying?
You were the one who said "haha if you have nothing to hide... Wink"
Yet your hero Obama is all for hiding (sealing) his Birth records.
"President's attorneys file motion demanding birth, college records be withheld from public"
"A high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys representing President Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and passport documents concealed from the public has suggested there should be "monetary sanctions" against a lawyer
whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn't qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in that post. "
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88746
So If Obama has "nothing to hide", then why did he hire attorneys to have his records sealed ?
-
the state of hawaii said the certificate is valid.
we now go down the road of asking ourselves - is an entire US State in on some vast conspiracy to sneak a kenyan to lead our nation?
Is this the kind of scenario you're implying?
dont you believe that 9/11 was an inside job? LOL but that ct seems crazy to you huh?
-
haha if you have nothing to hide... Wink
240, So If Obama has "nothing to hide", then why did he hire attorneys to have his records sealed ?
-
What the fuck is the "WorldNetDaily"? and why would anyone listen to them?
-
What the fuck is the "WorldNetDaily"? and why would anyone listen to them?
::) LOL deckers original post is cited by a page called thedailybeast.com and is in the blogs section but you question that one huh? hahahaha more and more on this board ppl choose to only see what they want.
-
240, So If Obama has "nothing to hide", then why did he hire attorneys to have his records sealed ?
probably because it says he was born muslim, and he doesn't want hillbillies scremaing "There, we have proof he's an arab!" all thru the 2012 race.
-
::) LOL deckers original post is cited by a page called thedailybeast.com and is in the blogs section but you question that one huh? hahahaha more and more on this board ppl choose to only see what they want.
Hey Tony... Do you think I give a shit about whether or not the Republicans want to Filibuster?
Have at it...
I don't see where the issue is here.
You think I believe "The daily beast"?
Ridiculous... More and more the politics board is a bunch of whining kids going... My guys are cooler than your guys.
Sad.
-
probably because it says he was born muslim, and he doesn't want hillbillies scremaing "There, we have proof he's an arab!" all thru the 2012 race.
Can you be born a "Muslim"?
Is that possible to be born a religion? Is that something that the Presidency requires?
-
Hey Tony... Do you think I give a shit about whether or not the Republicans want to Filibuster?
Have at it...
I don't see where the issue is here.
You think I believe "The daily beast"?
Ridiculous... More and more the politics board is a bunch of whining kids going... My guys are cooler than your guys.
Sad.
if you dont see what the issue is here then why didnt you say that instead of attacking james citation?
-
probably because it says he was born muslim, and he doesn't want hillbillies scremaing "There, we have proof he's an arab!" all thru the 2012 race.
240 is full of shit as usual, As their is no space on a Birth Certificate, stating what a child's religion is at birth
-
::) LOL deckers original post is cited by a page called thedailybeast.com and is in the blogs section but you question that one huh? hahahaha more and more on this board ppl choose to only see what they want.
True.
-
240, So If Obama has "nothing to hide", then why did he hire attorneys to have his records sealed ?
B/c rightwing lunatics would have a field day.
For god's sake, look what these nuts did with his legal birth certificate.
-
::) LOL deckers original post is cited by a page called thedailybeast.com and is in the blogs section but you question that one huh? hahahaha more and more on this board ppl choose to only see what they want.
Shoot, the daily beast.com...that settles it, the story is shit.
What was I thinking?
-
http://bluegrassbulletin.typepad.com/bluegrass_bulletin/2009/04/obama-plan-to-release-torture-memos-has-republican-senators-raging.html
Rightwing websites are running with the story.
That's for all you 'shoot the messenger' types. You know, the guys who think they can judge a book by its cover time and again.
Stop that. It's embarrassing and counterproductive to getting at truth.
If it's true, it's true....Even if Lucifer says it.
In fairness, it's a lead. We'll see if it pans out.
-
:'(
boo hoo hoo. Poor terrorists.
It seems to me that Obama is blackmailing the republicans to get these god awful nominations through, not the other way around. I have seen 3 or 4 documentaries on this nonsense already. What on earth is going to be uncovered here that hasn't already been made public? Nobody is going to be prosecuted anyway. Talk about much ado about nothing. It reminds me of watching MSNBC. A fucking nuclear missile could destroy the eastern seaboard, there could be rioting in the streets over the economy and that hideous Dyke Rachel Maddow will still be interviewing douchebags from NPR to get opinions on whether Dick Cheney violated the Geneva Conventions.
