Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on April 09, 2009, 10:08:23 AM
-
I'm already pissed at his handling of Wall Street and Health Care. . .now this.
Obama..."said months ago before he became president...that if he became president, he would have his attorney general investigate the Bush administration to see if things that they had done involved crimes or just merely bad policy. He said if they involved crimes, he said no man is above the law, and the implication was that he would ask his attorney general to proceed forward, so he’s changed his position."
Now Obama is pushing this: that he has "a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" --President Obama's statement re the investigation of the Bush administration
According to a recent interview with Vincent Bugliosi, he is offended by Obama's flip flop. The murder that Bush wrought as a corrupt president should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
When he (Obama) says that he intends to give Bush a free pass simply because whatever crime Bush may have committed was in the past, I would inform him of something he already knows: that all criminal prosecutions, without exception and by definition, have to deal, obviously, with past criminal behavior. Obviously we cannot prosecute someone for a crime that they may commit in the future.
http://thejournal.epluribusmedia.net/index.php/interviews/45-epm-interviews/230-murder-trumps-torture-says-bugliosi
"If we prosecute those in America who only commit one murder, under what theory don't we prosecute a president who is criminally responsible for over four thousand murders?" Vincent Bugliosi
-
I'm already pissed at his handling of Wall Street and Health Care. . .now this.
Obama..."said months ago before he became president...that if he became president, he would have his attorney general investigate the Bush administration to see if things that they had done involved crimes or just merely bad policy. He said if they involved crimes, he said no man is above the law, and the implication was that he would ask his attorney general to proceed forward, so he’s changed his position."
Now Obama is pushing this: that he has "a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" --President Obama's statement re the investigation of the Bush administration
According to a recent interview with Vincent Bugliosi, he is offended by Obama's flip flop. The murder that Bush wrought as a corrupt president should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
http://thejournal.epluribusmedia.net/index.php/interviews/45-epm-interviews/230-murder-trumps-torture-says-bugliosi
"If we prosecute those in America who only commit one murder, under what theory don't we prosecute a president who is criminally responsible for over four thousand murders?" Vincent Bugliosi
My god, hell has frozen over!
-
::)
-
I'm already pissed at his handling of Wall Street and Health Care. . .now this.
Obama..."said months ago before he became president...that if he became president, he would have his attorney general investigate the Bush administration to see if things that they had done involved crimes or just merely bad policy. He said if they involved crimes, he said no man is above the law, and the implication was that he would ask his attorney general to proceed forward, so he’s changed his position."
Now Obama is pushing this: that he has "a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" --President Obama's statement re the investigation of the Bush administration
According to a recent interview with Vincent Bugliosi, he is offended by Obama's flip flop. The murder that Bush wrought as a corrupt president should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
http://thejournal.epluribusmedia.net/index.php/interviews/45-epm-interviews/230-murder-trumps-torture-says-bugliosi
"If we prosecute those in America who only commit one murder, under what theory don't we prosecute a president who is criminally responsible for over four thousand murders?" Vincent Bugliosi
Decker, the thing you need to realize, and I know his is hard for you, is that Bush and Obama are nearly the same on most issues.
Whether it be being owned by wall street, pushing the NWO, amnnesty for illegal aliens, bailouts, etc, where is the CHANGE?????
-
(http://i42.tinypic.com/35akcb8.jpg)
-
Good.
-
Decker, the thing you need to realize, and I know his is hard for you, is that Bush and Obama are nearly the same on most issues.
Whether it be being owned by wall street, pushing the NWO, amnnesty for illegal aliens, bailouts, etc, where is the CHANGE?????
Here's where the change is:
Obama doesn't kill Iraqis with a trumped up invasion
Obama doesn't torture people
Obama doesn't subvert Congress
Obama doesn't alienate the rest of the world
...there's more but I'm sure you can get the drift.
-
Yeah...but
he wastes more money then anybody has ever done as president
violates states rights
appeases foreign countries including enemies of this nation
badmouths America on foreign soil
cuts defense while fighting 2 wars
pushed amnesty while he enjoys almost 9% unemployment
allows rougue nations to continue bad behaivor
and thats in less then 90 days.
-
Here's where the change is:
Obama doesn't kill Iraqis with a trumped up invasion
Obama doesn't torture people
Obama doesn't subvert Congress
Obama doesn't alienate the rest of the world
...there's more but I'm sure you can get the drift.
So you are more worried about iraqis getting water poured over their head than our country being sped along to debt slavery and amensty for 15 million illegals who will go on welfare???
-
This is a mentality I don't understand.
-
This is a mentality I don't understand.
I still have not seen anything compelling as far as torture goes that show we did anything close to what Saddam did or what they do now over there.
This is another garbage liberal pet issue that most people laugh at.
-
We made some of them feel bad...as in Abu Garib...and we water boarded a few guys who gave us actionable intel. Now the libs wackjobs will throw around random and un verifiable numbers..hundreds..thous ands etc..but nobody here knows. If u run the traps on all these numbers u never get to a real report...or the report speaks in generalities. Then sometimes the report is BS..or the source biased. I would never allow any of my soldiers to randomly beat or kill anybody for any reason. Not because I care about the dude, I don't want my guys getting in trouble. I would never aloow them to rape or hurt a child, despite what shitbags like SAMSON, say. I have delivered shoes and school supplies to orphanges...helped in a well negociation. SAMSON and his kind read bs on the net that appeals to them and then go from there. I have traced numerous rants of his about the war to anti-war website propaganda. He thinks he has a clue. ::)
-
This is from a democrat senator and newspaper that supported Obama
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-czars5-2009mar05,0,1528130.story
President Obama's czar system concerns some
He has 'super aides' for healthcare, the economy, energy and urban issues, with more to come -- prompting some lawmakers and groups to worry that he may be concentrating power and bypassing Congress.
But some lawmakers and outside experts fear that Obama is setting up a system that is not subject to congressional oversight and creates the potential for conflict among his many advisors.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example.
"They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege," Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions. At times, he said, one outcome has been to "inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."
"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd said.
By the way Bush didn't isolate the rest of the world.
There were many governments that were on side with him for many issues.
There was the coalition of the willing in Iraq
there were governments in Africa and South America, that supported him on Aids funding and on trade.
There was the Israel.
Canada on Free trade.
Just to name a few.
Obama isn't ending torture
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12041
Conclusion
The loopholes in President Obama’s executive order on torture may permit cruel abuses of prisoners to continue, using a legal parlor trick. Labeling detainees the product of counterterrorism operations rather than of armed conflict, or holding detainees in detention facilities operated by entities other than the CIA, may allow government agents and private contractors conforming to the letter of the president’s order to continue practices most would consider torture. The president should close these loopholes or explain to Americans why he won’t.
James Hill is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, and a clinical assistant professor of radiology at the University of Southern California School of Medicine. The views expressed are solely his own.
-
Until Decker witnesses Obama use a car battery to torture one of his pre teen female relatives while wiretapping a Supreme Court justice and chanting "Kill Whitey" at a Reverend Wright rally, Obama can absolutely do no wrong under any circumstances. Until those things happen- all simultaneously, its Bush's fault for... anything.
-
Until Decker witnesses Obama use a car battery to torture one of his pre teen female relatives while wiretapping a Supreme Court justice and chanting "Kill Whitey" at a Reverend Wright rally, Obama can absolutely do no wrong under any circumstances. Until those things happen- all simultaneously, its Bush's fault for... anything.
the problem is, all the douchebag rovians who spent the last 8 years blaming Clinton for 9/11.
Bush was warned and didn't act. it's that simple. it doesn't matter if it was planned on reagan's watch - it was going to happen and for some reason, but didn't stop it.
can't blame clinton for that one. but ppl here did, in every debate here, for the last 8 years. So it's only natural to blame bush for things, for the next 7 years.
-
the problem is, all the douchebag rovians who spent the last 8 years blaming Clinton for 9/11.
Bush was warned and didn't act. it's that simple. it doesn't matter if it was planned on reagan's watch - it was going to happen and for some reason, but didn't stop it.
can't blame clinton for that one. but ppl here did, in every debate here, for the last 8 years. So it's only natural to blame bush for things, for the next 7 years.
again dumb ass dont you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
-
I still have not seen anything compelling as far as torture goes that show we did anything close to what Saddam did or what they do now over there.
This is another garbage liberal pet issue that most people laugh at.
Well over 100 detainees have died in US custody. The CIA destroyed 100s of hours of interrogation video that was under subpoena.
Nothing to see here according to you.
Who gives a shit what Saddam did? Do you measure your business ethics by what Ivan Boesky did, your marital ethics by OJ etc.?
-
Please post the actual numbers and circumstances of these deaths....
-
This is from a democrat senator and newspaper that supported Obama
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-czars5-2009mar05,0,1528130.story
President Obama's czar system concerns some
He has 'super aides' for healthcare, the economy, energy and urban issues, with more to come -- prompting some lawmakers and groups to worry that he may be concentrating power and bypassing Congress.
But some lawmakers and outside experts fear that Obama is setting up a system that is not subject to congressional oversight and creates the potential for conflict among his many advisors.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example.
"They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege," Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions. At times, he said, one outcome has been to "inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."
"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd said.
Obama's reintroducing the FOIA as operative again. He's actually consulting with Congress and the American people. This matter is nothing. I wish Byrd would have done something when there truly was a constitutional crisis in this country - illegal war, torture, spying etc.
By the way Bush didn't isolate the rest of the world.
There were many governments that were on side with him for many issues.
There was the coalition of the willing in Iraq
there were governments in Africa and South America, that supported him on Aids funding and on trade.
There was the Israel.
Canada on Free trade.
Just to name a few.
