The Bush Six To Be Indicted

[Psychoblues]

Not surprised. Why aren't there more or will there be?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!??! All reThugs need to be in prison!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Scott Horton

Spanish prosecutors will seek criminal charges against Alberto Gonzales and five high-ranking Bush administration officials for sanctioning torture at Guantánamo.

Spanish prosecutors have decided to press forward with a criminal investigation targeting former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five top associates over their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo, several reliable sources close to the investigation have told The Daily Beast. Their decision is expected to be announced on Tuesday before the Spanish central criminal court, the Audencia Nacional, in Madrid. But the decision is likely to raise concerns with the human-rights community on other points: They will seek to have the case referred to a different judge.

six defendants—in addition to Gonzales, Federal Appeals Court Judge and former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, University of California law professor and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, former Defense Department general counsel and current Chevron lawyer William J. Haynes II, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington, and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith—are accused of having given the green light to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners held in U.S. detention in “the war on terror.” The case arises in the context of a pending proceeding before the court involving terrorism charges against five Spaniards formerly held at Guantánamo. A group of human-rights lawyers originally filed a criminal complaint asking the court to look at the possibility of charges against the six American lawyers. Baltasar Garzón Real, the investigating judge, accepted the complaint and referred it to Spanish prosecutors for a view as to whether they would accept the case and press it forward. “The evidence provided was more than sufficient to justify a more comprehensive investigation,” one of the lawyers associated with the prosecution stated.

More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-13/the-bush-six-to-be-indicted

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

And what was the "crime" of these people?

They gave advice to President Bush on how he should do things.

None of them had any lawmaking authority, nor did any of them try to exercise any. But the leftists hated the things they recommended to Bush. And so those people must be thrown in jail, for the very ideas they suggested.

As usual, the leftists know they cannot argue or refute them. So they are trying to jail them instead, to shut them up.

Did somebody mention a "party of fear and loathing"?

:lol:

[glockmail]

Socialists wannabes. :slap:

[-Cp]

And, really, WHAT THE HELL is "the daily beast"? Sounds like a *really* reputable source.. lol..

[PostmodernProphet]

Socialists wannabes. :slap:

more like "relevancy" wannabees......don't the Europeans remember that nobody pays attention to them if they don't act through the EU?.......

[glockmail]

more like "relevancy" wannabees......don't the Europeans remember that nobody pays attention to them if they don't act through the EU?.......
Especially for Spain. Weren't they the ones who cowered and voted liberals in a few days after a terrorist attack?

[April15]

And what was the "crime" of these people?

They gave advice to President Bush on how he should do things.

None of them had any lawmaking authority, nor did any of them try to exercise any. But the leftists hated the things they recommended to Bush. And so those people must be thrown in jail, for the very ideas they suggested.

As usual, the leftists know they cannot argue or refute them. So they are trying to jail them instead, to shut them up.

Did somebody mention a "party of fear and loathing"?

:lol:

It is not much different than what has happened to me for expressing my thoughts and ideas. I have had my ability to get a passport revoked and been put on the no fly list. Just for speaking my mind. You bet its the party of fear and loathing. For the government to be afraid of me is ludicrus. I guess my ideas are more than Bushco could handle.

[avatar4321]

The Spanish authorities have no jurisdiction. In fact, their attempts to claim jurisdiction over American citizens and government officials constitutes and act of War as far as Im concerned.

[Little-Acorn]

I have had my ability to get a passport revoked and been put on the no fly list. Just for speaking my mind.

Why don't you tell us what the real reason was?

(yawn)

[DannyR]

None of them had any lawmaking authority, nor did any of them try to exercise any. How do you come to that conclusion? They are executive branch officers, not just "advising" the President, but given authority by him to enact his power on his behalf.

Now certainly Spain's claim is worthless (except that it likely limits their ability to ever travel there in the future), but its silly to say people like Gonzales have no power. He is one of the highest law enforcement officers in the USA, and directly responsible for instructing people on how to interpret what laws we do have and how to enforce them.

[PostmodernProphet]

Just for speaking my mind.

so you were speechless?......

[Psychoblues]

We, as Americans, put many thousands of Germans and Japanese to their deaths for much less. Seriously. Get a clue, OK?!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!



Psychoblues

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Why don't you tell us what the real reason was?

(yawn) April 15 probably got caught with drugs :coffee: I mean most of her post sound like she's stoned out of her feeble mind :dance:

[April15]

Why don't you tell us what the real reason was?

(yawn)I posted that the nation would better off if Bush were assassinated. This was about two months after he was appointed. Now that time has passed more see I was right.

[April15]

April 15 probably got caught with drugs :coffee: I mean most of her post sound like she's stoned out of her feeble mind :dance:Funny you should mention "sounding like she's stoned out of her feeble mind". It is exactly what I was thinking of your posts.
And with the release of the documents yesterday the world is sure to indict all of them in the world court.

[sgtdmski]

I posted that the nation would better off if Bush were assassinated. This was about two months after he was appointed. Now that time has passed more see I was right.

And now we see that you are no different than the white racist out there that wish the same about President Obama. Congratulations you are no better than an ignorant, out of touch, backwards, scum of the earth that makes up those racist groups. What fine company you must keep.

dmk

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Funny you should mention "sounding like she's stoned out of her feeble mind". It is exactly what I was thinking of your posts.
And with the release of the documents yesterday the world is sure to indict all of them in the world court. Dream on Stoner

[Silver]

It is not much different than what has happened to me for expressing my thoughts and ideas. I have had my ability to get a passport revoked and been put on the no fly list. Just for speaking my mind. You bet its the party of fear and loathing. For the government to be afraid of me is ludicrus. I guess my ideas are more than Bushco could handle.

How about that...you really are the sick fuck I imagined you to be .....

Get a passport and fly the airlines ? You should be committed in the mental ward of the nearest hospital....

[5stringJeff]

Regardless of the merits of April15's political beliefs, the government should not be able to ban people from flying on airplanes just because they hold a belief that the government finds displeasing.

[April15]

And now we see that you are no different than the white racist out there that wish the same about President Obama. Congratulations you are no better than an ignorant, out of touch, backwards, scum of the earth that makes up those racist groups. What fine company you must keep.

dmkI am not about Bush for his skin but for his ignorance of life. The guy is/was a recovering alchy. He shows all the signs of mental detieriation by his stuttered speech and loss of nouns when he speaks. All signs of brain damage by booze. I knew he was going to make this nation a shit hole and I was right!
As for the scum of the earth you must know as you are one.

[April15]

Dream on StonerSorry but I don't use alcohol or any other drugs. A stoner I'm not.

[April15]

How about that...you really are the sick fuck I imagined you to be .....

Get a passport and fly the airlines ? You should be committed in the mental ward of the nearest hospital....ME! You're the republican, talk about sick! By the way there are phsycotropic drugs that can help you cope with life.

[April15]

Regardless of the merits of April15's political beliefs, the government should not be able to ban people from flying on airplanes just because they hold a belief that the government finds displeasing.You would think so in America. But that is republicanism at it's fascist best.

[avatar4321]

I posted that the nation would better off if Bush were assassinated. This was about two months after he was appointed. Now that time has passed more see I was right.

I cant get over the fact that you were actively advocating the murder of someone and you think that they are evil.

[Silver]

You would think so in America. But that is republicanism at it's fascist best.

Now that we're under new leadership, you should be able to get your flying status changed...unless you start talking about killing this President too, loon..

[April15]

I cant get over the fact that you were actively advocating the murder of someone and you think that they are evil.Let's put it this way; everybody except bush appollogists know he is the epitome of evil.

[April15]

Now that we're under new leadership, you should be able to get your flying status changed...unless you start talking about killing this President too, loon..Sorry but that is under review. The FBI guy across the street from me has said the no fly list is reviewed every two to three years. I'm still on it.
As to Barrack so far he is OK!

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Sorry but I don't use alcohol or any other drugs. A stoner I'm not. Well then there's only one answer left your a DUMB ASS :laugh2:

[April15]

Well then there's only one answer left your a DUMB ASS :laugh2:Would it impertinent of me to point out a grammatical error in your post? The word You're is what should have been used not the posesive your.

[Silver]

Would it impertinent of me to point out a grammatical error in your post? The word You're is what should have been used not the posesive your.

and whats posesive ?:laugh2:

[Silver]

Sorry but that is under review. The FBI guy across the street from me has said the no fly list is reviewed every two to three years. I'm still on it.
As to Barrack so far he is OK!

They move him in to keep an eye on you ?....I think your problem is rabies...
the symptoms are a match..

[hjmick]

Then again, maybe not. Looks like all of you with hard ons for the prosecution of these six will have to look elsewhere...


Spanish AG: No torture probe of US officials
By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer Paul Haven, Associated Press Writer – Thu Apr 16, 10:39 am ET

MADRID – Spain's attorney general has rejected opening an investigation into whether six Bush administration officials sanctioned torture against terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, saying Thursday a U.S. courtroom would be the proper forum.

Candido Conde-Pumpido's remarks severely dampen the chance of a case moving forward against the Americans, including former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Conde-Pumpido said such a trial would have turned Spain's National Court "into a plaything" to be used for political ends.

"If there is a reason to file a complaint against these people, it should be done before local courts with jurisdiction, in other words in the United States," he said in a breakfast meeting with journalists...


Complete story... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_us_torture)



Guess you'll just have to hope someone else will help you get your rocks off.

[April15]

They move him in to keep an eye on you ?....I think your problem is rabies...
the symptoms are a match..I don't believe that is what happened. His wife is very nice and he is cool.

[April15]

Then again, maybe not. Looks like all of you with hard ons for the prosecution of these six will have to look elsewhere...



Guess you'll just have to hope someone else will help you get your rocks off.
Spain has indicted Bush and Cheney already. The Spaniards don't want to do an investigation as it not something of great importance now that Bushco is gone from power.

[Silver]

Spain has indicted Bush and Cheney already. The Spaniards don't want to do an investigation as it not something of great importance now that Bushco is gone from power.

Its unbelievable...where do you get this shit...I don't even know any far, far, far left wing blogs that come up with the crap you post.......

Bush and Cheney indicted already...????

You're nuts, .... plain and simple...nuts...:laugh2:

[hjmick]

Spain has indicted Bush and Cheney already. The Spaniards don't want to do an investigation as it not something of great importance now that Bushco is gone from power.

Indicted by Spain? Bush and Cheney? You may want to check again. A couple of small Vermont towns, yes, Spain? Uh... Not that I could find. Perhaps you have a link?

[Jeff]

Let's put it this way; everybody except bush appollogists know he is the epitome of evil.

LMAO, so Kill him, what a deal, I can't believe you can say that with a straight face, Kill the president damn what if a friend pisses ya off OK to kill them to?


Liberals never seems to surprise me on what they say, but the mere fact that you haven't sobered up and realized wishing someone dead is wrong makes me wonder , Have ya seen a Doctor lately?

[emmett]

Spain has indicted Bush and Cheney already. The Spaniards don't want to do an investigation as it not something of great importance now that Bushco is gone from power.



