Will "Torture" Hearings Include Democrats?

[red states rule]

Since Dems are calling for hearings into waterboarding, who did it, and who approved it - will Nancy Pelosi be called as a witness?

Somehow I doubt it. I do not remember ANY DEMOCRAT who voiced any concern or opposition to waterboarding terrorists when they were given a tour and viewed videos of terrorists being waterboarded



Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html

[moderate democrat]

good question. I am not sure whether merely being briefed on illegal activities causes those who are briefed to be considered as breaking the law. I think that is a matter for the courts to decide, don't you?

[red states rule]

good question. I am not sure whether merely being briefed on illegal activities causes those who are briefed to be considered as breaking the law. I think that is a matter for the courts to decide, don't you?

Translation - No way. Demsocrats are running things and they will decide who will be called to testify

So what is Pelosi was virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk?

She has a "D" at the end of her name so is entitled and will be given protection

[moderate democrat]

Translation - No way. Demsocrats are running things and they will decide who will be called to testify

So what is Pelosi was virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk?

She has a "D" at the end of her name so is entitled and will be given protection

If she broke any laws, I think she should be prosecuted. I think that for anyone of any party. As I said, I am not certain whether merely KNOWING about an illegal activity is itself illegal but would be perfectly willing to have the courts decide that.

[red states rule]

snip

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews


So if San Fran Nan knew "laws" were being violated that would make her an accessory after the fact

But somehow I think YOU, the Dem party, and the liberal media will give her a pass, and all the protection she needs

[moderate democrat]

snip

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews


So if San Fran Nan knew "laws" were being violated that would make her an accessory after the fact

But somehow I think YOU, the Dem party, and the liberal media will give her a pass, and all the protection she needs

you're not a lawyer and neither am I... if she is guilty of a crime, she should be prosecuted. I would not agree to her getting any sort of pass.

[red states rule]

Nancy Pelosi, bellow America should take the high road.

They lecture how America should be above this type of torture. They sneer how America has lost it’s standing in the world because of this type of harsh interrogation.

As a matter of fact, some didn’t think the CIA was going far enough with their interrogations.

So what changed Virgil?

Did Nancy Pelosi suddenly develop a set of morals? Waterboarding was considered fine with the liberals until they could say Pres Bush was committing crimes against humanity, and violating the terrorist's civil rights.

The anti-war movement of the Dem party started as a political movement, not a moral movement.

Nothing will be said of Pelosi's or any other Dems knowledge about waterboarding Virgil

We both know that

[moderate democrat]

my personal opposition to torture has always been that it violates the supreme law of the land... and that it sets the standard for what sort of treatment we will condone for OUR troops held prisoner in the future. My opposition to torture has never been about politics. If anyone broke the law regarding torture, I would want to see them prosecuted, regardless of their political affiliation.

[glockmail]

good question. I am not sure whether merely being briefed on illegal activities causes those who are briefed to be considered as breaking the law. I think that is a matter for the courts to decide, don't you? I notice that you've been following around red like a puppy dog. Is he your owner?

[glockmail]

my personal opposition to torture has always been that it violates the supreme law of the land... and that it sets the standard for what sort of treatment we will condone for OUR troops held prisoner in the future. My opposition to torture has never been about politics. If anyone broke the law regarding torture, I would want to see them prosecuted, regardless of their political affiliation. I see you've conveniently ignored thee fact that the guys that we used enhanced techniques on weren't "troops", since they had no uniforms and fought with no respect to international rules of combat.

[red states rule]

I notice that you've been following around red like a puppy dog. Is he your owner?

Glock, I have owned him since he posted under MFM

He is so desperate for attention, despite his feeble debate skills. I am the only one here who replies to his insane rants

[red states rule]

I see you've conveniently ignored thee fact that the guys that we used enhanced techniques on weren't "troops", since they had no uniforms and fought with no respect to international rules of combat.

and will ignore his fellow Dems know about, and supported, waterboarding terrorists

[red states rule]

What does Hillary have to hide?


<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2009/04/22/sot.clinton.dig.cheney.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

[moderate democrat]

I see you've conveniently ignored thee fact that the guys that we used enhanced techniques on weren't "troops", since they had no uniforms and fought with no respect to international rules of combat.

and I have never suggested that the Geneva Convention applies to them...