Wait, we can only be backward looking when it involves the Bush Administration. Obama's past is totally irrelevant of course and should never be scrutinized otherwise your being a racist and a "reactionary". But... I wonder- If Obama authorized torture, would you same lightening rods say "Well, you didn't complain when Bush did it", so why do anything now...?
-
if you dont see what the issue is here then why didnt you say that instead of attacking james citation?
I did... I also attacked the citation that I noticed... I then noticed the daily beast and attacked that.
You're still worried about what I think of either one of those media outlets?
-
Shoot, the daily beast.com...that settles it, the story is shit.
What was I thinking?
I dont really care what the source is, i was simply pointing out to holmes that your source wasnt a well known credible source, like james was. perhaps you should read all the posts in the thread before singling one out ;)
-
I did... I also attacked the citation that I noticed... I then noticed the daily beast and attacked that.
You're still worried about what I think of either one of those media outlets?
I personally dont really give a shit, just thought it was ironic how you called out james but not decker...you righted yourself though.
-
B/c rightwing lunatics would have a field day.
For god's sake, look what these nuts did with his legal birth certificate.
Obama has not shown his legal birth certificate., But what he did do, was he hired lawyers to have it sealed.
-
You mean like Obama having his Birth Records sealed ?
It's time to let go.
-
It's time to let go.
its also time to quit blaming bush...
-
its also time to quit blaming bush...
Word!
-
its also time to quit blaming bush...
then MSNBC would not have anything to talk about. :o
-
boo hoo hoo. Poor terrorists.
It's about our national character and not the terrorists. We are not on par with the Mafia, Communists, KKK, Egypt, etc. in that the USA does not torture people.
It seems to me that Obama is blackmailing the republicans to get these god awful nominations through, not the other way around. I have seen 3 or 4 documentaries on this nonsense already. What on earth is going to be uncovered here that hasn't already been made public? Nobody is going to be prosecuted anyway. Talk about much ado about nothing. It reminds me of watching MSNBC. A fucking nuclear missile could destroy the eastern seaboard, there could be rioting in the streets over the economy and that hideous Dyke Rachel Maddow will still be interviewing douchebags from NPR to get opinions on whether Dick Cheney violated the Geneva Conventions.
That's interesting but Obama won the presidency. It's his obligation to appoint people of his choice.
If bush's notes have no new info, why is the republican party trying to quash publication?
Wait, we can only be backward looking when it involves the Bush Administration. Obama's past is totally irrelevant of course and should never be scrutinized otherwise your being a racist and a "reactionary". But... I wonder- If Obama authorized torture, would you same lightening rods say "Well, you didn't complain when Bush did it", so why do anything now...?
Obama's past does not set the country's policy for interrogating detainees. Bush's torture policy did that.
I'm ashamed that I have to tell you this, but torture is wrong. . .regardless of who is advocating it.
-
I dont really care what the source is, i was simply pointing out to holmes that your source wasnt a well known credible source, like james was. perhaps you should read all the posts in the thread before singling one out ;)
I did read the posts.
You just restated why I had to comment on the error of your original post:
your source wasnt a ...credible source
On what do you base that conclusion?
You just matter-of-factly state that the source is not credible. How do you know that?
From where I'm sitting, you're just making shit up.
-
The whole economy went to shit under the guidance of Clinton and Bush. They should be blamed.
-
Obama has not shown his legal birth certificate., But what he did do, was he hired lawyers to have it sealed.
Jesus Christ. You guys on the right never quit. No wonder your party is being marginalized as nutty paranoids.
(http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg)
State declares Obama birth certificate genuine
HONOLULU (AP) State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
http://www.kxmb.com/News/Politics/291624.asp
-
You just matter-of-factly state that the source is not credible. How do you know that?
From where I'm sitting, you're just making shit up.
actually brainchild i said WELL KNOWN credible source but thanks for playing, ic your taking up 240's spin class :-\
-
actually brainchild i said WELL KNOWN credible source but thanks for playing, ic your taking up 240's spin class :-\
Actually Brainiac I did acknowledge that bit of useless information. It's called an ellipsis.
Look it up. You've learned something new today.
"[W]ell known" modifies "credible source" how? Either a source is credible or it is not.
Please help me out with this.
-
Decker I'm not going to debate torture with you because its a philosophical difference of opinion. Your assertion that its about our "national character" and not terrorists demonstrates a fundamental disconnect in the substance our positions. Lets just agree to disagree. No need to be ashamed- Although I am ashamed to have to explain to you what's at stake and what is done to our nationals, soldiers and citizens who are captured by terorrists. I would also expound on how the Geneva Conventions don't apply to those at Guantanamo etc. etc.- but that's an argument for another day.