:lol: :link:

[April15]

LMAO, so Kill him, what a deal, I can't believe you can say that with a straight face, Kill the president damn what if a friend pisses ya off OK to kill them to?


Liberals never seems to surprise me on what they say, but the mere fact that you haven't sobered up and realized wishing someone dead is wrong makes me wonder , Have ya seen a Doctor lately?All of the docs I go to thought it was a good idea!
A person I know is no threat to the future of the world, Bush was and has.

[April15]

:lol: :link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b784286c0769f76986349ba531eb0d8 c.1a1&show_article=1&catnum=0

[hjmick]

Dude, that story says nothing about Bush or Cheney being indicted in Spain. Furthermore, the story I linked in post #32, which is three days old, clearly states that there will be no indictment of any Bush-era advisors in Spain.

[glockmail]

April 15 must have a very disappointing life. First we have TEA parties on his chosen date, now this.

[Jeff]

All of the docs I go to thought it was a good idea!
A person I know is no threat to the future of the world, Bush was and has.

BY any chance does your Doctor's office have padded walls, LOL

If your Doctors think assassinating the President is a good idea I think ya might need new Docs

[Sir Evil]

April15 is not a girl! tricky bastard eh? I think that name may signify something else.

Probably on the no fly list for a reason though......

[actsnoblemartin]

if its good enough for israel, why cant we torture.

besides, we got valuable intel.

i still dont see why torturing is such a bad thing...

when they get our guys , they burn their bodies and hang them from bridges

[Kathianne]

if its good enough for israel, why cant we torture.

besides, we got valuable intel.

i still dont see why torturing is such a bad thing...

when they get our guys , they burn their bodies and hang them from bridges

Well the Democrats say no. So are you losing the avatar?

[April15]

Dude, that story says nothing about Bush or Cheney being indicted in Spain. Furthermore, the story I linked in post #32, which is three days old, clearly states that there will be no indictment of any Bush-era advisors in Spain.I guess I got so excited I just read it into the piece.

[April15]

BY any chance does your Doctor's office have padded walls, LOL

If your Doctors think assassinating the President is a good idea I think ya might need new DocsI belong to an HMO so new doctors are out.

[April15]

April15 is not a girl! tricky bastard eh? I think that name may signify something else.

Probably on the no fly list for a reason though......The one I explained.

[April15]

April 15 must have a very disappointing life. First we have TEA parties on his chosen date, now this.Actually my life has been very exciting and robust. The last 6 or 7 years have been a drag but things are picking up a little now so maybe life will be great again!

[Jeff]

Actually my life has been very exciting and robust. The last 6 or 7 years have been a drag but things are picking up a little now so maybe life will be great again!

LMAO, sorry the last few years been bad, hell I guess they could of been better if ya had assassinated the president, LOL, you are either shot the f*** out or just a loon!!


OOO and as for the HMO's don't worry according to your hero Obama he is going to fix the health care, so soon enough they ought to be able to get you a nice padded room, LOL

[glockmail]

Actually my life has been very exciting and robust. The last 6 or 7 years have been a drag but things are picking up a little now so maybe life will be great again!So you were a drag queen for 6 years and finally got a sex change operation? You go girl! er, boy?

[Jeff]

So you were a drag queen for 6 years and finally got a sex change operation? You go girl! er, boy?

Be careful glock he may wish you assassinated, LOL

[actsnoblemartin]

well, i may go back to the shrek one.

do you like the shrek one :coffee:


Well the Democrats say no. So are you losing the avatar?

[Kathianne]

well, i may go back to the shrek one.

do you like the shrek one :coffee:

So are you still a Democrat?

[actsnoblemartin]

So are you still a Democrat?

yes

[Kathianne]

yes

Good for you! Why should something like your post #45 get in the way? Stick to your choice.

[actsnoblemartin]

I must agree with the dems on everything?


Good for you! Why should something like your post #45 get in the way? Stick to your choice.

[Kathianne]

I must agree with the dems on everything?

Indeed, that was what I implied.

[actsnoblemartin]

Indeed, that was what I implied.

its issue by issue :) my dear kathianne

[moderate democrat]

its issue by issue :) my dear kathianne

exactly...the democratic party is a huge tent...we have all sorts of disagreements about a whole range of issues.... torture being one of them...

you and I are on the opposite side on that one martin, but that does not damage your standing as a democrat in any way whatsoever.:beer:

[Kathianne]

its issue by issue :) my dear kathianne

Again Martin, what I said.

[actsnoblemartin]

Again Martin, what I said.

ok :)

[Psychoblues]

marteen, I learned many years ago to examine the propensities of the parties to address in a way suitable to me on any number of issues. Typically when I disagree with the Democrats the only thing that I can find as a worse proposal is the one offered up by idiots that call themselves conservatives. After looking at their proposals and examining the history and good ol' boy politics and earmarks behind them, another look at the Democratic proposal is almost always wise and more attractive. It requires a sense of maturity and a bit of time along with a realistic view of the goodness in mankind but honesty in political purposes is more often found on the left side of the American political aisle. When fear and loathing are all you can offer up then I would suggest that your party is in rapid decline. What do the elections of 2006 and 2008 tell you, marteen?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

[Missileman]

exactly...the democratic party is a huge tent...

Replete with three rings and a shitload of clowns! :poke:

[moderate democrat]

Replete with three rings and a shitload of clowns! :poke:
:poke::poke: don't quit your day job:poke::poke:

[Yurt]

exactly...the democratic party is a huge tent...we have all sorts of disagreements about a whole range of issues.... torture being one of them...

you and I are on the opposite side on that one martin, but that does not damage your standing as a democrat in any way whatsoever.:beer:

the same could be said of the republican party....

[PostmodernProphet]

It requires a sense of maturity (senility) and a bit of time (if you try over and over till you see it the liberal way)along with a realistic view of the goodness in mankind (pretend it exists) but honesty in political purposes (try even harder to pretend it exists)is more often found on the left side of the American political aisle.

that about covers it, I suspect.....

[moderate democrat]

the same could be said of the republican party....

could it? who would say that? certainly not me.

[red states rule]

One of the talking points from the left is that waterboarding did not produce any results, or stop attacks

Well, from the NY Times and MSNBC........


WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

[red states rule]

Anyone upset this guy was waterboarded?

http://media.eyeblast.org/resources/46950.jpg



CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief


CNSNews.com) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

[red states rule]

When (not if, given the direction we are going) there is another terrorist attack on American soil, the Obama administration, by this act, will be complicit to murder.

Liberals spoke of impeaching President Bush over Iraq. Certainly any attack resulting from these appeasing measures being undertaken to undermine our security will justify Obama's removal from office, if not legal prosecution

[moderate democrat]

When (not if, given the direction we are going) there is another terrorist attack on American soil, the Obama administration, by this act, will be complicit to murder.

Liberals spoke of impeaching President Bush over Iraq. Certainly any attack resulting from these appeasing measures being undertaken to undermine our security will justify Obama's removal from office, if not legal prosecution

prosecuting people charged with breaking the law justifies impeachment? :lol:

[red states rule]

prosecuting people charged with breaking the law justifies impeachment? :lol:

Libs will not rest until they have their pound of flesh.

People said President wouldn't go there, since he said he wouldn't.

Now they will say "Oh Obama isn't doing this, it is Holder, it is out of the President's hands".

The left-wing base is demanding investigations and prosecutions.

[moderate democrat]

Libs will not rest until they have their pound of flesh.

People said President wouldn't go there, since he said he wouldn't.

Now they will say "Oh Obama isn't doing this, it is Holder, it is out of the President's hands".

The left-wing base is demanding investigations and prosecutions.

you didn't answer the question. How can prosecuting individuals suspected of violating our laws be grounds for impeachment?

[moderate democrat]

That's ok though, I can't wait to see them explain how they can prosecute Bush and Cheney for giving the ok to water boarding but not the members of congress, including Nancy Pelosi, that didn't raise any objections to the program when they were read into it before hand.


can you defend you silly post #70 or not?

Again: how can prosecuting individuals suspected of violating our laws be grounds for impeachment?

[red states rule]

you didn't answer the question. How can prosecuting individuals suspected of violating our laws be grounds for impeachment?

That's ok though, I can't wait to see them explain how they can prosecute Bush and Cheney for giving the ok to water boarding but not the members of congress, including Nancy Pelosi, that didn't raise any objections to the program when they were read into it before hand.

[red states rule]

can you defend you silly post #70 or not?

Again: how can prosecuting individuals suspected of violating our laws be grounds for impeachment?

Virgil, we all know you are for protecting the rights of terrorists even if it means incocent people are murdered by those same terrorists

[red states rule]

Obama was always talking about "looking forward" but after Moveon.org demands his administration prosecutes Bush administration officals, and say they will cut off political donations - Obama does yet another flip flop

Seems Obama cares more about his kook left base then keeping America safe

[red states rule]

can't defend your silly suggestion that prosecuting individuals who are accused of violating our laws is an impeachable offense?

Why not just be a man and say so?:lol:

Here is all you need to know Virgil about what has been achieved - now you and your party want to reverse those gains

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=22462

Not surprised you have not posted on the thread

[moderate democrat]

Virgil, we all know you are for protecting the rights of terrorists even if it means incocent people are murdered by those same terrorists

can't defend your silly suggestion that prosecuting individuals who are accused of violating our laws is an impeachable offense?

Why not just be a man and say so?:lol:

[moderate democrat]

Here is all you need to know Virgil about what has been achieved - now you and your party want to reverse those gains

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=22462

Not surprised you have not posted on the thread

why can't you explain why prosecuting someone for breaking the law is grounds for impeachment? You made the statement...are you incapable of defending it?

[moderate democrat]

Am I upset that an attack against the United States was thwarted? of course not.

Am I upset that America compromised its principles by torturing anyone? indeed I am.

[red states rule]

Am I upset that an attack against the United States was thwarted? of course not.

Am I upset that America compromised its principles by torturing anyone? indeed I am.

I suppose that you would have preferred another 9/11 on the West Coast? Al-Qaida acts as if they are fans of Trotsky. The Anarchist approach is very effective against strict followers of the rule of law. Anarchists know where the lines a drawn. They hid within as normal folk, or stay outside the lines to prepare and regroup for attacks.


So why isn't the Obama loving media putting this question to the Obama administration:

"Why are you cherry-picking in what you're releasing? It almost appears as if you simply want to make Bush/Cheney look bad, rather than "heralding in a new era of openness."

[red states rule]

why can't you explain why prosecuting someone for breaking the law is grounds for impeachment? You made the statement...are you incapable of defending it?

I have defended it Virgil

You would rather coddle and appese terrorists - while throwing former leaders of your own contry in jail

[moderate democrat]

I have defended it Virgil

You would rather coddle and appese terrorists - while throwing former leaders of your own contry in jail

no. you have not. you cannot explain why the mere act of prosecuting someone accused of violating our laws would be grounds for impeachment. Can you do so?

[red states rule]

no. you have not. you cannot explain why the mere act of prosecuting someone accused of violating our laws would be grounds for impeachment. Can you do so?