[red states rule]

and I have never suggested that the Geneva Convention applies to them...

But you do having support dead Americans killed in a terror attack, rather then using all methods to stop the attacks

Party over country once again

[glockmail]

and I have never suggested that the Geneva Convention applies to them... Neither do our techniques to deal with them.

When attacked from the gutter one must sometimes get low.

[glockmail]

What does Hillary have to hide?


<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2009/04/22/sot.clinton.dig.cheney.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript> This will come back to haunt her in her next Presidential run. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Neither do our techniques to deal with them.

When attacked from the gutter one must sometimes get low.

Can anyone name any terrorist who died as a result of waterboarding?

[red states rule]

This will come back to haunt her in her next Presidential run. :laugh2:

It will be shown ONLY on Fox News and on the internet

[glockmail]

Glock, I have owned him since he posted under MFM

He is so desperate for attention, despite his feeble debate skills. I am the only one here who replies to his insane rants

He's proving the feebleness of his debate skills again at JPP right now by going with his "gay child molester" routine.

[moderate democrat]

Neither do our techniques to deal with them.

When attacked from the gutter one must sometimes get low.

I believe that our techniques may, in fact, violate the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which is the supreme law of OUR land.

[glockmail]

It will be shown ONLY on Fox News and on the internet And by her opponents. :coffee:

[red states rule]

And by her opponents. :coffee:

and Bill will be happy to provide them :laugh2:

[glockmail]

and Bill will be happy to provide them :laugh2:
I dunno I think he'd love to be in a position of power again as First Sodomizer.

[red states rule]

I dunno I think he'd love to be in a position of power again as First Sodomizer.

True, but with Bill it has to be all about him

Back to waterboarding VS terrorist's rights

Considering Tenet said that waterboarding extracted more info than the CIA and FBI could ever extract worked, what would be more effective?

Libs are so wraped up in trying to fight a PC war on terror

[Yurt]

If she broke any laws, I think she should be prosecuted. I think that for anyone of any party. As I said, I am not certain whether merely KNOWING about an illegal activity is itself illegal but would be perfectly willing to have the courts decide that.

bullcrap and you know it....her position makes it clear she is aiding and abetting or at a minimum an accomplice...she swore an oath and if she was given information about others violating the constitution and she did nothing, then yes, she is guilty as long as those who are alleged to have violated the constitution are guilty...

but no one is surprised that you of course take the logic that she is first innocent but oh no, if it is a repub you find fault first....

party over country

[Yurt]

you're not a lawyer and neither am I... if she is guilty of a crime, she should be prosecuted. I would not agree to her getting any sort of pass.

what a pathetic hypocrite....you don't say that when it comes to bush/cheney you assume guilt...

party over country

[red states rule]

bullcrap and you know it....her position makes it clear she is aiding and abetting or at a minimum an accomplice...she swore an oath and if she was given information about others violating the constitution and she did nothing, then yes, she is guilty as long as those who are alleged to have violated the constitution are guilty...

but no one is surprised that you of course take the logic that she is first innocent but oh no, if it is a repub you find fault first....

party over country

Yurt, this is political gamesmanship at it’s worse.

Pelosi knew all along about waterboarding and had no problem with it until it was decided they could hurt George W Bush, the troops, and those hired to protect this country from terror attacks with it.

Somebody leaked this out that the CIA was using this practice, could it have been Nancy Pelosi herself? Or a loyal liberal like Virgil who works for the CIA?

To think someone would put their re-election ahead of what is right for the country is despicable - but typical of the modern day Democrats

[moderate democrat]

bullcrap and you know it....her position makes it clear she is aiding and abetting or at a minimum an accomplice...she swore an oath and if she was given information about others violating the constitution and she did nothing, then yes, she is guilty as long as those who are alleged to have violated the constitution are guilty...

but no one is surprised that you of course take the logic that she is first innocent but oh no, if it is a repub you find fault first....

party over country


I assume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If laws were broken, then the people who broke those laws should be prosecuted. period. regardless of party. the folks here on the right do not WANT any such prosecutions. I would suggest that their position is much more partisan than mine.