With regard to whether the republicans are doing the blackmailing or Obama, your point can just as easily be flipped around. Obama and the democratic Congress that pulls his strings have passed a ton of legislation without any republican support. Why is this any different and why would they need republican permission to release this stuff in the first place? As you said, he won the election.
On a further note, how do you feel about domestic wiretapping and the Patriot Act? The Obama administration submitted a brief in support of Bush administration policy in a pending lawsuit over cell phone companies allowing the government to listen in-- The invocation of the state secrets doctrine, the use of the patriot act, etc.-- The ACLU must feel like a bunch of useful idiots. Is the Bush admins policy in this regard wrong also, even if Obama supports it?
-
Actually Brainiac I did acknowledge that bit of useless information. It's called an ellipsis.
Look it up. You've learned something new today.
"[W]ell known" modifies "credible source" how? Either a source is credible or it is not.
Please help me out with this.
LOL you mean a way of intentionally leaving it out? that was a qualifier to the "credible source" and deserved to be in the quote, to leave it out was misleading, intentional or otherwise ::) dip shit thats 240 low bro,
Your source may very well be a credible source although since its from the blogs section...james source might be a credible source fact is we dont know, hence the WELL KNOWN qualifier to credible source.
-
Decker I'm not going to debate torture with you because its a philosophical difference of opinion. Your assertion that its about our "national character" and not terrorists demonstrates a fundamental disconnect in the substance our positions. Lets just agree to disagree. No need to be ashamed- Although I am ashamed to have to explain to you what's at stake and what is done to our nationals, soldiers and citizens who are captured by terorrists. I would also expound on how the Geneva Conventions don't apply to those at Guantanamo etc. etc.- but that's an argument for another day.
Torture as revenge for the treatment of our POWs is not in our history and traditions. Bush made sure that Geneva protocols did not apply b/c he know that he broke that law when authorized torture.
With regard to whether the republicans are doing the blackmailing or Obama, your point can just as easily be flipped around. Obama and the democratic Congress that pulls his strings have passed a ton of legislation without any republican support. Why is this any different and why would they need republican permission to release this stuff in the first place? As you said, he won the election.
What tons of legislation have been passed without a single republican vote? I mean besides the budget. The People have voted more democrats into Congress than republicans. The people have chosen a democratic president. Why should Obama take fiscal pointers for his budget from the republicans in the minority when all they do is propose the same bullshit that helped get us into this mess in the first place?
On a further note, how do you feel about domestic wiretapping and the Patriot Act? The Obama administration submitted a brief in support of Bush administration policy in a pending lawsuit over cell phone companies allowing the government to listen in-- The invocation of the state secrets doctrine, the use of the patriot act, etc.-- The ACLU must feel like a bunch of useful idiots. Is the Bush admins policy in this regard wrong also, even if Obama supports it?
Obama is correct. There is no contradiction in his policy.
Why did Bush get nailed for subverting Congress? Bush did not consult with Congress before he took the initiative to break the FISA law. FISA's already been amended. Obama is not advocating anyting unconsitutional (arguably).
Did Obama or any other president since FISA's inception do that? Nope. Only Bush did.
-
LOL you mean a way of intentionally leaving it out? that was a qualifier to the "credible source" and deserved to be in the quote, to leave it out was misleading, intentional or otherwise ::) dip shit thats 240 low bro,
Here you are again with no support for your stupid conclusion. I'm getting used to this.
Your source may very well be a credible source although since its from the blogs section...james source might be a credible source fact is we dont know, hence the WELL KNOWN qualifier to credible source.
This sentence makes no sense to me.
How does 'well known' quantify the credibility of the source cited?
How does it's exclusion from the sentence change the meaning of the word "credible" in reference to the source?
If you want to deconstruct language, I got all day.
-
What's with the derailing of the thread?
I thought this was about Republicans wanting to bury Torture memos?
What truth is it to that claim?
-
Here you are again with no support for your stupid conclusion. I'm getting used to this.
This sentence makes no sense to me.
How does 'well known' quantify the credibility of the source cited?
How does it's exclusion from the sentence change the meaning of the word "credible" in reference to the source?
If you want to deconstruct language, I got all day.
::) omfg a source can be a credible source and not be well known, thus the well known credible source statment...You leaving it out negates that fact...thus you not seeing the difference between a credible source and a well known credible source, do you see the difference between those two? There is obviously a difference between a well known credible source and a credible source. I said it wasnt a well known credible source and you took it to mean i said it wasnt a credible source jack ass. which is not what i said is it?