Try reading slowly Virgil - and stop trolling

[moderate democrat]

I suppose that you would have preferred another 9/11 on the West Coast? Al-Qaida acts as if they are fans of Trotsky. The Anarchist approach is very effective against strict followers of the rule of law. Anarchists know where the lines a drawn. They hid within as normal folk, or stay outside the lines to prepare and regroup for attacks.


So why isn't the Obama loving media putting this question to the Obama administration:

"Why are you cherry-picking in what you're releasing? It almost appears as if you simply want to make Bush/Cheney look bad, rather than "heralding in a new era of openness."

I would never prefer that America be attacked. I disagree with the use of torture. I think that it violates our principles of human dignity.

[red states rule]

I have never even remotely put forth such a "plan". you are incapable of intelligently discussing this, or any other, issue. all you can do is insult.

boring.:lol:

It is exactly what you would do Virgil. Party over country everytime

Obama voted "present" again on another issue

I myself would not believe if they try this craziness that Obama have nothing to do with it, but Obama will continue to play dumb and clueless because his follower wont be happy until Bush and Cheney are publicly hanged.

Obama is opening a can of worms that will weaken the Presidency and subjugate the office to be no more than a lapdog of congress. It will force the President to have to go to congress, hat in hand, to do his job.

[moderate democrat]

Try reading slowly Virgil - and stop trolling


again... I read everything you've written here... and you have not explained why the act of prosecuting someone accused of violating our laws would be grounds for impeachment. Can you do so?

[red states rule]

I would never prefer that America be attacked. I disagree with the use of torture. I think that it violates our principles of human dignity.

So allow the attacks to happen, blame Republicans - not the terrorists - then send out a fund raising letter on behalf of the DNC with the dead bodies at the top

That seems to be your battle plan to combat terrorism

[moderate democrat]

So allow the attacks to happen, blame Republicans - not the terrorists - then send out a fund raising letter on behalf of the DNC with the dead bodies at the top

That seems to be your battle plan to combat terrorism

I have never even remotely put forth such a "plan". you are incapable of intelligently discussing this, or any other, issue. all you can do is insult.

boring.:lol:

[crin63]

I would never prefer that America be attacked. I disagree with the use of torture. I think that it violates our principles of human dignity.

Terrorists don't deserve to be treated as human and I don't give a rip about treating them with dignity. They are rabid dogs that just need to be put down.

[moderate democrat]

It is exactly what you would do Virgil. Party over country everytime

Obama voted "present" again on another issue

I myself would not believe if they try this craziness that Obama have nothing to do with it, but Obama will continue to play dumb and clueless because his follower wont be happy until Bush and Cheney are publicly hanged.

Obama is opening a can of worms that will weaken the Presidency and subjugate the office to be no more than a lapdog of congress. It will force the President to have to go to congress, hat in hand, to do his job.

I think that the DOJ should investigate potential violations of our laws. don't you?

[red states rule]

I think that the DOJ should investigate potential violations of our laws. don't you?

What violations? Keeping America safe?

The fact that Congress approved what President Bush did makes them just as culpable. If charges are indeed brought, and no one in congress is charged, then the entire trial would be a farce and the Dems would be held as the largest hypocrites in the history of our congress (not that they really care anyway.)

[moderate democrat]

What violations?

torturing violates several treaties signed by our government and, thus, doing so violates the supreme law of the land.

[red states rule]

torturing violates several treaties signed by our government and, thus, doing so violates the supreme law of the land.

Treaties before national security - is that your plan to protect America Virgil? :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Treaties before national security - is that your plan to protect America Virgil? :laugh2:

Members of our military pledge to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic. As per our constitution, treaties ARE the supreme law of the land. You asked what violations of law...I explained it to you. Maybe you're just too stupid to understand the english language.

[Classact]

torturing violates several treaties signed by our government and, thus, doing so violates the supreme law of the land.Torture is against US federal law for all citizens regardless of where they are in the world so treaties have little to do with the matter. US law and international treaties both prohibit torture but the US and the Bush administration didn't torture, they used enhanced interrogation techniques. If waterboarding is torture under the conditions of the Bush administration then it would be torture under the Clinton administration so all servicemembers that had waterboarding training were victims of torture and could sue the federal government and those who authorized it... where does that start, congress, the former presidents... tens of thousands of soldiers have been waterboarded under the very same conditions the three terrorists were. Doctor present, they were told you will not die as a result of this waterboarding just like soldiers.

But, you are in fact wrong the terrorists are not protected by treaties because the treaties only protect lawful combatants.

[moderate democrat]

Torture is against US federal law for all citizens regardless of where they are in the world so treaties have little to do with the matter. US law and international treaties both prohibit torture but the US and the Bush administration didn't torture, they used enhanced interrogation techniques. If waterboarding is torture under the conditions of the Bush administration then it would be torture under the Clinton administration so all servicemembers that had waterboarding training were victims of torture and could sue the federal government and those who authorized it... where does that start, congress, the former presidents... tens of thousands of soldiers have been waterboarded under the very same conditions the three terrorists were. Doctor present, they were told you will not die as a result of this waterboarding just like soldiers.

But, you are in fact wrong the terrorists are not protected by treaties because the treaties only protect lawful combatants.


two points:

1. Military training is not torture. military training may simulate torture, but its aims are not synonymous with torture.

2. We have signed treaties that protect more individuals than merely lawful combatants. I would point you to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of which we are a signatory.

[Classact]

two points:

1. Military training is not torture. military training may simulate torture, but its aims are not synonymous with torture.

2. We have signed treaties that protect more individuals than merely lawful combatants. I would point you to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of which we are a signatory.Then the terrorists were not administered torture but rather simulated torture... they were told you will not be harmed... a simulation equal to the soldiers.

[hjmick]

prosecuting people charged with breaking the law justifies impeachment? :lol:


you didn't answer the question. How can prosecuting individuals suspected of violating our laws be grounds for impeachment?


can you defend you silly post #70 or not?

Again: how can prosecuting individuals suspected of violating our laws be grounds for impeachment?


why can't you explain why prosecuting someone for breaking the law is grounds for impeachment? You made the statement...are you incapable of defending it?


can't defend your silly suggestion that prosecuting individuals who are accused of violating our laws is an impeachable offense?

Why not just be a man and say so?:lol:

Can you seriously be this obtuse? I have butter knives sharper than you. It is quite clear, to me at least, that Red is referring to impeaching Obama and his gang in the event of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, not for prosecuting Bush or people from his administration. He clearly feels that some of the things Obama has done these last three months opens the door for another strike here at home. To Red, this is an impeachable offense. Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but I do know this: I do not agree with him. By those standards, we may as well have impeached Bush on 9/13.




again... I read everything you've written here...

While this may be true, I maintain that you have read into it what you wish.

[moderate democrat]

Then the terrorists were not administered torture but rather simulated torture... they were told you will not be harmed... a simulation equal to the soldiers.

you do understand the difference between torture and simulating torture, don't you? You do understand that the rationale behind the act is clearly different, don't you? :lol:

Nice dodge on point #2.... pussy.

[Yurt]

I would never prefer that America be attacked. I disagree with the use of torture. I think that it violates our principles of human dignity.

so if there was a choice between torture and america not attacked, which would you choose?

[moderate democrat]

so if there was a choice between torture and america not attacked, which would you choose?


silly question. there is no such choice.

[Yurt]

silly question. there is no such choice.

yes there is....i am sure, fellow armchair warrior, that there have been and will be times that call for a choice between torture and saving lives or not having america attacked. it is such a fact that clause two of the convention addresses it. that you dismiss it shows your not being forthright about this issue.

again,

between torture and american not being attacked, which would you choose

[moderate democrat]

Can you seriously be this obtuse? I have butter knives sharper than you. It is quite clear, to me at least, that Red is referring to impeaching Obama and his gang in the event of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, not for prosecuting Bush or people from his administration. He clearly feels that some of the things Obama has done these last three months opens the door for another strike here at home. To Red, this is an impeachable offense. Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but I do know this: I do not agree with him. By those standards, we may as well have impeached Bush on 9/13.





While this may be true, I maintain that you have read into it what you wish.

so the mere fact that we might be attacked again would be impeachable for Obama? Does THAT make ANY freakin' sense, whatsoever?

Does the fact that Obama might very well prosecute Bush administration officials for breaking laws mean that it will somehow become easier for terrorists to attack us??? Does THAT make ANY freakin' sense, whatsoever?

RSR said, "When (not if, given the direction we are going) there is another terrorist attack on American soil, the Obama administration, by this act, will be complicit to murder.

Liberals spoke of impeaching President Bush over Iraq. Certainly any attack resulting from these appeasing measures being undertaken to undermine our security will justify Obama's removal from office, if not legal prosecution."

"THIS act" clearly refers to prosecuting Bush administration officials.
Do you really buy into that bullshit? Come on! Buffett would be laughin' at you!:lol:

[moderate democrat]

yes there is....i am sure, fellow armchair warrior, that there have been and will be times that call for a choice between torture and saving lives or not having america attacked. it is such a fact that clause two of the convention addresses it. that you dismiss it shows your not being forthright about this issue.

again,

between torture and american not being attacked, which would you choose

I would no torture because it would betray the principles of this great land. Such a choice is only ever even remotely present when viewed in hindsight. I would not torture and I would do everything that I could to protect my country while upholding its principles. YOu might be an armchair warrior, I am not.

[Yurt]

I would no torture because it would betray the principles of this great land. Such a choice is only ever even remotely present when viewed in hindsight. I would not torture and I would do everything that I could to protect my country while upholding its principles. YOu might be an armchair warrior, I am not.

you are not out in the field or in any military service, you are an armchair warrior.

i am not comforted by the fact that you would allow countless deaths over not torturing. a treaty is not the principle of the land, it is a law and laws have consequences if broken. i would choose the consequences of breaking the treaty in order to save lives. to you, life is not important, the law is.

[hjmick]

"This act," as I read it in Red's post, refers to a terrorist act on U.S. soil. I just don't think Red worded it in the best possible way. If he did indeed mean to say that the prosecution of Bush officials would weaken the country's safety, leading to a terrorist attack, and thus justify the impeachment of President Obama, then yes, that makes no damn sense. We seem to be finding different meanings in his post. Perhaps it is I who is reading his post wrong, but I don't think so.

[moderate democrat]

you are not out in the field or in any military service, you are an armchair warrior.

i am not comforted by the fact that you would allow countless deaths over not torturing. a treaty is not the principle of the land, it is a law and laws have consequences if broken. i would choose the consequences of breaking the treaty in order to save lives. to you, life is not important, the law is.

human rights and human dignity IS the principle of the land...the Constitution IS the principle of the land.

Would you chose another terrorist attack on America versus dropping scores of nuclear weapons on Pakistan killing thousands and thousands of civilians?