[moderate democrat]

what a pathetic hypocrite....you don't say that when it comes to bush/cheney you assume guilt...

party over country

I do not assume guilt for Bush OR Cheney...certainly not in any legal sense. I believe that Bush lied about WMD's and about Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda, but he certainly committed no CRIME in doing so. He was not under oath that I am aware of.

[Classact]

Senator Linsey Graham who is also a Colonel in the JAG corps was asked on Fox News this morning about those briefed on the enhanced interrogation being equally guilty as the lawyers that issued the opinion stated something to the effect... If a judge were to determine the lawyers guilty of authorizing torture then all that were aware and didn't report the illegal activity were conspiring to violate federal law that prohibits torture. Graham said Nancy Pelosi would be equal to the lawyers in guilt.

[moderate democrat]

Senator Linsey Graham who is also a Colonel in the JAG corps was asked on Fox News this morning about those briefed on the enhanced interrogation being equally guilty as the lawyers that issued the opinion stated something to the effect... If a judge were to determine the lawyers guilty of authorizing torture then all that were aware and didn't report the illegal activity were conspiring to violate federal law that prohibits torture. Graham said Nancy Pelosi would be equal to the lawyers in guilt.

if a court of law finds that to be the case, I say let the chips fall where they may.

[emmett]

I say very little about torture because my opinion is VERY unpopular....with both sides. I will stick my little two cents in here.

If I am fairly sure, no one can be certain, that an enemy combatant possesses information that is crucial to the defense of the United States of America, to me, there are no rules. I would start with fingers.........drilling teeth.......cutting, whatever.

Rules for torture? Come on! Like covert operators gove a damn about rules. If you are an operative and come across a situation where you know you have someone in your possession who has plotted against the security of the US, and you are NOT willing to do whatever to get that information out of them......you are a coward and unworthy to serve in the capacity by which you have been selected.

I'll tell you something else. The more willing you are to torture...the less you have to torture! The word gets around. It also by proxy keeps down attacks or covert attempts to perpretrate attacks against Americans in out of country locations.

I say torture the shit out them until they talk, and if they lie......kill em!

Good thing I'm not in charge. Then again....maybe I should be.

[moderate democrat]

I say very little about torture because my opinion is VERY unpopular....with both sides. I will stick my little two cents in here.

If I am fairly sure, no one can be certain, that an enemy combatant possesses information that is crucial to the defense of the United States of America, to me, there are no rules. I would start with fingers.........drilling teeth.......cutting, whatever.

Rules for torture? Come on! Like covert operators gove a damn about rules. If you are an operative and come across a situation where you know you have someone in your possession who has plotted against the security of the US, and you are NOT willing to do whatever to get that information out of them......you are a coward and unworthy to serve in the capacity by which you have been selected.

I'll tell you something else. The more willing you are to torture...the less you have to torture! The word gets around. It also by proxy keeps down attacks or covert attempts to perpretrate attacks against Americans in out of country locations.

I say torture the shit out them until they talk, and if they lie......kill em!

Good thing I'm not in charge. Then again....maybe I should be.

we should respectfully agree to disagree.

[Insein]

I believe that our techniques may, in fact, violate the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which is the supreme law of OUR land.

The UN laws do not supercede the right of America to protect itself from its enemies. Not to mention the fact the UN laws apply to foreign nationals of designated countries. These people have no designated affiliation by uniform or creed. No country claims them. They claim no country. Therefore they are outside of UN law. Treaties are between countries. Treaties are not between individuals. The US does not sign a treaty with Joe Schmoe. They sign a treaty with France, Germany, China etc and said treaty applies to all designated combatants from said country. If we captured a Chinese soldier spying on American infrastructure with suspected intents on causing a terrorist attack and we went ahead and waterboarded that spy to gain the information that they knew, we may have violated a treaty then.

These terrorists are not combatants from any country signed or unsigned on the treaty. They do not follow the laws of these treaties because they did not sign them. They have no qualms about doing much worse then waterboarding our soldiers and civilians in order to gain information on our tactics and objectives. Should we take them to court for their "crimes against humanity?" Should we kill them dead in the battlefield ending the immediate threat but leaving others looming? Or should we gain information from them that could save American lives?