The Coalition of the bought and paid for. half of those countries didn't even send a soldier. They just wanted a piece of Iraq after the US carved it up. Bingo! Consensus.
You can't have a coalition when 98% of the troops and resources come from one country.
Aids funding was good. Doing one decent thing is not enough though.
Israel is a de facto 51st state of the USA. Nothing accomplished there.
Canada did not join the 'coalition of the willing'.
Outside of the aids campaign, Bush did nothing for the US's reputation and standing in the world.
Obama isn't ending torture
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12041
Conclusion
The loopholes in President Obama’s executive order on torture may permit cruel abuses of prisoners to continue, using a legal parlor trick. Labeling detainees the product of counterterrorism operations rather than of armed conflict, or holding detainees in detention facilities operated by entities other than the CIA, may allow government agents and private contractors conforming to the letter of the president’s order to continue practices most would consider torture. The president should close these loopholes or explain to Americans why he won’t.
James Hill is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, and a clinical assistant professor of radiology at the University of Southern California School of Medicine. The views expressed are solely his own.
Yes he is ending torture.
That article you list is crap. Where was this James HIll when the US was actively torturing people? Now he perceives loopholes that don't exist in the executive order ending torture.
Hill's analysis is skewed and filled with errors. His protest about the chicanery of labeling of detainees does not exist in this: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13440.htm The whole purpose of the order is undo the excesses of torture wrought by Bush and ok'd by the Military Commissions Act. By federal law the US does not torture b/c it's illegal. Where isn't it illegal? Under the torture permitted by the MCA for detainees. His second loophole is as stupid as his first. Of course the CIA's torture houses and methods are the target of this order...they were the heart of the controversy. This Hill guy is not the brightest bulb. His 3rd loophole is just as dumb as the first two: torture might still happen....no shit, but at least it would be illegal under federal law and international law. The fourth loophole is a joke as well: Abuses not labeled “torture” may continue--Federal law and International law make torture illegal, period. This order ropes in the CIA that Bush unleashed.
Another crapola hitpiece on Obama just b/c he brings a little decency and hope to the country.
-
Please post the actual numbers and circumstances of these deaths....
Why?
We used to have hundreds of hours of video of the 'interrogations' until the CIA destroyed them.
-
U don't have hundreds of hours so if ur saying "we" killed hundreds I'd like to see ur proof. In other news Obama said he has killed and eaten hundreds of retarded children......U'd let that stand without proof? Come on Decker..."hundreds". It might be ok for the Congressional Black Cacus to overlook gross violations of Human rights but even we have'nt killed over 100 detainee's.
-
U don't have hundreds of hours so if ur saying "we" killed hundreds I'd like to see ur proof. In other news Obama said he has killed and eaten hundreds of retarded children......U'd let that stand without proof? Come on Decker..."hundreds". It might be ok for the Congressional Black Cacus to overlook gross violations of Human rights but even we have'nt killed over 100 detainee's.
Again, why? You supported the Iraq invasion which killed thousands initially. You had no problem with those deaths of people that did nothing to you and weren't terrorists.
And in this case, it's arguably worse b/c we have alleged terrorists, whom you hate, that are dying in US custody from torture that you support. Again, what do you care how many die from torture?
What difference does the number of dead make to you? I really want to know.
I have the numbers/citations you want, I just want to find out why you want to know.
-
Well first off I didn't just support it...i was part of it. I want to see where we killed hundreds of people in our custody.
-
Well first off I didn't just support it...i was part of it. I want to see where we killed hundreds of people in our custody.
I said, 'over a hundred'. No one knows the exact number b/c of gov. secrecy and destruction of evidence.
Report: 108 Died In U.S. Custody (2005)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/terror/main680658.shtml
Substantiated and Unsubstantiated Homicides of Detainees
"Substantiated" criminal homicide by Armed Forces Criminal Investigation
"Unsubstantiated" due to unrecognized homicidal cause of death (false natural deaths)"
Homicide by torture method (eg, asphyxia that was not recognized as cause of death;
Homicide by heart attack; and
Homicide by medical neglect.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/507284_3
I found a lot more deaths by asphyxiation autopsies as well.
-
It includes deaths attributed to natural causes....ok Decker...well ur right 108 out of 65k...not bad.
-
It includes deaths attributed to natural causes....ok Decker...well ur right 108 out of 65k...not bad.
The torture continued for several years and your conclusion, in light of the facts and circumstances, is sick.
-
The torture continued for several years and your conclusion, in light of the facts and circumstances, is sick.
Again, who cares about this considering we treat our marine recruits worse in boot camp???
-
Several commentators on the middle east and members of both our military and the international intelligence community have said repeatedly that the scum in Guantanamo live in better conditions, are better fed and have better medical treatment than anything they would ever receive in their wildest dreams from the scum holes they were captured from. I guess being forced to shave your beard and listening to loud music is torture when you come from a place where bathing is against the will of god.
-
Several commentators on the middle east and members of both our military and the international intelligence community have said repeatedly that the scum in Guantanamo live in better conditions, are better fed and have better medical treatment than anything they would ever receive in their wildest dreams from the scum holes they were captured from. I guess being forced to shave your beard and listening to loud music is torture when you come from a place where bathing is against the will of god.
Yeah. I've posted the stories about how we treat them like hotel guests a number of times. It's ridiculous.
-
Yeah. I've posted the stories about how we treat them like hotel guests a number of times. It's ridiculous.
Even the Miss Universe thought Gitmo was a day camp.
http://www.kbtx.com/national/headlines/42263102.html
Like how the leftist in the media pulled that one down.
BTW Decker, I also never said Canada was part f the coalition of the willing, I was talking about free trade.
If you must know though there were many Canadians that served in Iraq and our current chief of defense helped plan the Iraq invasion. Which is more than some of the coalition of he willing did. Plus we took over Kandahar to free up those US troops to go to Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.J._Natynczyk
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/monitorissues/2008/09/monitorissue1992/?pa=DDC3F905
What “specific achievements” in Natynczyk’s illustrious career warranted this prestigious “cross”? The government’s statement was clear. Natynczyk was being recognized "for his outstanding leadership and professionalism while deployed as Deputy Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps during Operation Iraqi Freedom... From January 2004 to January 2005, Major General Natynczyk led the Corps' 10 separate brigades, consisting of more than 35,000 soldiers stationed throughout the Iraq Theater of Operations. He also oversaw planning and execution of all Corps level combat support and combat service support operations.
"His pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations resulted in a tremendous contribution by the Multi-National Corps to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and has brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada."
http://www.articlearchives.com/international-relations/national-security-foreign/1877273-1.html
-
Even the Miss Universe thought Gitmo was a day camp.
http://www.kbtx.com/national/headlines/42263102.html
Like how the leftist in the media pulled that one down.
lol. . . . Torture American style. From the link:
Miss Universe: Gitmo An “Interesting” Place
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (April 01, 2009)-Reigning Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza, 22, described a recent tour of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as "a loooot of fun" and called the prison a "relaxing, calm, beautiful place," Reuters reported Tuesday.
Medoza and reigning Miss USA Crystle Stewart, 27, had a firsthand look at the facility during a USO-organized tour to entertain American military personnel at the prison.
Following her visit, Mendoza blogged on the pageant’s Website calling the prison a “relaxing, calm, beautiful place.”
"It was a loooot of fun!" Mendoza wrote of her time at the camp, a prison surrounded by razor wire and landmines.
The two also toured the high-security perimeter fence and visited the "unbelievable" beach, Reuters reported Tuesday.
Click here for the full Reuters report.
The Miss Universe Organization was quick to remove Mendoza’s blog post following the report.
Paula M. Shugart, president of the pageant organization, defended Mendoza’s comments, saying they were “in reference to the hospitality she received while meeting the members of the U.S. military and their families who are stationed in Guantanamo.”
Click here for Shugart’s full statement on the posted blog.
Detention center spokesman Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brook DeWalt says he doesn't know if any prisoners were "out and about" when the two women were inside the prison camp from March 20-25.
President Obama set a one-year deadline, shortly after he took office, to shut the prison that has been the focus of investigation following accusations of torture and prisoner abuse.
-
In Deckers opinion, if the prisoners aren't given their choice of babaganoush or humus with every meal its torture.
Kind of reminds me of those brain dead spoiled brats that decided to occupy the NYU campus for an aimless protest two months back-- then asked for a vegan chef to come in and prepare food for the students as one of their demands lolollol
-
Again, who cares about this considering we treat our marine recruits worse in boot camp???
This is just a foolish statement of yours.
-
Several commentators on the middle east and members of both our military and the international intelligence community have said repeatedly that the scum in Guantanamo live in better conditions, are better fed and have better medical treatment than anything they would ever receive in their wildest dreams from the scum holes they were captured from. I guess being forced to shave your beard and listening to loud music is torture when you come from a place where bathing is against the will of god.
You'll believe anything it seems. How do you marry the notion of murdered, killed, dead untried detainees who were in our custody to your assertion of a desired country club status?
One would seem to be at odds with the other.
-
lol. . . . Torture American style. From the link:
Miss Universe: Gitmo An “Interesting” Place
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (April 01, 2009)-Reigning Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza, 22, described a recent tour of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as "a loooot of fun" and called the prison a "relaxing, calm, beautiful place," Reuters reported Tuesday.
Medoza and reigning Miss USA Crystle Stewart, 27, had a firsthand look at the facility during a USO-organized tour to entertain American military personnel at the prison.
Following her visit, Mendoza blogged on the pageant’s Website calling the prison a “relaxing, calm, beautiful place.”
"It was a loooot of fun!" Mendoza wrote of her time at the camp, a prison surrounded by razor wire and landmines.
The two also toured the high-security perimeter fence and visited the "unbelievable" beach, Reuters reported Tuesday.