[moderate democrat]

"This act," as I read it in Red's post, refers to a terrorist act on U.S. soil. I just don't think Red worded it in the best possible way. If he did indeed mean to say that the prosecution of Bush officials would weaken the country's safety, leading to a terrorist attack, and thus justify the impeachment of President Obama, then yes, that makes no damn sense. We seem to be finding different meanings in his post. Perhaps it is I who is reading his post wrong, but I don't think so.


ask him.

I disagree with your interpretation of RSR's post... especially in light of the topic of the thread.

Clearly, if being president when we are attacked by terrorists was enough to impeach a president in RSR's opinion, why wasn't HE calling for Bush's impeachment on 9/12/01?

How does the Obama administration indicting Bush administration officials for breaking OUR laws make us MORE vulnerable to terrorist attack than we might otherwise be?

[hjmick]

ask him.

I disagree with your interpretation of RSR's post... especially in light of the topic of the thread.

Based on the title of the thread, you're right. However, it wouldn't be the first time a thread deviated from it's original premise and stumbled off on some tangent.


Clearly, if being president when we are attacked by terrorists was enough to impeach a president in RSR's opinion, why wasn't HE calling for Bush's impeachment on 9/12/01?

I agree, which is why I mentioned it in my first post.


How does the Obama administration indicting Bush administration officials for breaking OUR laws make us MORE vulnerable to terrorist attack than we might otherwise be?

It doesn't. But again, I don't believe that Red was suggesting that it does. I get the impression that he is rather referring to decisions made by Obama that he feels tips our hand to those who mean us harm. Until he clarifies what he meant, however we can only intepret his meaning based on what we know of Red and our personal feelings towards him.

[Mugged Liberal]

yes there is....i am sure, fellow armchair warrior, that there have been and will be times that call for a choice between torture and saving lives or not having america attacked. it is such a fact that clause two of the convention addresses it. that you dismiss it shows your not being forthright about this issue.

again,

between torture and american not being attacked, which would you choose

Making that choice is a bit of a trap. The choice is between agreeing (end of discussion & unalloyed pleasure on the side of those choosing torture) versus a vulnerable position if you leave America open to attack.

Real life situations will not offer such a clear-cut choice and despite comments to the contrary I have doubts as to how sure the waterboarders were of preventing an attack when they ordered extraordinary procedures against detainees.

However, and as for myself, if I was certain without a scintilla of doubt that a particular detainee had information that if in our possession would stop a planned catastrophic attack I would favor whatever it took to obtain the information. To reach that point of unquestioned undoubted sureness is the difficult part.

Those who break the law by torturing run the risk of persecution. But if they get the needed information it may not matter. Lincoln committed several unconstitutional acts but the Union was saved.

What is unfortunate is the incompetence of extending the torture procedures for minor bits of trivia lodged in the detainee’s memory. Remember the torture scene from the movie Rendition when the detainee after really severe torture gave the Egyptian Security forces a list of names which turned out to be members of the South African Soccer Team.

[Mr. P]

Making that choice is a bit of a trap. The choice is between agreeing (end of discussion & unalloyed pleasure on the side of those choosing torture) versus a vulnerable position if you leave America open to attack.

Real life situations will not offer such a clear-cut choice and despite comments to the contrary I have doubts as to how sure the waterboarders were of preventing an attack when they ordered extraordinary procedures against detainees.

However, and as for myself, if I was certain without a scintilla of doubt that a particular detainee had information that if in our possession would stop a planned catastrophic attack I would favor whatever it took to obtain the information. To reach that point of unquestioned undoubted sureness is the difficult part.

Those who break the law by torturing run the risk of persecution. But if they get the needed information it may not matter. Lincoln committed several unconstitutional acts but the Union was saved.

What is unfortunate is the incompetence of extending the torture procedures for minor bits of trivia lodged in the detainee’s memory. Remember the torture scene from the movie Rendition when the detainee after really severe torture gave the Egyptian Security forces a list of names which turned out to be members of the South African Soccer Team.

:rolleyes: Key word...MOVIE.

[moderate democrat]

cowardly dodge.

typical.

[Mr. P]

cowardly dodge.

typical.

Cowardly? I think I'm the only one on the board who has experienced waterboarding...You?

[moderate democrat]

Cowardly? I think I'm the only one on the board who has experienced waterboarding...You?

resting on past laurels does not excuse avoiding issues in the present.

[Silver]

human rights and human dignity IS the principle of the land...the Constitution IS the principle of the land.

Would you chose another terrorist attack on America versus dropping scores of nuclear weapons on Pakistan killing thousands and thousands of civilians?

Sorry Ensign, but that is exactly the choice we were given...

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

Either we get the information this animal knew, or we waited for the next attack to happen....so Ensign, what path do YOU choose...
Get the information needed to stop the next attack
or
Take our chances with maybe 3000 more American dead bodies ?
--------------------------------------
Yes, the Constitution IS the principle of the land....

Yet you have no problem ignoring the Second Amendment by limiting the rights clearly given in the Amendment as understood by Americans for well over 200 years....

We enjoy the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, yet you find no problem with killing children in the womb...

We enjoy the right of free speech, but you would force a law that defines what "free speech" will be aired....

We've enjoyed free and secret voting rights, yet you would force workers to vote publicly for or against unions....ignoring the obvious goon tactics that workers might be exposed to....

Your asshole allies even think we must re-define some common English words to further your political agenda....

You, Ensign, are a danger to the Founding Fathers' Constitution :salute:

[Silver]

you do understand the difference between torture and simulating torture, don't you? You do understand that the rationale behind the act is clearly different, don't you? :lol:

[quote]Nice dodge on point #2.... pussy.

Originally Posted by moderate democrat View Post
two points:


1. Military training is not torture. military training may simulate torture, but its aims are not synonymous with torture.

2. We have signed treaties that protect more individuals than merely lawful combatants. I would point you to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of which we are a signatory.

treaties that protect more individuals than merely lawful combatants.

Yes...that would be "civilians" or "non-combatants", is that your point ?

[Missileman]

torturing violates several treaties signed by our government and, thus, doing so violates the supreme law of the land.

Post a link to any treaty we have with terrorists. BTW, they're the ones who set the bar for treatment of prisoners, and our waterboarding and humiliation don't come anywhere near cutting off a persons head while they are still alive.

[Mr. P]

resting on past laurels does not excuse avoiding issues in the present.

I'll accept that as your typical dumb f'k no answer, Virgil.

Get back to me when ya grow a pair, ya hear.

[Yurt]

human rights and human dignity IS the principle of the land...the Constitution IS the principle of the land.

Would you chose another terrorist attack on America versus dropping scores of nuclear weapons on Pakistan killing thousands and thousands of civilians?

fellow armchair warrior...some sage advice:

The Constitution is not a suicide pact ~ Chief Justice Robert Jackson


The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

your question has nothing to do with mine. dropping nukes is beyond torture MD, it is mass murder unless in war and then the victor decides...stop your little games

you apparently believe it is ok to kill someone to save a life, but not to hurt them and let them live. you would rather risk losing the country because of a treaty....i will stand with Chief Justice Jackson and survive...

[moderate democrat]

fellow armchair warrior...some sage advice:

The Constitution is not a suicide pact ~ Chief Justice Robert Jackson



your question has nothing to do with mine. dropping nukes is beyond torture MD, it is mass murder unless in war and then the victor decides...stop your little games

you apparently believe it is ok to kill someone to save a life, but not to hurt them and let them live. you would rather risk losing the country because of a treaty....i will stand with Chief Justice Jackson and survive...

if a treaty - which is the supreme law of the land - is not something we chose to live with, then abrogate the treaty. If the government choses to regard the treaty as valid, and, therefore, the supreme law of the land, then, by God, uphold the freakin' thing. If not, then the whole constitution is nothing but a piss target.

[moderate democrat]

I'll accept that as your typical dumb f'k no answer, Virgil.

Get back to me when ya grow a pair, ya hear.

I have a pair...and I do not think that going through waterboarding in a controlled training environment automatically makes those two shrivelled peas between your legs anything to crow about.... and certainly nothing that would allow you to state that the constitution of the United States is worthy of being pissed on.

[moderate democrat]

Post a link to any treaty we have with terrorists. BTW, they're the ones who set the bar for treatment of prisoners, and our waterboarding and humiliation don't come anywhere near cutting off a persons head while they are still alive.

I already posted the name of the treaty which pertains. read it and get back to me...I certainly won't hold my breath waiting.

[moderate democrat]

Yes...that would be "civilians" or "non-combatants", is that your point ?
have you read the text of the UN treaty cited? I have. Get back to me when YOU have. mmmkay?

[moderate democrat]

Sorry Ensign, but that is exactly the choice we were given...

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

Either we get the information this animal knew, or we waited for the next attack to happen....so Ensign, what path do YOU choose...
Get the information needed to stop the next attack
or
Take our chances with maybe 3000 more American dead bodies ?
--------------------------------------
Yes, the Constitution IS the principle of the land....

Yet you have no problem ignoring the Second Amendment by limiting the rights clearly given in the Amendment as understood by Americans for well over 200 years....

We enjoy the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, yet you find no problem with killing children in the womb...

We enjoy the right of free speech, but you would force a law that defines what "free speech" will be aired....

We've enjoyed free and secret voting rights, yet you would force workers to vote publicly for or against unions....ignoring the obvious goon tactics that workers might be exposed to....

Your asshole allies even think we must re-define some common English words to further your political agenda....

You, Ensign, are a danger to the Founding Fathers' Constitution :salute:

as stated.... if we don't want to uphold a treaty which we have signed, then abrogate it. Until then, uphold it. period.

[Yurt]

if a treaty - which is the supreme law of the land - is not something we chose to live with, then abrogate the treaty. If the government choses to regard the treaty as valid, and, therefore, the supreme law of the land, then, by God, uphold the freakin' thing. If not, then the whole constitution is nothing but a piss target.

so then you disagree with the justice and believe the constitution is a suicide pact...interesting.

i believe that just as homicide is illegal, in defense of self or other from imminent death or great bodily harm, you will not be convicted of murder...

[moderate democrat]

so then you disagree with the justice and believe the constitution is a suicide pact...interesting.

i believe that just as homicide is illegal, in defense of self or other from imminent death or great bodily harm, you will not be convicted of murder...

I believe that, if we no longer wish to abide by a treaty that we have signed, we can easily abrogate it, and until we do, we should honor it, as our founding fathers wanted us to do.

Why, if torture is something we now wish to embrace as a society, do we not simply abrogate our adherence to the UN treaty which prevents it? WHy not opt out of the all the Geneva Conventions while we are at it?

[Yurt]

as stated.... if we don't want to uphold a treaty which we have signed, then abrogate it. Until then, uphold it. period.

so you would tell a police officer not to violate the 4th amendment, even if doing so saved a life?

[moderate democrat]

so you would tell a police officer not to violate the 4th amendment, even if doing so saved a life?


I would tell the US Government to either uphold the treaties which we have signed, or abrogate them. That is what our founding fathers expected of us.

[Yurt]

I believe that, if we no longer wish to abide by a treaty that we have signed, we can easily abrogate it, and until we do, we should honor it, as our founding fathers wanted us to do.