[Psychoblues]

I see no reason why not?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[red states rule]

I believe that our techniques may, in fact, violate the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which is the supreme law of OUR land.

Translation:

If you put the holy grail of proof that waterboarding saved lives and stopped attacks, including videos of confession of the terrorist waterboarded.

I would still doubt the veracity of whether or not there was a plot or that the waterboarding helped stop it.

[red states rule]

Like most liberals, "reporters" like Chris Matthews are also ignoring Nancy Pelosi knew about waterboarding - but only want to go after Pres bush and VP Cheney


Matthews Demands: How Do We Prosecute Bush and Cheney?
By Geoffrey Dickens (Bio | Archive)
April 23, 2009 - 10:00 ET

An overly eager Chris Matthews, on Wednesday night's "Hardball," actually raised the prospect of prosecuting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over the CIA interrogation memos as he pressed Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "But how do we do it? Under what law do we go after them?" To which even the liberal Schultz initially balked, as she tried to rein in Matthews: "Well I think we need not to get ahead of ourselves Chris." However Schultz, after Matthews continued to push, relented and gave the MSNBC host a response more to his liking as she warned: "There is no one that is above the law in the United States of America."

Of course if Matthews really wanted to pursue all of those who approved of waterboarding that list would also have to include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. According to a December 9, 2007 Washington Post story Pelosi along with other Democrats, in September 2002, were given "a virtual tour" of the "CIA's overseas detention sites," shown interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, "But on that day, no objections were raised."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2009/04/23/matthews-demands-how-do-we-prosecute-bush-cheney

[Jeff]

good question. I am not sure whether merely being briefed on illegal activities causes those who are briefed to be considered as breaking the law. I think that is a matter for the courts to decide, don't you?

If you have knowledge of a crime taken place and do nothing then you are guilty, come on Virgil you know that, I had a friend go pick up in Philly, his GF waited in the car he is doing a 25 yr term and she got 10 just for being there

[red states rule]

If you have knowledge of a crime taken place and do nothing then you are guilty, come on Virgil you know that, I had a friend go pick up in Philly, his GF waited in the car he is doing a 25 yr term and she got 10 just for being there

With Virgil, only Republicans can commit crimes. Dems were either tricked into doing it, were framed by Republicans, or it is all a misunderstanding

[Jeff]

With Virgil, only Republicans can commit crimes. Dems were either tricked into doing it, were framed by Republicans, or it is all a misunderstanding

I see that, everyone knows if you have prior knowledge and do nothing you are guilty, Virgil forgets allot of things when needed

[red states rule]

I see that, everyone knows if you have prior knowledge and do nothing you are guilty, Virgil forgets allot of things when needed

Looks like San Fran Nan is trying to wiggle off the hook - and libs like Virgil will help and defend her


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=22487

[Jeff]

Looks like San Fran Nan is trying to wiggle off the hook - and libs like Virgil will help and defend her


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=22487

it is one thing to stand behind your party , but a whole nother to say F*** the country for the good of my party, people like Virgil ought to be shipped off to another country to live if they hate this one so much

[red states rule]

it is one thing to stand behind your party , but a whole nother to say F*** the country for the good of my party, people like Virgil ought to be shipped off to another country to live if they hate this one so much

As I have posted before. every day Virgil and his ilk Pleadge allegiance to the Democrat party and NOT America

All that matters to Virgil, is more power and control for the Dem party. To him the ends justify the means

[Jeff]

As I have posted before. every day Virgil and his ilk Pleadge allegiance to the Democrat party and NOT America

All that matters to Virgil, is more power and control for the Dem party. To him the ends justify the means

That is very sad when a man ( well male) can't have a opinion unless his party tells him to, LOL

[moderate democrat]

The UN laws do not supercede the right of America to protect itself from its enemies. Not to mention the fact the UN laws apply to foreign nationals of designated countries. These people have no designated affiliation by uniform or creed. No country claims them. They claim no country. Therefore they are outside of UN law. Treaties are between countries. Treaties are not between individuals. The US does not sign a treaty with Joe Schmoe. They sign a treaty with France, Germany, China etc and said treaty applies to all designated combatants from said country. If we captured a Chinese soldier spying on American infrastructure with suspected intents on causing a terrorist attack and we went ahead and waterboarded that spy to gain the information that they knew, we may have violated a treaty then.