Click here for the full Reuters report.
The Miss Universe Organization was quick to remove Mendoza’s blog post following the report.
Paula M. Shugart, president of the pageant organization, defended Mendoza’s comments, saying they were “in reference to the hospitality she received while meeting the members of the U.S. military and their families who are stationed in Guantanamo.”
Click here for Shugart’s full statement on the posted blog.
Detention center spokesman Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brook DeWalt says he doesn't know if any prisoners were "out and about" when the two women were inside the prison camp from March 20-25.
President Obama set a one-year deadline, shortly after he took office, to shut the prison that has been the focus of investigation following accusations of torture and prisoner abuse.
You admire mass murderers like Bush and Cheney and Powell so it's no surprise you can joke around with torture where only hundred or so of those ragheads have died.
That's really funny stuff. Especially when those stupid ragheads are living in the lap of luxury in US custody. Why they even put weight on and have access to the best medical care this side of the fertile crescent. Torture? Why we're just washing their dirty faces with a little water.
How they manage to die in those circumstances, and with such ingratitude, is beyond me as well. Serves them right anyways--Islam is a violent religion. They deserved what they got.
-
In Deckers opinion, if the prisoners aren't given their choice of babaganoush or humus with every meal its torture.
Kind of reminds me of those brain dead spoiled brats that decided to occupy the NYU campus for an aimless protest two months back-- then asked for a vegan chef to come in and prepare food for the students as one of their demands lolollol
Hahahaha. Those stupid liberal NYU students.
They should die like the raghead detainees.
-
You admire mass murderers like Bush and Cheney and Powell so it's no surprise you can joke around with torture where only hundred or so of those ragheads have died.
That's really funny stuff. Especially when those stupid ragheads are living in the lap of luxury in US custody. Why they even put weight on and have access to the best medical care this side of the fertile crescent. Torture? Why we're just washing their dirty faces with a little water.
How they manage to die in those circumstances, and with such ingratitude, is beyond me as well. Serves them right anyways--Islam is a violent religion. They deserved what they got.
Bush, Cheney, and Powell are great Americans. Especially Colin Powell. Too bad he isn't president.
But who is joking? What's a joke is how we feed detainees enormous amounts of specially prepared food. It's almost like the darn Four Seasons. But turn up the AC and take away a blanket and you got people crying about torture. Don't engage in terrorist activities or the big bad U.S. will lock you up on an island and feed you cheeseburgers till you're literally obese.
Someone needs to teach our people how to engage in real torture. Maybe our people should watch clips of those animals beheading noncombatants.
We really suck at the whole torture thing.
-
Bush, Cheney, and Powell are great Americans. Especially Colin Powell. Too bad he isn't president.
Powell, is a great human... fortunately he's an American... Bush and Cheney great anythings? You are smoking crack.
Bush is just proof that drunken frat boy idiot can become President if your family has a prestigious name and enough money.
Cheney is an old guy who got away with shooting someone in the face, attempting to cover it, and didn't get into any trouble because he was Vice President...
-
Especially Colin Powell. Too bad he isn't president.
But who is joking? What's a joke is how we feed detainees enormous amounts of specially prepared food. It's almost like the darn Four Seasons. But turn up the AC and take away a blanket and you got people crying about torture. Don't engage in terrorist activities or the big bad U.S. will lock you up on an island and feed you cheeseburgers till you're literally obese.
Someone needs to teach our people how to engage in real torture. Maybe our people should watch clips of those animals beheading noncombatants.
We really suck at the whole torture thing.
Bush, Cheney, and Powell are great Americans.
Bush, Cheney, and Powell are great Americans.
Bush, Cheney, and Powell are great Americans.
Bush, Cheney, and Powell are great Americans.
You're right Beach Bum. Bush, Cheney, and Powell are great Americans.
You are an independent. Bush, Cheney, and Powell are great Americans.
Why you even voted for Bill Clinton.Bush, Cheney, and Powell are great Americans.
As for the ragheads and their detention: It's almost like the darn Four Seasons.
....
Do they murder their clientele? That would be bad business. I guess hooking up the patrons's nuts to car batteries is more titillating.
I guess my last question for you is do you, hate ragheads that much or do you love being a republican more?
Something has to explain your obvious disdain for their treatment.
-
Powell, is a great human... fortunately he's an American... Bush and Cheney great anythings? You are smoking crack.
Bush is just proof that drunken frat boy idiot can become President if your family has a prestigious name and enough money.
Cheney is an old #### who got away with shooting someone in the face, attempting to cover it, and didn't get into any trouble because he was Vice President...
Powell is shit. It's b/c of his great reputation that his UN bullshit fest sold the public on the idea of invading Iraq.
He has much to answer for.
-
Powell is shit. It's b/c of his great reputation that his UN bullshit fest sold the public on the idea of invading Iraq.
He has much to answer for.
Powell simply did what his CIC told him to do... I am upset, but not THAT much.
I understand why he did it.
-
Hahahaha. Those stupid liberal NYU students.
They should die like the raghead detainees.
Bump for truth. And way to change the subject.
Decker for a smart guy you really are indoctrinated to such an obscenely close minded level that I think its permanetly ingrained in your makeup to advocate as many useless causes as possible as long as they are aimed at making America look bad or making America look like its responsible for all the ills of the world. My mother was a 60's radical who went to Columbia U and was tear gassed for being an anti war protester. She actually stood for something that was real. She is still a democrat to this day. You know what she thinks of these fucking douchebags at NYU and the terrorist detainees? She thinks these rich, spoiled brat half wits with too much time on their hands prancing around with their ipods and lattes fighting for the rights of people who would kill their own families just to kill one of them should do exactly that; They should go to one of these repressive third world shitholes and stand united with these poor innocent souls that America "forced into terrorism" and see how fast they end up in body bags.
You say we'll believe anything? Dude the same exact thing can be said for you. Your postings are so predictable that its an honest shock when you write something that isn't intended to berate America, the Bush administration, capitalism or anything else that has been spood fed to you via a Michael Mooresque blog or from an "Urban Perspective/ Social Justice" course I'm sure you took while being educated at an American University.
Here's another useless cause for you to support: Islam- "The religion of peace, or at least it used to be, until George W. Bush took office." -- Maybe you can get Nancy Pelosi to put on a Burka and hold a few fund raisers in Tehran?
-
Bump for truth. And way to change the subject.
Decker for a smart guy you really are indoctrinated to such an obscenely close minded level that I think its permanetly ingrained in your makeup to advocate as many useless causes as possible as long as they are aimed at making America look bad or making America look like its responsible for all the ills of the world. My mother was a 60's radical who went to Columbia U and was tear gassed for being an anti war protester. She actually stood for something that was real. She is still a democrat to this day. You know what she thinks of these fucking douchebags at NYU and the terrorist detainees? She thinks these rich, spoiled brat half wits with too much time on their hands prancing around with their ipods and lattes fighting for the rights of people who would kill their own families just to kill one of them should do exactly that; They should go to one of these repressive third world shitholes and stand united with these poor innocent souls that America "forced into terrorism" and see how fast they end up in body bags.
You say we'll believe anything? Dude the same exact thing can be said for you. Your postings are so predictable that its an honest shock when you write something that isn't intended to berate America, the Bush administration, capitalism or anything else that has been spood fed to you via a Michael Mooresque blog or from an "Urban Perspective/ Social Justice" course I'm sure you took while being educated at an American University.
Here's another useless cause for you to support: Islam- "The religion of peace, or at least it used to be, until George W. Bush took office." -- Maybe you can get Nancy Pelosi to put on a Burka and hold a few fund raisers in Tehran?
Now this is a post !
-
Bump for truth. And way to change the subject.
Decker for a smart guy you really are indoctrinated to such an obscenely close minded level that I think its permanetly ingrained in your makeup to advocate as many useless causes as possible as long as they are aimed at making America look bad or making America look like its responsible for all the ills of the world. My mother was a 60's radical who went to Columbia U and was tear gassed for being an anti war protester. She actually stood for something that was real. She is still a democrat to this day. You know what she thinks of these fucking douchebags at NYU and the terrorist detainees? She thinks these rich, spoiled brat half wits with too much time on their hands prancing around with their ipods and lattes fighting for the rights of people who would kill their own families just to kill one of them should do exactly that; They should go to one of these repressive third world shitholes and stand united with these poor innocent souls that America "forced into terrorism" and see how fast they end up in body bags.
You say we'll believe anything? Dude the same exact thing can be said for you. Your postings are so predictable that its an honest shock when you write something that isn't intended to berate America, the Bush administration, capitalism or anything else that has been spood fed to you via a Michael Mooresque blog or from an "Urban Perspective/ Social Justice" course I'm sure you took while being educated at an American University.
Here's another useless cause for you to support: Islam- "The religion of peace, or at least it used to be, until George W. Bush took office." -- Maybe you can get Nancy Pelosi to put on a Burka and hold a few fund raisers in Tehran?
You start your deconstruction of my character by referencing tried and true liberal bogeymen "with their ipods and lattes fighting for the rights of people who would kill their own families just to kill one of them should do exactly that" and you continue in that vein.
Wow, the world is sure an easy place for you - it's not that the US has a history predicated on allegiance to the law where every man deserves his day in court, it's that my latte's are rich and creamy and my Ipod is working overtime (I don't even know what an Ipod does nor do I drink lattes but I'll play).
It's not that our country despises torture to such a degree that it's written into our constitution - it's b/c I want to feel good about myself helping out people who are poor yet want to kill me.
My postings are predictable? The law, human life, the golden rule--simple concepts that have stood the test of time. Do not confuse that with gun toting, libertarian torture loving anti-tax small government shit-for-brains he-men who are truly so pathetically macho that their BS barely conceals their homo-erotic insecurities. Jesus Christ, talk about predictable....torture, no problem, killing, that's what real men do, I ain't soft on terror.