Why, if torture is something we now wish to embrace as a society, do we not simply abrogate our adherence to the UN treaty which prevents it? WHy not opt out of the all the Geneva Conventions while we are at it?

i think we should...but politicians don't want to do that. i don't think torture should be legal, i think it should be used only in the most dire consequences and then investigated just like when police violate your rights in order to save anothers life....

you believe the constitution is a suicide pact, i don't.

[Yurt]

I would tell the US Government to either uphold the treaties which we have signed, or abrogate them. That is what our founding fathers expected of us.

so you would not want an officer to violate the 4th amendment...you would allow innocent people to die....

i don't believe the constitution was ever intended to be a document that allowed innocents to die. you believe the constitution is a suicide pact, i don't.

[Mr. P]

I have a pair...and I do not think that going through waterboarding in a controlled training environment automatically makes those two shrivelled peas between your legs anything to crow about.... and certainly nothing that would allow you to state that the constitution of the United States is worthy of being pissed on.

You don't have a pair nor a clue, Virgil.

Being waterboarded, even in a controlled training situation, gives me much more insight into the process than you have. Read all ya want about it but if you haven't had the experience I promise ya ain't got a clue. Because I have is the only reason I speak up.

[moderate democrat]

i think we should...but politicians don't want to do that. i don't think torture should be legal, i think it should be used only in the most dire consequences and then investigated just like when police violate your rights in order to save anothers life....

you believe the constitution is a suicide pact, i don't.


I believe that treaties are the supreme law of the land until they are abrogated. If you are willing to piss on Article VI, para 2, why not just piss on ALL of it?

[moderate democrat]

You don't have a pair nor a clue, Virgil.

Being waterboarded, even in a controlled training situation, gives me much more insight into the process than you have. Read all ya want about it but if you haven't had the experience I promise ya ain't got a clue. Because I have is the only reason I speak up.

your military experience is of no interest to me. Until you can explain why we should piss on Article VI of the Constitution, and not them simply piss on ALL of it, I really could give a damn how much fruit salad you've got. hero.

[Silver]

I already posted the name of the treaty which pertains. read it and get back to me...I certainly won't hold my breath waiting.

Which terrorist organization signed this treaty with the US....???

If it was AQ...you sure as hell have a point...

[Yurt]

your military experience is of no interest to me. Until you can explain why we should piss on Article VI of the Constitution, and not them simply piss on ALL of it, I really could give a damn how much fruit salad you've got. hero.

had to start with the pissing....maybe i should say that your belief the constitution is a suicide pact pisses on the entire constitution...but i won't

[Yurt]

Which terrorist organization signed this treaty with the US....???

If it was AQ...you sure as hell have a point...

they are not required to be signatories under the UN torture treaty

[Yurt]

I believe that treaties are the supreme law of the land until they are abrogated. If you are willing to piss on Article VI, para 2, why not just piss on ALL of it?

fuck you pisshead

[hjmick]

You know, I have been reading this thread from the beginning, and I get both sides of the argument, I really do. And in a perfect world, I agree with you, MD. The idea of torturing someone leaves a bad taste in my mouth just as it does you. It is always better to seize the moral high ground, but that only works if your adversary has morals to begin with. Time and again, the enemy we are talking about in this discussion has exhibited a lack of morals, at least as we understand them and certainly as we understand them as applied to captured combatants. We all have seen and read what they have done when they have captured members of our military. Does this justify the torture their detained brothers suffered at the hands of the C.I.A. or the U.S. military? Maybe not. Probably not. I would, however, argue that, while distasteful, we didn't saw anybodies head off just for kicks and distribute the video over the Internet. Furthermore, The water-boarding and associated "extreme interrogation methods" were not done for the fun of it, the result of these measures provided the government with information which prevented attacks on U.S. soil.

From reading your posts, I get the impression that you are willing give your life and the lives of others to maintain this moral high ground you cherish. In many instances, I would agree with this ideal. And I may even agree in this instance, I have yet to decide where I stand, though I confess to leaning away from your POV.

Let me ask you this: Are you willing to give the lives of your wife, your children, and your grand-children for the sake of moral superiority? Are you willing to give the lives of your wife, your children, and your grand-children for the sake of a terrorist who wants nothing more than to see them dead?

I'm pretty sue I'm not.

[Yurt]

i bet MD thinks the justices on scotus who ruled that police sobriety check points are ok becuase the risks of drunks on the road outweighs the minor intrusion into your right of privacy....pissed on the constitution

i wonder if MD will be honest and claim obama has pissed on the constituion by expanding FISA...

[moderate democrat]

i bet MD thinks the justices on scotus who ruled that police sobriety check points are ok becuase the risks of drunks on the road outweighs the minor intrusion into your right of privacy....pissed on the constitution

i wonder if MD will be honest and claim obama has pissed on the constituion by expanding FISA...

if the justices of the SCOTUS have no problem with a law, then neither do I. I do not pretend to be smarter than they are regarding the constitutionality of ANYTHING. I think that the wording of Article VI para 2 is unambiguous. If we, as a nation, no longer want to abide by a treaty we have signed, we have an easy constitutional remedy: we can abrogate that treaty. Until then, the constitution tells us that such treaty is not just the law of the land, but the SUPREME law of the land.

[moderate democrat]

fuck you pisshead

what an intelligent comment from our resident attorney. I guess the constitution means nothing to you. That saddens me.

[Jeff]

Personally I feel that if what Bush has done was so wrong and he should be punished for it, of course lets not forget that there hasn't been another attack in this country since 9/11, so if the right thing to do is punish Bush, and then shake hands with the enemy and talk with terrorist , then yes if we are attacked again Obama should be held responsible .

But that would never happen cause liberals like Virgil will find away to spin it off as Bush's fault.

I know it is a unpopular belief but if water boarding and keeping some prisoners naked helped even a tiny bit in keeping America safe then I say Bush or who ever ordered it deserves a pat on the back, lets not forget those prisoner's weren't getting there heads cut off.

[moderate democrat]

Which terrorist organization signed this treaty with the US....???

If it was AQ...you sure as hell have a point...

read the UN treaty on torture and then we'll talk. moron.

[moderate democrat]

You know, I have been reading this thread from the beginning, and I get both sides of the argument, I really do. And in a perfect world, I agree with you, MD. The idea of torturing someone leaves a bad taste in my mouth just as it does you. It is always better to seize the moral high ground, but that only works if your adversary has morals to begin with. Time and again, the enemy we are talking about in this discussion has exhibited a lack of morals, at least as we understand them and certainly as we understand them as applied to captured combatants. We all have seen and read what they have done when they have captured members of our military. Does this justify the torture their detained brothers suffered at the hands of the C.I.A. or the U.S. military? Maybe not. Probably not. I would, however, argue that, while distasteful, we didn't saw anybodies head off just for kicks and distribute the video over the Internet. Furthermore, The water-boarding and associated "extreme interrogation methods" were not done for the fun of it, the result of these measures provided the government with information which prevented attacks on U.S. soil.

From reading your posts, I get the impression that you are willing give your life and the lives of others to maintain this moral high ground you cherish. In many instances, I would agree with this ideal. And I may even agree in this instance, I have yet to decide where I stand, though I confess to leaning away from your POV.

Let me ask you this: Are you willing to give the lives of your wife, your children, and your grand-children for the sake of moral superiority? Are you willing to give the lives of your wife, your children, and your grand-children for the sake of a terrorist who wants nothing more than to see them dead?

I'm pretty sue I'm not.

your question is irrational. No one is ever being asked to give up the lives of their immediate family as an price for upholding the constitution.

I do know that if I blithely urinate on the constitution when it suits me, I cannot expect it to protect me when it does not.

[Missileman]

I already posted the name of the treaty which pertains. read it and get back to me...I certainly won't hold my breath waiting.

I asked for a treaty that we entered into with terrorists.

[Silver]

read the UN treaty on torture and then we'll talk. moron.

Never mind...I see it was ratified...

[moderate democrat]

Did the US ratify this UN Treaty ?

yes indeed it did...under President Reagan

[Jeff]

Terrorists don't deserve to be treated as human and I don't give a rip about treating them with dignity. They are rabid dogs that just need to be put down.

EXACTLY , I wonder how the people at the bottom of the towers felt that terrible day, or the pentagon ?

Virgil you are crazy, you take a dog with rabies and put them to sleep,if you had even a little bit of patriotism in you , you would understand

[moderate democrat]

I asked for a treaty that we entered into with terrorists.

did you read the treaty in question? yes or no?

[Kathianne]

I asked for a treaty that we entered into with terrorists.

What? You think they are different than those that signed the Geneva Conventions? Even though many of those that did, ignored? My oh my! We need to show the world how it works.

[moderate democrat]

What? You think they are different than those that signed the Geneva Conventions? Even though many of those that did, ignored? My oh my! We need to show the world how it works.


The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has NOTHING to do with the Geneva Conventions.
but I wouldn't expect you to know that, or even care.

[Jeff]

[QUOTE=moderate democrat;364155]The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has NOTHING to do with the Geneva Conventions.
but I wouldn't expect you to know that, or even care.[/QUOTE ]It has nothing to do with it as long as that weren't in the armed services for another country, wow and you served?????

[Missileman]

did you read the treaty in question? yes or no?

A treaty is an agreement between parties...you can't have a one party treaty. There is no treaty between the U.S. and terrorists. We can't have violated a treaty that doesn't exist.

[moderate democrat]

A treaty is an agreement between parties...you can't have a one party treaty. There is no treaty between the U.S. and terrorists. We can't have violated a treaty that doesn't exist.

like I said...when you read the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, let me know....until then...STFU

[moderate democrat]

[QUOTE=moderate democrat;364155]The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has NOTHING to do with the Geneva Conventions.
but I wouldn't expect you to know that, or even care.[/QUOTE ]It has nothing to do with it as long as that weren't in the armed services for another country, wow and you served?????

the convention has ZERO to do with members of the armed services.... and you claim to be able to read???? wow.

[Jeff]

like I said...when you read the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, let me know....until then...STFU

LMAO, STFU, from a preacher , lol

[moderate democrat]

LMAO, STFU, from a preacher , lol
your reading skills remain untested. :lol:

[Jeff]

[QUOTE=Jeff;364156]

the convention has ZERO to do with members of the armed services.... and you claim to be able to read???? wow.

Virgil just admit you hate America , you are a lousy preacher, thats a fact, preachers dont come on message boards or anywhere for that matter and cuss like you do, you are just a liar and a UN patriotic ass

[Silver]

your question is irrational. No one is ever being asked to give up the lives of their immediate family as an price for upholding the constitution.

I do know that if I blithely urinate on the constitution when it suits me, I cannot expect it to protect me when it does not.

Irrational isn't an answer....its a hypothetical ....

forget you immediate family...how about your neighbors family...? Would you do something against the Constitution for the sake of your neighbors life?
Maybe 100 of you neighbors lives...? Never ??


I already know your moral high ground doesn't prevent you from assisting those killing children in the womb at will or on a wim....so this question should be snap...

[Jeff]

your reading skills remain untested. :lol:

but you are still a liar VIRGIL!!!!