-
Torture as revenge for the treatment of our POWs is not in our history and traditions. Bush made sure that Geneva protocols did not apply b/c he know that he broke that law when authorized torture.
What tons of legislation have been passed without a single republican vote? I mean besides the budget. The People have voted more democrats into Congress than republicans. The people have chosen a democratic president. Why should Obama take fiscal pointers for his budget from the republicans in the minority when all they do is propose the same bullshit that helped get us into this mess in the first place?
Obama is correct. There is no contradiction in his policy.
Why did Bush get nailed for subverting Congress? Bush did not consult with Congress before he took the initiative to break the FISA law. FISA's already been amended. Obama is not advocating anyting unconsitutional (arguably).
Did Obama or any other president since FISA's inception do that? Nope. Only Bush did.
I am not advocating "revenge". I am advocating reality. Captives who are captured by terrorists are usually butchered- many times with the cameras rolling. I'd say we do a much better job than they do. The "torture" the detainees have experienced is at worst aggressive interrogation and at best a fictional political ploy to take the focus away from why these individuals were detained in the first place. There is a difference between telling soldiers to have at some detainees and "torture" them just for the hell of it. The purpose of detaining these people is to get information, not enact revenge. If that's what its all about, then why detain them in the first place? Why not just shoot them in the back of the head and throw them into ocean? No media scrutiny or political red tape-- no one would ever know.
As far as your second point- I'm not sure what your trying to say. If Obama doesn't need republican support to do things, then why is this any different? Why not just release the documents? As I said, it doesn't make sense. I think it is clear he is blackmailing them, not the other way around.
As far as your third point, you lost me again. By your reasoning, if the "torture" you claim was authorized by Bush had been greenlighted by Congress and Obama signed on, then Obama is perfectly justified in supporting torture.
As far as Bush violating FISA-- How? The Patriot Act really didn't make any wholesale changes to the investigation of terrorism. [ FISA use becomes predicated on substantial purpose versus primary purpose of surveillance for foreign Intel gathering as opposed to criminal prosecution & makes intelligence easier to share between federal agencies] Everything else under the Patriot Act involves using investigative techniques the FBI and CIA have been using for 25+ years to investigate drug trafficking and espionage. Unless your referring to the TSA, which has nothing to do with FISA and involves intercepting domestic calls as long as the President/ NSA believe the other party to the phone call is a member of Al Queda Etc.
-
::) omfg a source can be a credible source and not be well known, thus the well known credible source statment...You leaving it out negates that fact...thus you not seeing the difference between a credible source and a well known credible source, do you see the difference between those two? There is obviously a difference between a well known credible source and a credible source. I said it wasnt a well known credible source and you took it to mean i said it wasnt a credible source jack ass. which is not what i said is it?
Of course there's a difference. That difference is irrelevant to the matter asserted: whether the source is credible?
The source is not credible. The well known source is not credible.
Do you see that?
"well known" has nothing to do with the quality of the source's credibility. That's what the word 'not' is for.
The only difference that you cite is that one source is well known and the other is silent on the matter...b/c it doesn't fucking matter to the issue of the credibility of the source.
And you stated matter-of-factly that the source is not credible.
Where's the support for your ill-advised conclusion that the source is not credible?
-
Of course there's a difference. That difference is irrelevant to the matter asserted: whether the source is credible?
The source is not credible. The well known source is not credible.
Do you see that?
"well known" has nothing to do with the quality of the source's credibility. That's what the word 'not' is for.
The only difference that you cite is that one source is well known and the other is silent on the matter...b/c it doesn't fucking matter to the issue of the credibility of the source.
And you stated matter-of-factly that the source is not credible.
Where's the support for your ill-advised conclusion that the source is not credible?
LOL you jack ass i never said it wasnt a credible source, i said it wasnt a well known credible source im sorry your ignorant ass cannot see the difference but there is one there i promise you. Again can a source be credible and not be well known? of course it can so the well known does qualify the credible source.
Enough is enough you remind me of a friend of mine who just argues to fuking argue i can see why you became a lawyer is today a slow day or something?
-
LOL you jack ass i never said it wasnt a credible source, i said it wasnt a well known credible source im sorry your ignorant ass cannot see the difference but there is one there i promise you. Again can a source be credible and not be well known? of course it can so the well known does qualify the credible source.
Enough is enough you remind me of a friend of mine who just argues to fuking argue i can see why you became a lawyer is today a slow day or something?
...i never said it wasnt a credible source, i said it wasnt a well known credible source...
I think my work is done here.