I see you wound down your post with a democrat joke. hahaha. Those stupid democrats. They are soft. We have to be hard. Hard and veiny.
Real men can torture anyone to death b/c our very survival depends on that.
See what I mean? You guys will believe anything....either out of fear or out of insecurity...which is a type of fear. You guys are afraid.
-
You're right Beach Bum.
You are an independent.
Why you even voted for Bill Clinton.
As for the ragheads and their detention: ....
Do they murder their clientele? That would be bad business. I guess hooking up the patrons's nuts to car batteries is more titillating.
I guess my last question for you is do you, hate ragheads that much or do you love being a republican more?
Something has to explain your obvious disdain for their treatment.
Hahaha. Meltdown. Was it something I said? lol . . . . :)
I've stayed at the Four Seasons and I had to pay for my specially prepared meals. I'll be staying at a hotel this week and I doubt I'll eat better than those fatties at Hotel Guantanamo.
I have no answer for your last straw man question.
-
Hahaha. Meltdown. Was it something I said? lol . . . . :)
I've stayed at the Four Seasons and I had to pay for my specially prepared meals. I'll be staying at a hotel this week and I doubt I'll eat better than those fatties at Hotel Guantanamo.
I have no answer for your last straw man question.
Specially prepared meals? That wouldn't be quiche would it?
We don't want strawman arguments (no offense to Strawman) so let's restate what I've been claiming all along:
Our country's history and traditions do not include torture.
The now banned 'enhanced interrogation' techniques are torture under federal and international law. And now the CIA is no longer excepted from that ban.
Beach Bum (that's you) sees no problem with torture and any raghead dying in US custody.
Now whom is the conservative and whom is the radical?
Decker: honors the anti-torture history of the USA
Beach Bum: Torture is the way to go!
Now does this question make sense?: Beach Bum do you, hate ragheads that much that you eschew conservative principals or do you love being a republican more than our US conservative principals?
Is it hatred of a people or party allegiance that drives you?
-
Specially prepared meals? That wouldn't be quiche would it?
We don't want strawman arguments (no offense to Strawman) so let's restate what I've been claiming all along:
Our country's history and traditions do not include torture.
The now banned 'enhanced interrogation' techniques are torture under federal and international law. And now the CIA is no longer excepted from that ban.
Beach Bum (that's you) sees no problem with torture and any raghead dying in US custody.
Now whom is the conservative and whom is the radical?
Decker: honors the anti-torture history of the USA
Beach Bum: Torture is the way to go!
Now does this question make sense?: Beach Bum do you, hate ragheads that much that you eschew conservative principals or do you love being a republican more than our US conservative principals?
Is it hatred of a people or party allegiance that drives you?
More nonsense.
No one is saying that use torture for fun, but only as a last resort if we need vital info to stop attacks on the citizens or soldiers.
Do you think the CIA tortured for fun or because they thought it would be an effective way to get info?
-
More nonsense.
No one is saying that use torture for fun, but only as a last resort if we need vital info to stop attacks on the citizens or soldiers.
Do you think the CIA tortured for fun or because they thought it would be an effective way to get info?
You'd have to answer that for me.
Since torture doesn't work, you'd have to explain the motive?
Remember, 24 is a TV show. It's not real. It's pretend.
-
You'd have to answer that for me.
Since torture doesn't work, you'd have to explain the motive?
Remember, 24 is a TV show. It's not real. It's pretend.
Nonsense, I some cases torture does work. And I think that it should only be used as a last resort when everything else has failed that you claim does work.
And no, I do not think the CIA or FBI or military people torture for fun when interrogating suspects.
-
Nonsense, I some cases torture does work. And I think that it should only be used as a last resort when everything else has failed that you claim does work.
And no, I do not think the CIA or FBI or military people torture for fun when interrogating suspects.
Torture is illegal.
Are you suggesting that our gov. officials break the law?
Torture does not work.
Why use something that doesn't work?
Torture is not in the history/traditions of the US.
Are you a radical?
-
You start your deconstruction of my character by referencing tried and true liberal bogeymen "with their ipods and lattes fighting for the rights of people who would kill their own families just to kill one of them should do exactly that" and you continue in that vein.
Wow, the world is sure an easy place for you - it's not that the US has a history predicated on allegiance to the law where every man deserves his day in court, it's that my latte's are rich and creamy and my Ipod is working overtime (I don't even know what an Ipod does nor do I drink lattes but I'll play).
It's not that our country despises torture to such a degree that it's written into our constitution - it's b/c I want to feel good about myself helping out people who are poor yet want to kill me.
My postings are predictable? The law, human life, the golden rule--simple concepts that have stood the test of time. Do not confuse that with gun toting, libertarian torture loving anti-tax small government shit-for-brains he-men who are truly so pathetically macho that their BS barely conceals their homo-erotic insecurities. Jesus Christ, talk about predictable....torture, no problem, killing, that's what real men do, I ain't soft on terror.
I see you wound down your post with a democrat joke. hahaha. Those stupid democrats. They are soft. We have to be hard. Hard and veiny.
Real men can torture anyone to death b/c our very survival depends on that.
See what I mean? You guys will believe anything....either out of fear or out of insecurity...which is a type of fear. You guys are afraid.
Unfortunately you missed the point of my posting. I brought up the braindead NYU protesters to prove a point that the "best and brightest" this country has to offer has become a sorry imitation of those that came before them. I never lumped you in with those lame and cowardly nitwits. All courage and no consequences because mommy and daddy pay 30k a semester for me to go to a University in the Village where I can pretend to be a radical for a few minutes. I can request a bunch of aimless, useless and laughable demands which will inevitably be denied by the equally pathetic school administrators. I wont spend 10 seconds in a city jail, or even be suspended from school. I'll get my face on New York One News, I'll burn a few trash cans, and then I'll hang out in my spacious air conditioned dorm with my brothers and sisters at arms and smoke some grass while trading "war stories" about how we stood up to the big bad system predicated by the oppressive American imperialists that are at the whim of the horrible "multinational corporations."
You speak of torture as if it has never been part of our countries history. ::) Are you naive or joking? Officially all civilized countries are against "torture", just like all civilized countries have laws against "murder". And what is your definition of torture? Loud music? Shaving? Sense deprivation? Are you fucking kidding me? How else are we supposed to get information from terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield? Do you have a suggestion?
Should we offer all of them asylum? Should we ask them nicely? Should we give them money and hope they give us the right information?
It's not that our country despises torture to such a degree that it's written into our constitution - it's b/c I want to feel good about myself helping out people who are poor yet want to kill me.
My postings are predictable? The law, human life, the golden rule--simple concepts that have stood the test of time.
While your holier than thou act is very noble it's unrealistic and quite frankly scary. The terrorists dont scare me. Your worldview does. This country and this world doesn't exist in a book or in a lecture you heard in college- The golden rule doesn't extend beyond a philosophical tenet found in practically every religion and as something our parents and teachers tell us when we are young, to a viable way to defend the security of this country and its interests against a bunch of blood thirsty madmen. Reality demands pragmatism.
I'm not "being hard" or macho, your just being soft. You would rather let a known terrorist walk free and blow up a shopping mall than waterboard him. You would rather sit on your hands and do nothing instead of allowing your precious hands and pompous "values" to be tainted, no matter what the cost.
Forget about prolonging this debate-- I just have two questions; What do you think should be done to extract information from the detainees, and how would you handle our national security concerns?
-
Unfortunately you missed the point of my posting. I brought up the braindead NYU protesters to prove a point that the "best and brightest" this country has to offer has become a sorry imitation of those that came before them. I never lumped you in with those lame and cowardly nitwits. All courage and no consequences because mommy and daddy pay 30k a semester for me to go to a University in the Village where I can pretend to be a radical for a few minutes. I can request a bunch of aimless, useless and laughable demands which will inevitably be denied by the equally pathetic school administrators. I wont spend 10 seconds in a city jail, or even be suspended from school. I'll get my face on New York One News, I'll burn a few trash cans, and then I'll hang out in my spacious air conditioned dorm with my brothers and sisters at arms and smoke some grass while trading "war stories" about how we stood up to the big bad system predicated by the oppressive American imperialists that are at the whim of the horrible "multinational corporations."
You speak of torture as if it has never been part of our countries history. ::) Are you naive or joking? Officially all civilized countries are against "torture", just like all civilized countries have laws against "murder". And what is your definition of torture? Loud music? Shaving? Sense deprivation? Are you fucking kidding me? How else are we supposed to get information from terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield? Do you have a suggestion?
Should we offer all of them asylum? Should we ask them nicely? Should we give them money and hope they give us the right information?
It's not that our country despises torture to such a degree that it's written into our constitution - it's b/c I want to feel good about myself helping out people who are poor yet want to kill me.
My postings are predictable? The law, human life, the golden rule--simple concepts that have stood the test of time.
While your holier than thou act is very noble it's unrealistic and quite frankly scary. The terrorists dont scare me. Your worldview does. This country and this world doesn't exist in a book or in a lecture you heard in college- The golden rule doesn't extend beyond a philosophical tenet found in practically every religion and as something our parents and teachers tell us when we are young, to a viable way to defend the security of this country and its interests against a bunch of blood thirsty madmen. Reality demands pragmatism.
I'm not "being hard" or macho, your just being soft. You would rather let a known terrorist walk free and blow up a shopping mall than waterboard him. You would rather sit on your hands and do nothing instead of allowing your precious hands and pompous "values" to be tainted, no matter what the cost.