[moderate democrat]

[QUOTE=moderate democrat;364159]

Virgil just admit you hate America , you are a lousy preacher, thats a fact, preachers dont come on message boards or anywhere for that matter and cuss like you do, you are just a liarand a UN patriotic ass

the name is not Virgil...I am not a preacher...and you are clearly incapable of reading the text of the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. When you gain the educational skills necessary to be able to read that document, let's talk about it. And while you are at it, try reading Article VI paragraph 2 of the US constitution.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

[moderate democrat]

Irrational isn't an answer....its a hypothetical ....

forget you immediate family...how about your neighbors family...? Would you do something against the Constitution for the sake of your neighbors life?
Maybe 100 of you neighbors lives...? Never ??


I already know your moral high ground doesn't prevent you from assisting those killing children in the womb at will or on a wim....so this question should be snap...

it is a silly question. some of of us who swore an oath to defend the constitution of the united states took that oath seriously...some others should not have their words valued as highly.

[hjmick]

your question is irrational. No one is ever being asked to give up the lives of their immediate family as an price for upholding the constitution.

Not really all that irrational. Hypothetical, absolutely, but what discussion does not include a hypothetical or two?

Had the C.I.A. not interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in such a fashion, there is probably a better that 50/50 chance Los Angeles would have suffered a terrorist attack the would have certainly resulted in the death of many an Angeleno. Every one of them some one's son or daughter. many of them husbands and wives. All potentially lost in an effort to capture the moral high ground. While I may be willing to die for something so noble as the Constitution and morality, I am not willing to sacrifice my children.



I do know that if I blithely urinate on the constitution when it suits me, I cannot expect it to protect me when it does not.

So now we're going to pretend that administrations haven't been pissing on the Constitution since the day after it was ratified? Presidents both revered and reviled have ignored or twisted the Constitution when it suited their needs and goals. Does that make it right? No, but let's not pretend that Bush and his cronies were the first. It smack of false outrage.

[moderate democrat]

Not really all that irrational. Hypothetical, absolutely, but what discussion does not include a hypothetical or two?

Had the C.I.A. not interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in such a fashion, there is probably a better that 50/50 chance Los Angeles would have suffered a terrorist attack the would have certainly resulted in the death of many an Angeleno. Every one of them some one's son or daughter. many of them husbands and wives. All potentially lost in an effort to capture the moral high ground. While I may be willing to die for something so noble as the Constitution and morality, I am not willing to sacrifice my children.




So now we're going to pretend that administrations haven't been pissing on the Constitution since the day after it was ratified? Presidents both revered and reviled have ignored or twisted the Constitution when it suited their needs and goals. Does that make it right? No, but let's not pretend that Bush and his cronies were the first. It smack of false outrage.

I never suggested that Bush was the first president to piss on the constitution. I merely suggested that I, for one, am not willing to do so...I took an oath to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic and when I give my word, I keep it.

[Silver]

like I said...when you read the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, let me know....until then...STFU

Personally, I think its bullshit....feel good bullshit....

I'm supposed to agree in the killing of enemies by just about any means necessary, but not agree to causing them pain and letting them continue to live....

I'm supposed to understand the incineration of people by nuclear bombs but never agree to causing them fear and discomfort...

I can blow their heads off but not poison them....

Good grief, doesn't this convoluted nonsense get to you ....

[Insein]

as stated.... if we don't want to uphold a treaty which we have signed, then abrogate it. Until then, uphold it. period.

Nice dodge. It's convienant the cherry picking of the constitution you do. Where it's beneficial to you, it needs to be followed. Where it hurts your agenda, it need not apply.

The bottomline is that the laws of America supercede the laws of international treaty. Goto another UN country and try to plot a terrorist act against them. See how well those treaties protect your rights from their torture. America can stand on its principles as long as there is still America. If we continue to handcuff ourselves in the vain attempt to be moral, then we will lose. Which I fear is what alot of so called Americans want these days.

[Yurt]

what an intelligent comment from our resident attorney. I guess the constitution means nothing to you. That saddens me.

you're a lying sack of shit...i can't believe i actually trusted you, how many fucking times have i made that mistake...how shameful of me

what kind of deranged person are you that you have to insult people virtually every time you debate?

you act as if the constitution is holier than the bible....pathetic for you...

you would rather see millions die than torture someone...you value the life of a terrorist over your fellow citizens

[moderate democrat]

you're a lying sack of shit...i can't believe i actually trusted you, how many fucking times have i made that mistake...how shameful of me

what kind of deranged person are you that you have to insult people virtually every time you debate?

you act as if the constitution is holier than the bible....pathetic for you...

you would rather see millions die than torture someone...you value the life of a terrorist over your fellow citizens


again... counselor...if we, as a nation, want to embrace torture, why not simply abrogate that treaty and keep faith with the founding fathers?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

[moderate democrat]

Nice dodge. It's convienant the cherry picking of the constitution you do. Where it's beneficial to you, it needs to be followed. Where it hurts your agenda, it need not apply.

The bottomline is that the laws of America supercede the laws of international treaty. Goto another UN country and try to plot a terrorist act against them. See how well those treaties protect your rights from their torture. America can stand on its principles as long as there is still America. If we continue to handcuff ourselves in the vain attempt to be moral, then we will lose. Which I fear is what alot of so called Americans want these days.


the bottom line is that, according to our constitution, treaties signed become the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. If you want to embrace torture as an American principle, why not simply abrogate that treaty and keep faith with our founding fathers? Simple question which NO ONE seems capable of even acknowledging, let alone answering.

[moderate democrat]

Personally, I think its bullshit....feel good bullshit....

I'm supposed to agree in the killing of enemies by just about any means necessary, but not agree to causing them pain and letting them continue to live....

I'm supposed to understand the incineration of people by nuclear bombs but never agree to causing them fear and discomfort...

I can blow their heads off but not poison them....

Good grief, doesn't this convoluted nonsense get to you ....

again...if you want to embrace torture as an American principle, all you need to do is abrogate the treaties that we have signed which prevent it.

[Silver]

it is a silly question. some of of us who swore an oath to defend the constitution of the united states took that oath seriously...some others should not have their words valued as highly.

Silly question ? but you can't even address it .... silly but you don't have a clue how you might act ? you little brain can't comprehend the circumstances and what you might find to be reasonable action ?

[moderate democrat]

I started this very nicely with my opinion , again you came with the insults, or at least tried, you are a very confused person Virgil, you can't tell the truth you hate America, it is OK for Americans to get there head cut off but we shouldn't torture anyone,

And you blame me , I read threw old post here Virgil seems you have had problems here for a long time and lets not forget the 50 different names ya had trying to hide, you are a worthless piece of garbage

Why you are even aloud to be here is beyond me, but it isn't my call, as for ignore ignore away, I wont put you on ignore cause I love to watch you get blasted!!!

again...have you read the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTUREand Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

if you have, and you disagree with it, why not simply demand that your congressional representatives abrogate it?

Have you read Article VI para 2 of the Constitution?

Of course not.

[Missileman]

like I said...when you read the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, let me know....until then...STFU

Who did we enter into that treaty with Virgil?

[Yurt]

again... counselor...if we, as a nation, want to embrace torture, why not simply abrogate that treaty and keep faith with the founding fathers?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

piss off virgil

you believe the constitution is a suicide pact....i don't

[Silver]

again...if you want to embrace torture as an American principle, all you need to do is abrogate the treaties that we have signed which prevent it.

Us, in the real world, know, we know without a doubt that these types of agreements will only stop us from acting in certain ways....

we know the Nazis and their ilk wouldn't give a shit about this type of agreement...

we know that AQ and their ilk wouldn't give a shit about this type of agreement...

we know that the N. Koreans wouldn't give a shit about this type of agreement...

we know Communist Chinese wouldn't give a shit about this type of agreement...

Can we as country only defend ourselves and fight according to rules of the Marquess of Queensberry ...?

Sorry ensign...its feel good liberal crap....like painting our bunker buster bombs pink so they'll look pretty....

[Yurt]

what virgil fails to realize is that it is up to the individual signators to prosecute the violations...so if the president or government says no prosecution, that is it. those are our laws and that is legal according to the UN treaty.

and further, the committee from that treaty has NOT found any US person guilty, another fail for virgil....

[moderate democrat]

piss off virgil

you believe the constitution is a suicide pact....i don't

it was a simple question. why are you so afraid of answering it?

[moderate democrat]

what virgil fails to realize is that it is up to the individual signators to prosecute the violations...so if the president or government says no prosecution, that is it. those are our laws and that is legal according to the UN treaty.

and further, the committee from that treaty has NOT found any US person guilty, another fail for virgil....


does that mean we are not in violation?

[Yurt]

does that mean we are not in violation?

who has been found guilty?

[red states rule]

"This act," as I read it in Red's post, refers to a terrorist act on U.S. soil. I just don't think Red worded it in the best possible way. If he did indeed mean to say that the prosecution of Bush officials would weaken the country's safety, leading to a terrorist attack, and thus justify the impeachment of President Obama, then yes, that makes no damn sense. We seem to be finding different meanings in his post. Perhaps it is I who is reading his post wrong, but I don't think so.

Hjmick, here is what I was saying

It is clear the policies of the Bush administration has indeed stopped attacks and saved lives

Obama and his people are reversing those policies. What happens if we are hit with another 9-11 style attack?

How will the public react if it turns out the US government had a suspect and did not do everything possible to break him and stop the attack?

How would the public react if in 2001 we had Atta in a jail cell, had warnings of a pending attack , and did NOT waterboard him to try and stop the attacks?

If we are hit again, and it comes out Obama said go by the Army Field Manual and nothing else to stop a pending attacl - what should be done to Obama?

Impeach him or give him a Nobel Prize?

[red states rule]

You know, I have been reading this thread from the beginning, and I get both sides of the argument, I really do. And in a perfect world, I agree with you, MD. The idea of torturing someone leaves a bad taste in my mouth just as it does you. It is always better to seize the moral high ground, but that only works if your adversary has morals to begin with. Time and again, the enemy we are talking about in this discussion has exhibited a lack of morals, at least as we understand them and certainly as we understand them as applied to captured combatants. We all have seen and read what they have done when they have captured members of our military. Does this justify the torture their detained brothers suffered at the hands of the C.I.A. or the U.S. military? Maybe not. Probably not. I would, however, argue that, while distasteful, we didn't saw anybodies head off just for kicks and distribute the video over the Internet. Furthermore, The water-boarding and associated "extreme interrogation methods" were not done for the fun of it, the result of these measures provided the government with information which prevented attacks on U.S. soil.

From reading your posts, I get the impression that you are willing give your life and the lives of others to maintain this moral high ground you cherish. In many instances, I would agree with this ideal. And I may even agree in this instance, I have yet to decide where I stand, though I confess to leaning away from your POV.

Let me ask you this: Are you willing to give the lives of your wife, your children, and your grand-children for the sake of moral superiority? Are you willing to give the lives of your wife, your children, and your grand-children for the sake of a terrorist who wants nothing more than to see them dead?