"not" modifies "well known" and "credible".
You are denying that.
Why? The structure of your sentence clearly indicates that not modifies the word 'credible'.
Now if your contention is correct and I'm wrong, then you are calling the source 'credible'. Right?
...i was simply pointing out to holmes that your source wasnt a well known credible source...
That's your sentence verbatim.
According to you, the source wasn't well known but it is credible. So you think the source credible.
Can you see how you'd be the only person in the solar system to interpret that meaning?
-
I am not advocating "revenge". I am advocating reality. Captives who are captured by terrorists are usually butchered- many times with the cameras rolling. I'd say we do a much better job than they do. The "torture" the detainees have experienced is at worst aggressive interrogation and at best a fictional political ploy to take the focus away from why these individuals were detained in the first place. There is a difference between telling soldiers to have at some detainees and "torture" them just for the hell of it. The purpose of detaining these people is to get information, not enact revenge. If that's what its all about, then why detain them in the first place? Why not just shoot them in the back of the head and throw them into ocean? No media scrutiny or political red tape-- no one would ever know.
People have died from these 'aggressive interrogation" techniques.
There is no goddam difference btn torturing a person for fun or for a purpose.
The detainees are just that, a person detained. They haven't been tried, they've been accused. Once we start down the path of torturing suspects, we are on the same path as Nazis. The bad guys.
Why? b/c our country has historically honored the notion that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Torture just skips that step of trying a man and tortures him into confessing...much like the Inquisition.
As far as your second point- I'm not sure what your trying to say. If Obama doesn't need republican support to do things, then why is this any different? Why not just release the documents? As I said, it doesn't make sense. I think it is clear he is blackmailing them, not the other way around.
The story uses a source that repeats the intentions of the republican party to go nuclear (i.e., block the votes) on the Obama appointees if Obama permits the Bush notes to be published. Nowhere in the story does it state that Obama is blackmailing the republicans with the Bush notes. Obama campaigned on the idea that government would be more transparent. This is that idea coming to life.
As far as your third point, you lost me again. By your reasoning, if the "torture" you claim was authorized by Bush had been greenlighted by Congress and Obama signed on, then Obama is perfectly justified in supporting torture.
Torture is not domestic spying. Was torture greenlighted by Congress? Or did Congress just offer retro-active immunity to those who committed torture pursuant to Bush's policy?
As Obama has said many times. The US will not torture. That's against the Geneva protocols and the UN Charter.
As far as Bush violating FISA-- How? The Patriot Act really didn't make any wholesale changes to the investigation of terrorism. [ FISA use becomes predicated on substantial purpose versus primary purpose of surveillance for foreign Intel gathering as opposed to criminal prosecution & makes intelligence easier to share between federal agencies] Everything else under the Patriot Act involves using investigative techniques the FBI and CIA have been using for 25+ years to investigate drug trafficking and espionage. Unless your referring to the TSA, which has nothing to do with FISA and involves intercepting domestic calls as long as the President/ NSA believe the other party to the phone call is a member of Al Queda Etc.
The law during the Bush administration was that domestic spying must be accompanied with a warrant either prior to the act or after. Bush got no warrants. He committed a felony under FISA.
The FISA law has been amended to permit warrantless domestic wiretaps. Obama supports that law.
That's a huge difference.
-
oh for the love of shit last post on this dumb ass topic
A source can be well known and not be credible I.E. the national enquirer
A source can be credible and not be well known
Holmes made a statement about jame's source not being well known i simply pointed out that your source which is from a BLOG is not a well known credible source either.
-
oh for the love of shit last post on this dumb ass topic
A source can be well known and not be credible I.E. the national enquirer
A source can be credible and not be well known
That's true. But you said more than that with
...i was simply pointing out to holmes that your source wasnt a well known credible source...
Holmes made a statement about jame's source not being well known i simply pointed out that your source which is from a BLOG is not a well known credible source either.
Why did you add the word 'credible'?
Why not just leave the analysis as your source wasnt a well known source...
Why? B/c you took a shot at the credibility of the source. I just wanted to know what evidence you had to support that conclusion.
-
Credible = credible.
It either is or isn't.
Decker ringing the school bell around here for punks.
-
What's with the derailing of the thread?
I thought this was about Republicans wanting to bury Torture memos?
What truth is it to that claim?
From what i can tell, there is nothing really new in there that we all did not know or suspect.
Even if 100% true, I am not disturbed by it one bit.
-
From what i can tell, there is nothing really new in there that we all did not know or suspect.
Even if 100% true, I am not disturbed by it one bit.
Same here.