Forget about prolonging this debate-- I just have two questions; What do you think should be done to extract information from the detainees, and how would you handle our national security concerns?
Most IVY Leaguers are far far from the best and brightest in this country. Of course they attract very talented people by their reputation, but thats it.
Most have a very limited ability to do well on standardized tests and little else.
-
Unfortunately you missed the point of my posting. I brought up the braindead NYU protesters to prove a point that the "best and brightest" this country has to offer has become a sorry imitation of those that came before them. I never lumped you in with those lame and cowardly nitwits. All courage and no consequences because mommy and daddy pay 30k a semester for me to go to a University in the Village where I can pretend to be a radical for a few minutes. I can request a bunch of aimless, useless and laughable demands which will inevitably be denied by the equally pathetic school administrators. I wont spend 10 seconds in a city jail, or even be suspended from school. I'll get my face on New York One News, I'll burn a few trash cans, and then I'll hang out in my spacious air conditioned dorm with my brothers and sisters at arms and smoke some grass while trading "war stories" about how we stood up to the big bad system predicated by the oppressive American imperialists that are at the whim of the horrible "multinational corporations."
If we are discussing the real issue of torture why bring this crap up at all? I mean who cares what goes on in the ivory towers of universities if the activity is not germane to the issue at hand.
You speak of torture as if it has never been part of our countries history. ::) Are you naive or joking? Officially all civilized countries are against "torture", just like all civilized countries have laws against "murder". And what is your definition of torture? Loud music? Shaving? Sense deprivation? Are you fucking kidding me? How else are we supposed to get information from terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield? Do you have a suggestion?
Torture doesn't work. Torture is against the law. Outside of Bush, I'm sure you can point to many laws that codify the propriety of torture. You seem very sure of yourself.
Should we offer all of them asylum? Should we ask them nicely? Should we give them money and hope they give us the right information?
We could ask the same of any suspect detained for any crime in the US.
Why do you think torture is going to make a difference. Torture will yield exactly what the torturer wants - information. The truth of that information is dubious at best b/c a torture victim will say anything to stop the torture.
Unless of course you watch 24 the tv show. Then it all makes perfect sense.
It's not that our country despises torture to such a degree that it's written into our constitution - it's b/c I want to feel good about myself helping out people who are poor yet want to kill me.
My postings are predictable? The law, human life, the golden rule--simple concepts that have stood the test of time.
While your holier than thou act is very noble it's unrealistic and quite frankly scary. The terrorists dont scare me. Your worldview does. This country and this world doesn't exist in a book or in a lecture you heard in college- The golden rule doesn't extend beyond a philosophical tenet found in practically every religion and as something our parents and teachers tell us when we are young, to a viable way to defend the security of this country and its interests against a bunch of blood thirsty madmen. Reality demands pragmatism.
The golden rule is a feature of all major religions.
Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html
Reality does not depend on pragmatism. Survival depends on pragmatism to a great degree (that's the problem with Christianity). Your reality is that all detainees are madmen who want to kill us. Is that true?
You don't know unless you caught them in the act. Why a trial? Trials work. They uncover facts, patterns...in other words, they contribute to knoweldge and hopefully some understanding.
Trials establish if you have the right guy in custody.
But you claim that's nonsense and that the torture should commense.
Answer me this: Do you see how that perspective puts you in line with the Nazis and terrorists themselves?
I'm not "being hard" or macho, your just being soft. You would rather let a known terrorist walk free and blow up a shopping mall than waterboard him. You would rather sit on your hands and do nothing instead of allowing your precious hands and pompous "values" to be tainted, no matter what the cost.
Forget about prolonging this debate-- I just have two questions; ...
I am afraid. But I don't let the fear win me over.
You let the fear win when you shitcan 100s of years of proven jurisprudential wisdom just b/c 19 arabs with boxcutters attacked us and still call us names.
I got news for you, we are our values. Which is why my Nazi question above is relevant.
Nobody has made the claim to do nothing. How do I know? You want to torture detainees and I want a trial. Both things are something.
What do you think should be done to extract information from the detainees, and how would you handle our national security concerns?
1. Questioning and trials.
Under your method of torture first, you'll get a story. It won't be true, but you'll get your story. Vee have Vays of making you talk....Just what the fuck if that guy has nothing to say, i.e., you got the wrong guy Jack?
2. This thread is not about our national security concerns other than the issue of the propriety of torturing untried detainees.
-
Good.
yeah...Thats how i feel. I dont give a shit about What Bush did...its over... we gotta move foward. Thats all i didnt like about Obamas administration before he got elected...Im like "man fuck all that retro shit."
-
yeah...Thats how i feel. I dont give a shit about What Bush did...its over... we gotta move foward. Thats all i didnt like about Obamas administration before he got elected...Im like "man fuck all that retro shit."
How you been Mal???
-
How you been Mal???
School...shit has gotten rough..end of semester...i wish i was like doogie houser...i went home to LA for a bit.. What about you. How are you doin?
-
School...shit has gotten rough..end of semester...i wish i was like doogie houser...i went home to LA for a bit.. What about you. How are you doin?
Jammin to my BDP and KRS One records at work chasin down deadbeats for $$$$.
-
Jammin to my BDP and KRS One records at work chasin down deadbeats for $$$$.
hahahaha i was listening to Return of the Boom Bap...on sat
Ok not to high jack the thread..but check it...Mt Rushmore of Rap
KRS 1
Ice Cube
Kurtis Blow
Rakim
-
hahahaha i was listening to Return of the Boom Bap...on sat
Ok not to high jack the thread..but check it...Mt Rushmore of Rap
KRS 1
Ice Cube
Kurtis Blow
Rakim
Mine:
KRS 1
Ice T
PE
Eric B. & Rakim
-
Mine:
KRS 1
Ice T
PE
Eric B. & Rakim
PE Is on my list of groups
PE
Wu-tang
NWA
Outkast
All innovators
-
Im an old school guy.
I like the basic beats, flows, and not highly produced records. The socially concious rap of the late 80's was classic stuff.
Mc Lyte, Gang Starr, Ice T., BDP,
The new garbage is horrible.
-
Im an old school guy.
I like the basic beats, flows, and not highly produced records. The socially concious rap of the late 80's was classic stuff.
Mc Lyte, Gang Starr, Ice T., BDP,
The new garbage is horrible.
All bad..."Kiss me through the phone"...WTF
-
All bad..."Kiss me through the phone"...WTF
This is one of my favorite songs EVER! The beat gets me more jacked than any ECA stack!
-
Specially prepared meals? That wouldn't be quiche would it?
We don't want strawman arguments (no offense to Strawman) so let's restate what I've been claiming all along:
Our country's history and traditions do not include torture.
The now banned 'enhanced interrogation' techniques are torture under federal and international law. And now the CIA is no longer excepted from that ban.
Beach Bum (that's you) sees no problem with torture and any raghead dying in US custody.
Now whom is the conservative and whom is the radical?
Decker: honors the anti-torture history of the USA
Beach Bum: Torture is the way to go!
Now does this question make sense?: Beach Bum do you, hate ragheads that much that you eschew conservative principals or do you love being a republican more than our US conservative principals?
Is it hatred of a people or party allegiance that drives you?
No quiche for me. I'm a "meat and potatoes" vegetarian. :D
I actually have a huge problem with the ridiculously posh treatment we have given detainees at Hotel Guantanamo. How the heck can we have obese prisoners? I'm not sure who made the decision to feed those men 4-5,000 specially prepared meals, etc., but that would never happen in my world.
And I do not care if a few of them were roughed up or waterboarded, particularly if it saved American lives. I care much more about Americans than suspected foreign terrorists.
-
This is one of my favorite songs EVER! The beat gets me more jacked than any ECA stack!
LETS GET IT ON!!! i remember that one. I was hella young but i have an older bro...IT made me dance back in the day.
-
LETS GET IT ON!!! i remember that one. I was hella young but i have an older bro...IT made me dance back in the day.
Too much $$$ made a lot of rappers forget the roots.
-
yeah...Thats how i feel. I dont give a shit about What Bush did...its over... we gotta move foward. Thats all i didnt like about Obamas administration before he got elected...Im like "man fuck all that retro shit."
Every single crime in human history has been judged after the fact - after the crime has been committed.
Under your approach, there is no criminal culpability for anything anytime anywhere. We have to move on.
Failure of justice, of the system, means that what happened once, can happen again...only it's easier the second time around b/c we have people like you throwing in the towel for accountability/understanding in the name of moving forward.
That's messed up.
-
If we are discussing the real issue of torture why bring this crap up at all? I mean who cares what goes on in the ivory towers of universities if the activity is not germane to the issue at hand.
Torture doesn't work. Torture is against the law. Outside of Bush, I'm sure you can point to many laws that codify the propriety of torture. You seem very sure of yourself.
We could ask the same of any suspect detained for any crime in the US.
Why do you think torture is going to make a difference. Torture will yield exactly what the torturer wants - information. The truth of that information is dubious at best b/c a torture victim will say anything to stop the torture.
Unless of course you watch 24 the tv show. Then it all makes perfect sense.
The golden rule is a feature of all major religions.
Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html
Reality does not depend on pragmatism. Survival depends on pragmatism to a great degree (that's the problem with Christianity). Your reality is that all detainees are madmen who want to kill us. Is that true?
You don't know unless you caught them in the act. Why a trial? Trials work. They uncover facts, patterns...in other words, they contribute to knoweldge and hopefully some understanding.
Trials establish if you have the right guy in custody.
But you claim that's nonsense and that the torture should commense.
Answer me this: Do you see how that perspective puts you in line with the Nazis and terrorists themselves?
I am afraid. But I don't let the fear win me over.
You let the fear win when you shitcan 100s of years of proven jurisprudential wisdom just b/c 19 arabs with boxcutters attacked us and still call us names.