I'm pretty sue I'm not.

Hjmick, waterboarding is NOT torture. The terrorists "suffers" for a few seconds, has no lasting effects, does not lose any body parts or blood, and is put back in his jail cell in the same condition as he was taken out

The Irony of of this debate is, had waterbaording not been successful, we would not be having this debate right now.

Had waterboarding not succeeded, Obama would not have been elected. We would either have a president Hillary or Guilliani as national security would have been the most important issue.

To take away the tools that allows our intelligence people to do their job is insane.

I think Obama needs to take a deep breath and thank Bush for keeping the country safe so he shake hand with Chavez as our TOTUS.

[moderate democrat]

who has been found guilty?

no one ...yet... there have been no legal proceedings. That is what is being suggested...that those individuals who authored our policies that authorized those interrogation techniques be prosecuted for violating the terms of those treaties. If they are found innocent of those charges, so be it. If they are found guilty, so be it.

[red states rule]

no one ...yet... there have been no legal proceedings. That is what is being suggested...that those individuals who authored our policies that authorized those interrogation techniques be prosecuted for violating the terms of those treaties. If they are found innocent of those charges, so be it. If they are found guilty, so be it.

Tell me Virgil, is this like when Reagan was President and Dems said even though there is no evidence of wrong doing, but the seriousness of the charge demands a witch hunt -- eh, investigation?

[Kathianne]

Well we are 'trying to be nice' to some 'new friends':

Obama Administration Wants Judge to Toss Embassy Hostage Suit - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/22/obama-administration-wants-judge-toss-embassy-hostage-suit/)


Obama Administration Wants Judge to Toss Embassy Hostage Suit
In court papers filed Tuesday night without any announcement, the Justice Department argued that the agreement to release the hostages, known as the Algiers Accords, precluded lawsuits against Iran.

AP
Wednesday, April 22, 2009

The Obama administration has asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit against Iran filed by Americans held hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago.

The request comes in a $6.6 billion class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington. Fifty-two American diplomats and military officials were held captive for more than a year at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency by a group of Islamist students who supported the Iranian revolution.

The hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, just minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the new president.

In court papers filed Tuesday night without any announcement, the Justice Department argued that the agreement to release the hostages, known as the Algiers Accords, precluded lawsuits against Iran.

A similar lawsuit brought by the Iranian hostages was dismissed in 2000 after the government successfully argued it was banned by the Algiers Accords. The hostages argue that legislation passed by Congress last year and signed into law by President George W. Bush gives them the right to bring private lawsuits.

But the Justice Department argued that the law does not mention the Algiers Accords, much less explicitly repeal them....

[red states rule]

again...have you read the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTUREand Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

if you have, and you disagree with it, why not simply demand that your congressional representatives abrogate it?

Have you read Article VI para 2 of the Constitution?

Of course not.

So how would you break terrorists to stop attacks and save lives?

Tea and cookies, of course! Afterall, if you're nice to a terrorist, they won't attack you again

Look into his eyes and be really really really nice.

[moderate democrat]

How strange..

Its OK for Obama to authorize 3 Navy Seals to blow the heads off, killing of 3 pirates to save the life of 1 merchant mariner captain.

Its not OK to take a terrorist and dunk him under the water making him think he's drowning in order to get information that might potentially save THOUSANDS of lives.

Mind you he is fine, a physician is present the entire time of the waterboarding


what supreme law of the land did the Seals violate?

[red states rule]

Well we are 'trying to be nice' to some 'new friends':

Obama Administration Wants Judge to Toss Embassy Hostage Suit - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/22/obama-administration-wants-judge-toss-embassy-hostage-suit/)

Kat, the hipocrosy this administration shows on this is glaring. How can you "go after those who have broken the law", while at the same time apologize, grovel and bow to the worst human rights violators in the world?

If you poor some water down the nose of a terrorist to get info that saves lives - that is just not acceptable it is a crime

[moderate democrat]

Tell me Virgil, is this like when Reagan was President and Dems said even though there is no evidence of wrong doing, but the seriousness of the charge demands a witch hunt -- eh, investigation?

I simply think a court of law should decide whether or not waterboarding violates the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That convention is, after all, the supreme law of the land.

[red states rule]

I simply think a court of law should decide whether or not waterboarding violates the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That convention is, after all, the supreme law of the land.

How strange..

Its OK for Obama to authorize 3 Navy Seals to blow the heads off, killing of 3 pirates to save the life of 1 merchant mariner captain.

Its not OK to take a terrorist and dunk him under the water making him think he's drowning in order to get information that might potentially save THOUSANDS of lives.

Mind you he is fine, a physician is present the entire time of the waterboarding

[moderate democrat]

So how would you break terrorists to stop attacks and save lives?

Tea and cookies, of course! Afterall, if you're nice to a terrorist, they won't attack you again

Look into his eyes and be really really really nice.


I would not break the supreme law of the land during interrogations.

I am sure that using the rack or pulling out fingernails might also be effective in getting someone to talk... but those tactics, too, are against the supreme law of the land. that is what our constitution says.

[red states rule]

If I had the power vested in me to do so, those treaties with the UN would be abrogated. Why should the US be held to standards that no other country takes? Every other country that is a member of the UN may say they don't use torture, but when it comes down to someone killing their civilians or abiding by a UN treaty, guess what decision they make everytime.

Damn, have to spread rep around before giving you more

[red states rule]

I would not break the supreme law of the land during interrogations.

I am sure that using the rack or pulling out fingernails might also be effective in getting someone to talk... but those tactics, too, are against the supreme law of the land. that is what our constitution says.

Getting desperate Virgil? :laugh2:

Maybe you would say "Pretty please with sugar on top?" to the terrorist

And then if he still refused to yield any information, you would be forced to get tough and pinch him a couple of times

[moderate democrat]

If we are hit again, and it comes out Obama said go by the Army Field Manual and nothing else to stop a pending attacl - what should be done to Obama?

Impeach him or give him a Nobel Prize?

so you approve of impeaching Bush? His administration was using the Army Field Manual prior to 9/11.

[Insein]

the bottom line is that, according to our constitution, treaties signed become the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. If you want to embrace torture as an American principle, why not simply abrogate that treaty and keep faith with our founding fathers? Simple question which NO ONE seems capable of even acknowledging, let alone answering.

If I had the power vested in me to do so, those treaties with the UN would be abrogated. Why should the US be held to standards that no other country takes? Every other country that is a member of the UN may say they don't use torture, but when it comes down to someone killing their civilians or abiding by a UN treaty, guess what decision they make everytime.

[moderate democrat]

Do desperation sets in eh Virgil? :laugh2:

Maybe you would say "Pretty please with sugar on top?" to the terrorist

And then if he still refused to yield any information, you would be forced to get tough and pinch him a couple of times

As I said, I would not break the law of the land. Clearly....you would. ANd if you broke the law of the land, you would be liable for prosecution for doing so, wouldn't you?

[red states rule]

so you approve of impeaching Bush? His administration was using the Army Field Manual prior to 9/11.

Key word in your post is PRIOR

Dems want to go back to the Army Field Manual after 9-11

[moderate democrat]

Key word in your post is PRIOR

Dems want to go back to the Army Field Manual after 9-11

I think that the Pentagon announced that they would abide by the Army Field Manual during the Bush administration as recently as last year.

And you are suggesting that 9/11 somehow allows us to violate international law and violate the supreme law of OUR land?

[red states rule]

I think that the Pentagon announced that they would abide by the Army Field Manual during the Bush administration as recently as last year.

And you are suggesting that 9/11 somehow allows us to violate international law and violate the supreme law of OUR land?

Waterboarding does not cause any real physical pain

Doesn't disfigure.

But it gets answers.

Or put the terrorist in a room with a caterpillar. Hardcore, I tell you - and libs will flip out over "torture" :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

If I had the power vested in me to do so, those treaties with the UN would be abrogated. Why should the US be held to standards that no other country takes? Every other country that is a member of the UN may say they don't use torture, but when it comes down to someone killing their civilians or abiding by a UN treaty, guess what decision they make everytime.

if the rest of America shared that view, we could very easily garner support to demand that congress abrograte those treaties. ANd if we did, then waterboarding and any other torture technique would not be against the supreme law of the land. Until the treaties ARE abrogated, our military, especially, has sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic.

[moderate democrat]

Waterboarding does not cause any real physical pain

Doesn't disfigure.

But it gets answers.

Or put the terrorist in a room with a caterpillar. Hardcore, I tell you - and libs will flip out over "torture" :laugh2:

many people believe that waterboarding violates the UN Convention againstTorture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That convention is the supreme law of the land. that's a fact.

[red states rule]

if the rest of America shared that view, we could very easily garner support to demand that congress abrograte those treaties. ANd if we did, then waterboarding and any other torture technique would not be against the supreme law of the land. Until the treaties ARE abrogated, our military, especially, has sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic.

I think fear is a good thing when trying to extract information from a terrorist.

Waterboarding seems to be a humane way to inflick fear without any injuries..

And again...It works Virgil

[moderate democrat]

I think fear is a good thing when trying to extract information from a terrorist.

Waterboarding seems to be a humane way to inflick fear without any injuries..

And again...It works Virgil

it violates the supreme law of the land.

[red states rule]

many people believe that waterboarding violates the UN Convention againstTorture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That convention is the supreme law of the land. that's a fact.

It is also a fact Virgil our military goes through that during training. No side effects whatsoever.

Ollie North was on and explained he went through it during training....he does not consider it torture.

[red states rule]

it violates the supreme law of the land.

It saves lives Virgil. Again, maybe you would rather have the dead bodies of innocent people while protecting the rights of terrorists - I would rasther stop the attacks

That seems to be a big difference between liberals and conservatives these days

Libs were saying for years waterboarding did not get any useful info from the terrorists - now they have to spin after the proof of the success of waterboarding came to light

[moderate democrat]

It is also a fact Virgil our military goes through that during training. No side effects whatsoever.

Ollie North was on and explained he went through it during training....he does not consider it torture.

and if the jury is made up of twleve people that think like Ollie North, no one will be found guilty of any crime, will they?

Do you deny the FACT that the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment IS the supreme law of the land?

[red states rule]

and if the jury is made up of twleve people that think like Ollie North, no one will be found guilty of any crime, will they?

Do you deny the FACT that the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment IS the supreme law of the land?

Again Virgil, I ask this

How strange..

Its OK for Obama to authorize 3 Navy Seals to blow the heads off, killing of 3 pirates to save the life of 1 merchant mariner captain.

Its not OK to take a terrorist and dunk him under the water making him think he's drowning in order to get information that might potentially save THOUSANDS of lives.

Mind you he is fine, a physician is present the entire time of the waterboarding

[moderate democrat]

It saves lives Virgil. Again, maybe you would rather have the dead bodies of innocent people while protecting the rights of terrorists - I would rasther stop the attacks

That seems to be a big difference between liberals and conservatives these days

Libs were saying for years waterboarding did not get any useful info from the terrorists - now they have to spin after the proof of the success of waterboarding came to light


so you are completely OK with the government breaking the supreme law of the land if it feels it has good reason to?