I got news for you, we are our values. Which is why my Nazi question above is relevant.
Nobody has made the claim to do nothing. How do I know? You want to torture detainees and I want a trial. Both things are something.
1. Questioning and trials.
Under your method of torture first, you'll get a story. It won't be true, but you'll get your story. Vee have Vays of making you talk....Just what the fuck if that guy has nothing to say, i.e., you got the wrong guy Jack?
2. This thread is not about our national security concerns other than the issue of the propriety of torturing untried detainees.
I am honestly very surprised at your ignorance on this topic. You cannot treat terrorist detainees the way American criminal defendants are treated. It’s not only absurd to argue that foreign fighters captured halfway across the world with no connection to the United States should be entitled to the same rights as you or I, but it is literally impossible to conduct a “trial” or engage in fact finding that is analogous to the standards of the US constitution and American law. When the detainees are captured by soldiers and not law enforcement, the “evidence” is collected by soldiers not worrying about probable cause when exchanging fire with the enemy and any relevant witnesses are either 5 thousand miles away hiding in a cave, or are informants deeply embedded in a foreign terrorist organization, your suggestion goes from impossible to laughable. Should all the detainees get Barry Sheck to defend them also? Should we fly in American Citizens to Guantanamo for voir dire?
It is logistically impossible and completely inappropriate to conduct “trials” in the same vein as the American court system with these people. Are soldiers going to be pulled off the battle field to testify? Is the US army/ CIA/NSA going to allow discovery to a captured terrorist suspect or Taliban fighter during wartime? What about chain of custody issues for evidence that is collected? Dude your living in a fantasy world. It cannot happen and should not happen.
There has been and there continues to be an established procedure for trying the detainees. The Supreme Court provided in Boumediene v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld how and under what circumstances the detainees are to be tried.
IMO- A military trial should be conducted. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has a perfectly legitimate procedure for prosecuting non-enemy combatants. You want to talk about our countries traditions? Go look it up. Through WW2 the UCMJ was how the prosecution commenced—No independently hired lawyer, hearsay allowed, no habeas petitions, death penalty and lots of other wonderful things. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court jettisoned that—the aforementioned cases outline how detainees are tried.
Your assertion that this issue is only about torturing people and has nothing to do with national security is asinine. As I have written on numerous occasions, this is not about torture [And I wouldn’t characterize what the detainees have been subject to as torture anyway]. If this discussion was just about torture, why the fuck would the government admit the existence of the detainees to begin with? Why not just shoot them or leave them in another country or an undisclosed location and have soldiers line up to torture them? The purpose of detaining them in the first place is to keep them off the battle field and to extract information. The purpose of extracting information is to help our army and intelligence services prevent terrorist attacks and attacks on our troops before they happen. Your rhetoric about Nazi’s, while inflammatory and attention grabbing, is wholly irrelevant to this topic.
The only person afraid here is you. If the ends justify the means I think you’ll commit suicide. Imagine if history looks at Bush as someone who did what needed to be done under the circumstances, rather than as a “war criminal”. Your precious ideals will become as dead as the people who spawned them.
-
...
And I do not care if a few of them were roughed up or waterboarded, particularly if it saved American lives. I care much more about Americans than suspected foreign terrorists.
So you are a radical.
Torture is not in our country's traditions. Our very Constitution addresses it. It's outlawed by Federal Statute.
But you think torture is the way to go. That's radical.
Obama's attorney general pick calls waterboarding torture
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59760.html
-
Again, it comes down to this:
If you know a guy knows about a ticking bomb where thousands of people will die unless you get the info do:
1. Pour water over his head???
or
2. Do nothing and after thousands of people die stand high and tall that you stood for your principles???
-
I am honestly very surprised at your ignorance on this topic. You cannot treat terrorist detainees the way American criminal defendants are treated. It’s not only absurd to argue that foreign fighters captured halfway across the world with no connection to the United States should be entitled to the same rights as you or I, but it is literally impossible to conduct a “trial” or engage in fact finding that is analogous to the standards of the US constitution and American law. When the detainees are captured by soldiers and not law enforcement, the “evidence” is collected by soldiers not worrying about probable cause when exchanging fire with the enemy and any relevant witnesses are either 5 thousand miles away hiding in a cave, or are informants deeply embedded in a foreign terrorist organization, your suggestion goes from impossible to laughable. Should all the detainees get Barry Sheck to defend them also? Should we fly in American Citizens to Guantanamo for voir dire?
Bullshit. The principle of Habeas Corpus is a bedrock to any moral system of justice. Is there enough evidence to support the allegation? It is not 'literally impossible' to conduct a trial under the circumstances. I just showed that. Military trials do not have to have a jury so your voir dire comment, while funny, is not relevant.
It is logistically impossible and completely inappropriate to conduct “trials” in the same vein as the American court system with these people. Are soldiers going to be pulled off the battle field to testify? Is the US army/ CIA/NSA going to allow discovery to a captured terrorist suspect or Taliban fighter during wartime? What about chain of custody issues for evidence that is collected? Dude your living in a fantasy world. It cannot happen and should not happen.
Again, you are providing ridiculous examples which already contain the seeds of guilt. I.e., a straw argument.
What's your methodology?
Pick up anyone in a turban during military sweeps and torture them until they confess?
Obviously we're talking about some sort of evidentiary threshhold otherwise what would be the basis for picking up these detainees in the first place.
So what is it?
There has been and there continues to be an established procedure for trying the detainees. The Supreme Court provided in Boumediene v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld how and under what circumstances the detainees are to be tried.
IMO- A military trial should be conducted. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has a perfectly legitimate procedure for prosecuting non-enemy combatants. You want to talk about our countries traditions? Go look it up. Through WW2 the UCMJ was how the prosecution commenced—No independently hired lawyer, hearsay allowed, no habeas petitions, death penalty and lots of other wonderful things. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court jettisoned that—the aforementioned cases outline how detainees are tried.
Why don't you fill the rest of us in on the criteria for determinig whether a detainee is rightly held?
But this is more. It's not just basic procedure for determining the sufficiency of a charge, you are advocating torture.
Torture is illegal under national and international law.
Your assertion that this issue is only about torturing people and has nothing to do with national security is asinine. As I have written on numerous occasions, this is not about torture [And I wouldn’t characterize what the detainees have been subject to as torture anyway]. If this discussion was just about torture, why the fuck would the government admit the existence of the detainees to begin with? Why not just shoot them or leave them in another country or an undisclosed location and have soldiers line up to torture them? The purpose of detaining them in the first place is to keep them off the battle field and to extract information. The purpose of extracting information is to help our army and intelligence services prevent terrorist attacks and attacks on our troops before they happen. Your rhetoric about Nazi’s, while inflammatory and attention grabbing, is wholly irrelevant to this topic.
Torture doesn't work. It is counterproductive b/c a tortured victim will say anything to stop the torture.
It was not up to the government to keep the detainees hidden. The Red Cross, of all groups, was on to them from the beginning.
Nazis torture, communists torture, the japs tortured. You want to torture? You're in that group.
The only person afraid here is you. If the ends justify the means I think you’ll commit suicide. Imagine if history looks at Bush as someone who did what needed to be done under the circumstances, rather than as a “war criminal”. Your precious ideals will become as dead as the people who spawned them.
You let fear win. You let the arabs win when you adopt their policy of torture.
You're 'realism' is a figment of your imagination. It exists only on tv.
-
I am not going to engage you in an essay contest on the torture versus non torture debate. Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court has been granting Habeas to Gunatanamo detainees for quite a while now. Your assertion that "Habeas is a bedrock to any moral system of justice" is confusing. We grant them Habeas now. The petition's go to the DC Circuit court. I am well aware that there are no juries in Military Trials. That was my point. They should be tried by the military since they were captured by the military. Under the current law, the detainees recieve MORE rights than they would under the UCMJ and are entitled to almost as much due process as American Citizens [which is an absolute joke].
The rest of your argument is very misguided. I am not going to retype the holdings of the two aforementioned cases. Go on lexis or westlaw or do a google search if you are interested in the finer points of how the detainees are tried.
But beyond that, I am utterly clueless as to what kind of "trial" you think is appropriate. Will the standard of guilt or innocence be reasonable doubt? How will the discovery and evidentiary issues be handled? Jury trial or bench trial?
All you do is whine about torture, but you dont address any of these glaring problems that would make such a "trial" impossible.
What I also can't fathom is this idea that our military is randomly deciding to arrest innocent people on the battlefield in Afghanistan or in terrorist training camps just for the hell of it. You have absolutely no evidence that our military randomly arrests innocent people and sends them to Guantanamo. You are also blind to the purpose of detaining these individuals in the first place, although I have written it about a dozen times in this thread.
My recurring inquiries in this thread have been related to alternatives. So far, you have only repeated that detainees should recieve habeas and a trial. Well, since they already recieve both, lets address a more relevant issue. How would you extract information from detainees without interogation? What would Decker do to fight terrorism, protect American interests and protect our troops on the ground in Afghanistan?
-
Good thread. Decker makes sense as usual. Exposes the good, bad and ugly of an issue, and you guys just seem to argue a notch or two below him.
-
Wonderful contribution "War Horse". Thanks for your input. I'll try to make sure I argue up to your standards next time. I also promise I wont let reality, or legal precedent get in the way of my position either. ::)
-
Good thread. Decker makes sense as usual. Exposes the good, bad and ugly of an issue, and you guys just seem to argue a notch or two below him.
That is because you agree with him.
One does not have to write an essay to get a good point across.
-
yeah...Thats how i feel. I dont give a shit about What Bush did...its over... we gotta move foward. Thats all i didnt like about Obamas administration before he got elected...Im like "man fuck all that retro shit."
I agree. Time to move on.
-
So you are a radical.
Torture is not in our country's traditions. Our very Constitution addresses it. It's outlawed by Federal Statute.
But you think torture is the way to go. That's radical.
Obama's attorney general pick calls waterboarding torture
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59760.html
I'm not convinced waterboarding is torture. And I don't care if we waterboard the heck out of terrorists, particularly if it saves American lives.
-
I'm not convinced waterboarding is torture. And I don't care if we waterboard the heck out of terrorists, particularly if it saves American lives.
By the liberal definition we torture our own recruits in boot camp. If its good enough for our recruits, its good enough for suspected terrorists.
-
By the liberal definition we torture our own recruits in boot camp. If its good enough for our recruits, its good enough for suspected terrorists.
Yep. True, although they have been trying to sissy up boot camp for years.
-
That is because you agree with him.
One does not have to write an essay to get a good point across.
True. I was just teasing. You guys run circles around me on some of these subjects. Makes for good reading tho.
-
By the liberal definition we torture our own recruits in boot camp. If its good enough for our recruits, its good enough for suspected terrorists.
Volunteering for bootcamp is different than drowning......its not a "lib" thing. Is waterboarding part of the camaraderie of the military now?
-
I am not going to engage you in an essay contest on the torture versus non torture debate. Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court has been granting Habeas to Gunatanamo detainees for quite a while now. Your assertion that "Habeas is a bedrock to any moral system of justice" is confusing. We grant them Habeas now. The petition's go to the DC Circuit court. I am well aware that there are no juries in Military Trials. That was my point. They should be tried by the military since they were captured by the military. Under the current law, the detainees recieve MORE rights than they would under the UCMJ and are entitled to almost as much due process as American Citizens [which is an absolute joke].
Confusing? Habeas? bedrock? Confusing? It wasn't confusing to Thomas Jefferson: “Freedom of the person under the protection of habeas corpus. I deem one of the essential principles of our government.” Maybe he's talking about another habeas corpus. I believe you were defending the notion of torture first and ...that's it.
What sort of rights do the detainees enjoy on par with Amercian Citizens (other than the due process mandated by the SCT)?
The rest of your argument is very misguided. I am not going to retype the holdings of the two aforementioned cases. Go on lexis or westlaw or do a google search if you are interested in the finer points of how the detainees are tried.
Due process delayed is due process denied. There are still detainees who have not received a trial. They've been held for years and years with nothing. How do those evidentiary thresholds jibe with your idea of torture now and torture forever?
But beyond that, I am utterly clueless as to what kind of "trial" you think is appropriate. Will the standard of guilt or innocence be reasonable doubt? How will the discovery and evidentiary issues be handled? Jury trial or bench trial?
Calling an evidentiary proceeding a trial is a bit easier than calling it an evidentiary proceeding. Does that clear anything up for you?
You seem to be stating a constant state of confusion when talking about this topic. Clueless, confused etc. Save it. I don't need to see it and it does nothing to elucidate your pro-torture position.
I'm asking you how the evidentiary procedures are handled. YOu're the one citing the goddam law. You tell me. Cure me of my ignorance.
All you do is whine about torture, but you dont address any of these glaring problems that would make such a "trial" impossible.
Let's see, we could have a 3 judge panel review the sufficency of the evidence to determine whether there is enough evidence to survive a motion to dismiss.
Now how hard was that? Is that an impossiblity? Or are you just flapping your lips with legalese?
What I also can't fathom is this idea that our military is randomly deciding to arrest innocent people on the battlefield in Afghanistan or in terrorist training camps just for the hell of it. You have absolutely no evidence that our military randomly arrests innocent people and sends them to Guantanamo. You are also blind to the purpose of detaining these individuals in the first place, although I have written it about a dozen times in this thread.
Back in April of this year, The Times' David Rhode and Tim Golden reported on secret trials for Afghan detainees and, according to the international Red Cross in 2004, US intelligence officers admitted that 70-90 percent of tens of thousands of detainees were rounded up without evidence or by mistake.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Torture-Now-an-Afghanistan-by-Tom-Hayden-090127-417.html
There's your evidence and where's your apology?
My recurring inquiries in this thread have been related to alternatives. So far, you have only repeated that detainees should recieve habeas and a trial. Well, since they already recieve both, lets address a more relevant issue. How would you extract information from detainees without interogation? What would Decker do to fight terrorism, protect American interests and protect our troops on the ground in Afghanistan?
They have not received their hearings yet. How would I extract information?
Since torture doesn't work, I would not use torture, that's for sure.
-
Confusing? Habeas? bedrock? Confusing? It wasn't confusing to Thomas Jefferson: “Freedom of the person under the protection of habeas corpus. I deem one of the essential principles of our government.” Maybe he's talking about another habeas corpus. I believe you were defending the notion of torture first and ...that's it.
What sort of rights do the detainees enjoy on par with Amercian Citizens (other than the due process mandated by the SCT)?
Due process delayed is due process denied. There are still detainees who have not received a trial. They've been held for years and years with nothing. How do those evidentiary thresholds jibe with your idea of torture now and torture forever?
Calling an evidentiary proceeding a trial is a bit easier than calling it an evidentiary proceeding. Does that clear anything up for you?
You seem to be stating a constant state of confusion when talking about this topic. Clueless, confused etc. Save it. I don't need to see it and it does nothing to elucidate your pro-torture position.
I'm asking you how the evidentiary procedures are handled. YOu're the one citing the goddam law. You tell me. Cure me of my ignorance.
Let's see, we could have a 3 judge panel review the sufficency of the evidence to determine whether there is enough evidence to survive a motion to dismiss.
Now how hard was that? Is that an impossiblity? Or are you just flapping your lips with legalese?
Back in April of this year, The Times' David Rhode and Tim Golden reported on secret trials for Afghan detainees and, according to the international Red Cross in 2004, US intelligence officers admitted that 70-90 percent of tens of thousands of detainees were rounded up without evidence or by mistake.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Torture-Now-an-Afghanistan-by-Tom-Hayden-090127-417.html
There's your evidence and where's your apology?
They have not received their hearings yet. How would I extract information?
Since torture doesn't work, I would not use torture, that's for sure.
I am not confused at all. I get my information on this topic from people who actually deal with National Security issues for a living, have prosecuted terrorists, defended terrorists and detainees alike ,have been to Guantanamo and know what they are talking about. I think you are confused. You said the detainees don't get habeas. THEY DO. You said the detainees are held for years and years without trial- WHICH IS NONSENSE. You said the detainees are tortured- I prefer the term interrogated. I provided two Supreme Court cases that illustrate quite plainly what due process the detainees are entitled to. So far in response, you have succeeded in comparing me with a Nazi, bellyached about torture and regurgitated a bunch of irrelevant long winded quotations that have no substance in law or fact to the discussion at hand-- THATS ALL. Isn't this debate supposed to be about law and facts?
Your "source" is a single internet posting from an organization of devoid of impartiality and wrought with unverifiable statistics that at first glance appear to be vastly inflated, if not imaginary. Sorry- FAIL... If thats the best that you can come up with, don't quit your day job. I mean Decker- How many detainees are held at Guantanamo? Do you even know? Do you believe there are "tens of thousands of wrongly detained Afghans at Guantanamo"--- LOLOLOLOL Come back to us Pal. Planet earth is this way------------> We are discusing Guantanamo- You posted an article from a left wing blog that discusses holding cells in Iraq and Afghanistan. How is any of that relevant to this conversation?
While your at it- Instead of taking 5 seconds to dig up this horseshit- Dig up the two cases I gave you and read them. Brief them if you'd like. I'm not here to educate you. When you bring more to the table besides random insults and immature emotionalism we can have a serious debate. If anyone owes an apology, you owe me one for fooling me into thinking your argument had any teeth. Next time save me the trouble and I'll post on the MMA board.
Your conclusion is equally hollow- "Well all I know is that torture doesn't work." WOW thank you for clearing that up. Your National Security policy is breath takingly brilliant. For someone who constantly insults conservatives and libertarians as "simplistic"- You should really look in the mirror. ::)
-
I'm not convinced waterboarding is torture. And I don't care if we waterboard the heck out of terrorists, particularly if it saves American lives.
Political radicalism or simply radicalism is adherence to radical views and principles in politics. The meaning of the term radical (from Latin radix, root) in a political context has changed since its first appearance in late 18th century. Nevertheless, it preserves its sense of a political orientation that favors fundamental, drastic, revolutionary changes in society, literally meaning "changes at the roots".
The US Constitutions outlaws cruel and unusual punishment.
The Japs of WWII were charged with crimes against humanity for waterboarding americans. They were convicted and executed.
The current administration states plainly that waterboarding is torture.
If waterboarding was torture in WWII why has it's character changed for you?
Do you see why your position is considered 'radical'? You are changing what has been in our traditions - ban of torture and waterboarding is torture.
Now for some reason, you think waterboarding might not be torture. Why is that? Our history and traditions hold it to be torture. Yet for some reason, you've flipped on that history.
Why?
-
I didn't see or hear anything about the architects of the torture protocol being let off.
It seems they would need some cooperation from the people following orders if they have any chance of getting at the real story and the true criminals
-
I am not confused at all. I get my information on this topic from people who actually deal with National Security issues for a living, have prosecuted terrorists, defended terrorists and detainees alike ,have been to Guantanamo and know what they are talking about. I think you are confused. You said the detainees don't get habeas. THEY DO. You said the detainees are held for years and years without trial- WHICH IS NONSENSE. You said the detainees are tortured- I prefer the term interrogated. I provided two Supreme Court cases that illustrate quite plainly what due process the detainees are entitled to. So far in response, you have succeeded in comparing me with a Nazi, bellyached about torture and regurgitated a bunch of irrelevant long winded quotations that have no substance in law or fact to the discussion at hand-- THATS ALL. Isn't this debate supposed to be about law and facts?