[moderate democrat]

Again Virgil, I ask this

How strange..

Its OK for Obama to authorize 3 Navy Seals to blow the heads off, killing of 3 pirates to save the life of 1 merchant mariner captain.

Its not OK to take a terrorist and dunk him under the water making him think he's drowning in order to get information that might potentially save THOUSANDS of lives.

Mind you he is fine, a physician is present the entire time of the waterboarding

I answered your question. THe SEALS did not break any laws by rescuing the Captain.

[red states rule]

so you are completely OK with the government breaking the supreme law of the land if it feels it has good reason to?

I am all for the government protecting the lives of US citizens, stopping terrorist attacks, and capturing and killing the terrorists

Again Virgil, your double standards are clear

How strange..

Its OK for Obama to authorize 3 Navy Seals to blow the heads off, killing of 3 pirates to save the life of 1 merchant mariner captain.

Its not OK to take a terrorist and dunk him under the water making him think he's drowning in order to get information that might potentially save THOUSANDS of lives.

Mind you he is fine, a physician is present the entire time of the waterboarding

[red states rule]

I answered your question. THe SEALS did not break any laws by rescuing the Captain.

But is alos shows your double standards and selective outrage over terrorist rights

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you deny the FACT that the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment IS the supreme law of the land?

uh, yeah......wouldn't everyone deny it?.....

[moderate democrat]

I am all for the government protecting the lives of US citizens, stopping terrorist attacks, and capturing and killing the terrorists

Again Virgil, your double standards are clear

How strange..

Its OK for Obama to authorize 3 Navy Seals to blow the heads off, killing of 3 pirates to save the life of 1 merchant mariner captain.

Its not OK to take a terrorist and dunk him under the water making him think he's drowning in order to get information that might potentially save THOUSANDS of lives.

Mind you he is fine, a physician is present the entire time of the waterboarding


there is no double standard. the SEALS did not break any laws.

[red states rule]

there is no double standard. the SEALS did not break any laws.

So a Dem President can kill 3 terrorists to save one life - but a Republican President can't waterboard one terrorist that would save thousands of lives

OK, I got it now Virgil

[moderate democrat]

But is alos shows your double standards and selective outrage over terrorist rights

I am not concerned at all with terrorist rights. I am concerned with upholding the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

[red states rule]

I am not concerned at all with terrorist rights. I am concerned with upholding the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Sorry Virgil, your shorts are in knot over the rights of the terrorists bieng violated. You have said clearly you would rather have dead Americans rather then waterboard a terrorist that would save those lives

You have pledged your allegiance to the Dem party over your country years ago

[moderate democrat]

So a Dem President can kill 3 terrorists to save one life - but a Republican President can't waterboard one terrorist that would save thousands of lives

OK, I got it now Virgil

if you understand the law and the constitution, then you DO get it.

one act is legal, the other isn't.

[red states rule]

if you understand the law and the constitution, then you DO get it.

one act is legal, the other isn't.

Party over country - same old same old

[moderate democrat]

Sorry Virgil, your shorts are in knot over the rights of the terrorists bieng violated. You have said clearly you would rather have dead Americans rather then waterboard a terrorist that would save those lives

You have pledged your allegiance to the Dem party over your country years ago


I do not care a bit about the rights of terrorists. I care about breaking the supreme law of the land.

[moderate democrat]

Party over country - same old same old


that is wrong. I care about our constitution... I care about defending it against ALL enemies...foreign ones...AND domestic ones, like you. This has NOTHING to do with political party...it has EVERYTHING to do with supporting and defending the constitution...something you are on record as not caring a bit about.

[Kathianne]

I'm merging the two threads on 'torture'.

[Jeff]

Y'all be careful as not to hurt Virgil's feelings or your post will be deleted , only Virgil can insult and threaten people, I will post in the cage were this shit belongs

[red states rule]

Why is the simplicity of this argument so hard for the liberals to understand?!

Do libs just want another terror attack?! I seldom see liberals start a thread defending our troops, but they will spend page after page on this forum defending the comfort of terrorist dirtbags down in Gitmo.

Terrorists killed 3000 Americans, and the terrorists are determined to kill more given the opportunity. I do wish liberals would grow up, live in the real world.

Seriously, this whole touchy-feely love crap for terrorists is getting old.

[moderate democrat]

Why is the simplicity of this argument so hard for the liberals to understand?!

Do libs just want another terror attack?! I seldom see liberals start a thread defending our troops, but they will spend page after page on this forum defending the comfort of terrorist dirtbags down in Gitmo.

Terrorists killed 3000 Americans, and the terrorists are determined to kill more given the opportunity. I do wish liberals would grow up, live in the real world.

Seriously, this whole touchy-feely love crap for terrorists is getting old.


nobody feels touchy-feely love for terrorists. I only want to support and defend the constitution. period. why is THAT so hard for you to understand?

[red states rule]

nobody feels touchy-feely love for terrorists.


Look in the mirror Virgil

[moderate democrat]

Look in the mirror Virgil


again...the name is not virgil and I do not want cushy treatment for terrorists. I only care that we do not violate our constitution.

[red states rule]

again...the name is not virgil and I do not want cushy treatment for terrorists. I only care that we do not violate our constitution.

Your name is indeed Virgil

And all you care about is your Democrat party, power, and more control over people

[moderate democrat]

Your name is indeed Virgil

And all you care about is your Democrat party, power, and more control over people


wrong on both counts.

As I have said over and over again...if public officials have broken the law regarding torture, I want to see them prosecuted regardless of their political affiliation.

[actsnoblemartin]

I talked it over with one of my best friends, and i reversed my position on torture because it is immoral and i dont wanna act like al queda.

[Yurt]

I talked it over with one of my best friends, and i reversed my position on torture because it is immoral and i dont wanna act like al queda.

al qaeda kills their enemies acts....i guess you don't want america to kill enemies....

[Psychoblues]

Dig that, marteen!!!!!!!!!



I talked it over with one of my best friends, and i reversed my position on torture because it is immoral and i dont wanna act like al queda.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

[Psychoblues]

Would you like some cheese to go with that whine, yuk?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?



al qaeda kills their enemies acts....i guess you don't want america to kill enemies....

Is fearmongering, loathing and ridiculous whining going to define you for the next 4 years?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

[moderate democrat]

al qaeda kills their enemies acts....i guess you don't want america to kill enemies....killing an enemy on the battlefield is one thing. capturing your enemy alive...taking him into custody...disarming him.... restraining him, and then torturing him is something entirely different. No one ought to expect Americans not to kill our enemies on the battlefield... every American ought to be appalled that we would take an enemy into custody, disarm him, restrain him and then torture him. the fact that you can't see the difference really saddens me and makes me wonder what my country has become.

[Psychoblues]

There was good, efficient and honest work done by slaves in this country. We no longer embrace that ideology. Or,,,,,,do we?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

[Kathianne]

There was good, efficient and honest work done by slaves in this country. We no longer embrace that ideology. Or,,,,,,do we?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Do we? Cite what you mean.

[Psychoblues]

Just asking, sweetness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Do we? Cite what you mean.

Perhaps you can remove yourself from the fears, hatred and general silliness of your company?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?

:salute::beer::cheers2::beer::laugh2:

[Insein]

if the rest of America shared that view, we could very easily garner support to demand that congress abrograte those treaties. ANd if we did, then waterboarding and any other torture technique would not be against the supreme law of the land. Until the treaties ARE abrogated, our military, especially, has sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic.

Well the rest of America feels we pay way too much in taxes that go towards causes we dont need to better America and yet our Reps keep on shoving those down our throats. What makes you think they would care what we think unless its election time? Then they will lie out of their asses to get us to vote for them again.

Besides, our military has also sworn an oath to defend the America people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which supercedes the other? The laws of a treaty or the lives of Americans?

[Psychoblues]

I can buy most of that.



Well the rest of America feels we pay way too much in taxes that go towards causes we dont need to better America and yet our Reps keep on shoving those down our throats. What makes you think they would care what we think unless its election time? Then they will lie out of their asses to get us to vote for them again.

Besides, our military has also sworn an oath to defend the America people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which supercedes the other? The laws of a treaty or the lives of Americans?

How does it reflect with this conversation?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!

[Insein]

killing an enemy on the battlefield is one thing. capturing your enemy alive...taking him into custody...disarming him.... restraining him, and then torturing him is something entirely different. No one ought to expect Americans not to kill our enemies on the battlefield... every American ought to be appalled that we would take an enemy into custody, disarm him, restrain him and then torture him. the fact that you can't see the difference really saddens me and makes me wonder what my country has become.

That makes zero sense. Nothing is worse then being dead. Once you are dead, you are done. No amount of physical trauma, mental fatigue or pain can be worse then death.

Killing an enemy in a battlefield is horrible yet neccessary when they have sworn to kill Americans. So why does it stop on the battlefield? These same people have shown that they mean to kill you and have openly stated that they would do so if given the chance. So why wouldn't we find out what they know in order to prevent any American civilians or soldiers from dieing?

[Insein]

I can buy most of that.




How does it reflect with this conversation?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Go back to the original argument from MD and it will make sense.

[Psychoblues]

Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Go back to the original argument from MD and it will make sense.

Are the fearmongerers pissing you off as well?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!

[Insein]

Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Are the fearmongerers pissing you off as well?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!

Yes. I'm tired of hearing how this country will fall apart without the government saving us with a red cape that I paid $1.3 trillion for.

[Psychoblues]

Seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Yes. I'm tired of hearing how this country will fall apart without the government saving us with a red cape that I paid $1.3 trillion for.

That gwb deficit from the 3 trillion surplus he inherited will go down in history as the worst for certain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What to do about the fearmongerers, loathers, and inherently silly ones?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

[Yurt]

killing an enemy on the battlefield is one thing. capturing your enemy alive...taking him into custody...disarming him.... restraining him, and then torturing him is something entirely different. No one ought to expect Americans not to kill our enemies on the battlefield... every American ought to be appalled that we would take an enemy into custody, disarm him, restrain him and then torture him. the fact that you can't see the difference really saddens me and makes me wonder what my country has become.

i see....so you hack your enemy to death with a sword, even take his head off....but you won't waterboard someone to get information to save lives, nope, thats bad....much better to kill them

[Psychoblues]

You're a pretty hard headed bitch, yuk. Tired of neg repping and whining tonight?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?



i see....so you hack your enemy to death with a sword, even take his head off....but you won't waterboard someone to get information to save lives, nope, thats bad....much better to kill them

Read the post the next time you call me out, OK, bitch?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

In the meantime,,,,,,,can I get you some holy water?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

i have no idea what makes you such an idiot, but it really works...

[Psychoblues]

You don't have to pretend to be dumb, yuk.



i have no idea what makes you such an idiot, but it really works...

The general population determined long ago that you and your butt buddie are not much more than idiots and not to be consulted for serious conversation. Is MD busy or did you just stop by on your way to the idiotfest?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!

Can I get you something to cool that hateful throat?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!

:pee: yuk