Wrong again George. Is this nonsense? Is this a lie?:
Federal Judge Rules That Some Detainees Held At Bagram Can Challenge Their Detention (4/2/2009)
U.S.-Run Prisons Cannot Be Used As "Other Gitmos," Says ACLU
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – A federal judge ruled today that three prisoners who are being held by the United States at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan can challenge their detention in U.S. courts. The prisoners, who were captured outside of Afghanistan and are not Afghan citizens, have been held at Bagram for more than six years without charge or access to counsel. The ruling came from Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/39258prs20090402.html
You criticize things you don't know about.
Your "source" is a single internet posting from an organization of devoid of impartiality and wrought with unverifiable statistics that at first glance appear to be vastly inflated, if not imaginary. Sorry- FAIL... If thats the best that you can come up with, don't quit your day job. I mean Decker- How many detainees are held at Guantanamo? Do you even know? Do you believe there are "tens of thousands of wrongly detained Afghans at Guantanamo"--- LOLOLOLOL Come back to us Pal. Planet earth is this way------------> We are discusing Guantanamo- You posted an article from a left wing blog that discusses holding cells in Iraq and Afghanistan. How is any of that relevant to this conversation?
Misstating my position does nothing for you. I mean I could not view you with any more disdain than I already do. I like the way you latch on to Guantanamo and the way you decry impartiality. This, from a guy who thinks Habeas Corpus is too burdensome, check that, an impossiblity when the US military is unleashing torture on its detainees.
You are what's wrong with this country.
While your at it- Instead of taking 5 seconds to dig up this horseshit- Dig up the two cases I gave you and read them. Brief them if you'd like. I'm not here to educate you. When you bring more to the table besides random insults and immature emotionalism we can have a serious debate. If anyone owes an apology, you owe me one for fooling me into thinking your argument had any teeth. Next time save me the trouble and I'll post on the MMA board.
Why don't you explain to everyone the caselaw you cite? I'm not going to do your work for you. I want you to do it so that I can pick apart your uninformed grasp of the issues. I've already posted one federal decision that shows the lack of HC is still an issue. Why would that be? What did that SCT case say about HC anyways?
Your conclusion is equally hollow- "Well all I know is that torture doesn't work." WOW thank you for clearing that up. Your National Security policy is breath takingly brilliant. For someone who constantly insults conservatives and libertarians as "simplistic"- You should really look in the mirror. ::)
LIke I said, people like you are what's wrong with this country. You guys are not only simplistic, you willingly adopt the perspective of scum like Nazis, mafia and terrorists when you advocate torture and shitcanning the things, like Habeas Corpus, which make the US what it is.
Again, you and your radicalism are what's wrong with this country.
You started this way:
You speak of torture as if it has never been part of our countries history. Are you naive or joking? Officially all civilized countries are against "torture", just like all civilized countries have laws against "murder". And what is your definition of torture? Loud music? Shaving? Sense deprivation? Are you fucking kidding me? How else are we supposed to get information from terrorist detainees captured on the battlefield? Do you have a suggestion?
You don't even what torture is, what outlaws torture and yet you're flapping your lips about my naivete on the matter? Typical right winger.
Here's some educational resources for you:
U.S. Constitution: Eight Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b3ccpr.htm
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp.html
Federal Statute: 18 U.S.C. §2340 (2) which
provides, inter alia:
"severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from--
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
* * *
(C) the threat of imminent death;
mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also
requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like
posttraumatic stress disorder. ...
Don't forget the domestic caselaw that has held waterboarding to be torture: States v. Sawada, United States v. Parker et al, CR-H-83-66
Or INternational caselaw: Tokyo War Crimes Trial
-
Yawn...
This was a debate about Guantanmo. What the fuck does the Baghram air base have to do with this discussion?
THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES GET HABEAS. I think you have run too many circles around yourself in this thread and are starting to get dizzy. Please, refocus your argument, and quote some sources that have some merit or even a slight indicia of impartiality. The ACLU doesn't count. Sorry. :-\
I didn't misstate your position, you just argued it poorly. If it was comprehensible, I could respond more coherently, ( or at least in a manner you could understand).
I'm not going to waste my time re-writing case law to a lawyer. I'm sure you can afford to log into westlaw or lexis and get a full case summary. I know what both cases stand for, the problem is you dont- which is pretty embarassing imo.
We are not discussing international law- We are not discussing detainees in Afghanistan- We are discussing Guantanamo. That was the point of this thread. However, the fact that you believe 10,000 foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan should be entitled to habeas in the United States speaks volumes about how out of touch you are with reality. Please, send me a postcard from your star system.
Hey- Maybe they can all sue George Bush under the Alien Torts Statute? ::)
If I'm whats wrong with this country- God Bless America.
-
Yawn...
This was a debate about Guantanmo. What the fuck does the Baghram air base have to do with this discussion?
THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES GET HABEAS. I think you have run too many circles around yourself in this thread and are starting to get dizzy. Please, refocus your argument, and quote some sources that have some merit or even a slight indicia of impartiality. The ACLU doesn't count. Sorry. :-\
I didn't misstate your position, you just argued it poorly. If it was comprehensible, I could respond more coherently, ( or at least in a manner you could understand).
I'm not going to waste my time re-writing case law to a lawyer. I'm sure you can afford to log into westlaw or lexis and get a full case summary. I know what both cases stand for, the problem is you dont- which is pretty embarassing imo.
We are not discussing international law- We are not discussing detainees in Afghanistan- We are discussing Guantanamo. That was the point of this thread. However, the fact that you believe 10,000 foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan should be entitled to habeas in the United States speaks volumes about how out of touch you are with reality. Please, send me a postcard from your star system.
Hey- Maybe they can all sue George Bush under the Alien Torts Statute? ::)
If I'm whats wrong with this country- God Bless America.
Psssssst,
George Orwell. One of my favorite Socialists.
-
From someone who has been the interrogator. Torture tends to have the opposite effect.
-
Yawn...
This was a debate about Guantanmo. What the fuck does the Baghram air base have to do with this discussion?
No, this was orginally a debate about Obama's flip flop on investigating the war crimes of the Bush administration. Torture is part of that and now you seem to think the thread was started to discuss guantanamo.
I started the goddam thread. I know what it's about.
THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES GET HABEAS. I think you have run too many circles around yourself in this thread and are starting to get dizzy. Please, refocus your argument, and quote some sources that have some merit or even a slight indicia of impartiality. The ACLU doesn't count. Sorry. :-\
Typical rightwing dive. Are you asserting that b/c I posted the court case from an ACLU link that the case never happened?
What exactly are you trying to say?
I didn't misstate your position, you just argued it poorly. If it was comprehensible, I could respond more coherently, ( or at least in a manner you could understand).
You overestimate your intelligence.
I'm not going to waste my time re-writing case law to a lawyer. I'm sure you can afford to log into westlaw or lexis and get a full case summary. I know what both cases stand for, the problem is you dont- which is pretty embarassing imo.
Typical weak ass right winger. "I'm going to state a conclusion but not support my argument..."
Since you are such an authority and obviously versed in legal matters why don't you just summarize the holdings of the cases?
Or are you unable to do it b/c you have no grasp of what you are talking about? I think that's a little closer to the truth.
We are not discussing international law- We are not discussing detainees in Afghanistan- We are discussing Guantanamo. That was the point of this thread. However, the fact that you believe 10,000 foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan should be entitled to habeas in the United States speaks volumes about how out of touch you are with reality. Please, send me a postcard from your star system.
I was wrong about you. You are not versed in legal matters. If you were, you wouldn't make an asinine statement like this:
Hey- Maybe they can all sue George Bush under the Alien Torts Statute? ::)
Torture is illegal under domestic and international law. Bush can be charged under either for his crimes.
And again, I started the goddam thread. I ought to know what the thread is about. Obviously you missed that nugget, but like a typical rightwinger, here you are embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge and egotism to believe that you are correct...even when that belief flies in the face of facts:
Decker
Getbig V
Posts: 5305
Obama Flip Flops
« on: April 09, 2009, 10:08:23 AM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm already pissed at his handling of Wall Street and Health Care. . .now this.
Obama..."said months ago before he became president...that if he became president, he would have his attorney general investigate the Bush administration to see if things that they had done involved crimes or just merely bad policy. He said if they involved crimes, he said no man is above the law, and the implication was that he would ask his attorney general to proceed forward, so he’s changed his position."
Now Obama is pushing this: that he has "a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" --President Obama's statement re the investigation of the Bush administration
According to a recent interview with Vincent Bugliosi, he is offended by Obama's flip flop. The murder that Bush wrought as a corrupt president should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
Quote
When he (Obama) says that he intends to give Bush a free pass simply because whatever crime Bush may have committed was in the past, I would inform him of something he already knows: that all criminal prosecutions, without exception and by definition, have to deal, obviously, with past criminal behavior. Obviously we cannot prosecute someone for a crime that they may commit in the future.
http://thejournal.epluribusmedia.net/index.php/interviews/45-epm-interviews/230-murder-trumps-torture-says-bugliosi
"If we prosecute those in America who only commit one murder, under what theory don't we prosecute a president who is criminally responsible for over four thousand murders?" Vincent Bugliosi
________________________ ________________________ ________________
See? That's the first post. Where's Guantanamo mentioned?
If I'm whats wrong with this country- God Bless America.
You are a rightwing radical.
I can think of no other statement that cuts to the quick and insults in a more devastating fashion than that.