These terrorists are not combatants from any country signed or unsigned on the treaty. They do not follow the laws of these treaties because they did not sign them. They have no qualms about doing much worse then waterboarding our soldiers and civilians in order to gain information on our tactics and objectives. Should we take them to court for their "crimes against humanity?" Should we kill them dead in the battlefield ending the immediate threat but leaving others looming? Or should we gain information from them that could save American lives?


a few points:

1. if you think that we should no longer abide by the UN treaty, then we should abrogate it. until then, it remains the supreme law of the land.
2. the geneva conventions deal with treatment of enemy combatants...the UN convention against torture protects and applies to everyone, not simply uniformed combatants. we signed it. it is the supreme law of the land according to Art. VI, and we should, therefore, abide by it until we abrogate it..

[red states rule]

That is very sad when a man ( well male) can't have a opinion unless his party tells him to, LOL

That is the Dems version of free speech and the Fairness Doctrine

Speak when spoken to and when you do - agree with us

[Jeff]

That is the Dems version of free speech and the Fairness Doctrine

Speak when spoken to and when you do - agree with us

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[red states rule]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Most libs do resemble that remark Jeff

[Jeff]

Most libs do resemble that remark Jeff

OOO that is easy to see, and it is a joke

[red states rule]

Back to the topic at hand

Can anyone explain to me why waterboarding is torture, and drilling a hole in a babies skull and sucking the brains out is considered legal and a US Constitutional right?

[Jeff]

Back to the topic at hand

Can anyone explain to me why waterboarding is torture, and drilling a hole in a babies skull and sucking the brains out is considered legal and a US Constitutional right?

It may be legal but to some of us with a brain it is not even close to being legal, it is terrible, But that is a excellent question, I am dying to hear the answer's to it, guys going off to fight and they were taught never to torture but it is ok to torture your own kid, what a deal

[red states rule]

It may be legal but to some of us with a brain it is not even close to being legal, it is terrible, But that is a excellent question, I am dying to hear the answer's to it, guys going off to fight and they were taught never to torture but it is ok to torture your own kid, what a deal

I doubt if any liberal will try to answer the question Jeff.

If they do, they will spin, and then attack

[red states rule]

Of course, how can they sleep at night , think of that question you asked, ooo and by the way I owe ya some rep, it wouldn't let me give it at this time , but that post was worthy of it

They can sleep because their double standards get them votes, and glowing coverage from their fellow liberals in the media

Again, all that matters to them is POWER

[Jeff]

I doubt if any liberal will try to answer the question Jeff.

If they do, they will spin, and then attack

Of course, how can they sleep at night , think of that question you asked, ooo and by the way I owe ya some rep, it wouldn't let me give it at this time , but that post was worthy of it

[moderate democrat]

waterboarding is and had always been considered a form of torture. The United States is a signatory of the UN Convention against torture. That makes waterboarding a violation of the supreme law of OUR land.

Abortion is considered legal by the supreme court of the United States, and until they change their minds about that, it will continue to be so. But pro-lifers should not worry too much about that. Times change and supreme courts change as well. Segregation was considered legal by the supreme court until they decided to overturn Plessy with Brown v. BOE.

[red states rule]

waterboarding is and had always been considered a form of torture. The United States is a signatory of the UN Convention against torture. That makes waterboarding a violation of the supreme law of OUR land.

Abortion is considered legal by the supreme court of the United States, and until they change their minds about that, it will continue to be so. But pro-lifers should not worry too much about that. Times change and supreme courts change as well. Segregation was considered legal by the supreme court until they decided to overturn Plessy with Brown v. BOE.

The point is Virgil, you have your shorts in in a knot over pouring water down the nose of a terrorist - and you call it torture

But this is OK, and demand women have a right to do this to their childern

Your compassion for terrorists, and lack thereof for the unborn, is very telling


http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/images/lilpba1.gif

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/images/lilpba2.gif

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/images/lilpba3.gif

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/images/lilpba4.gif

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/images/lilpba5.gif


http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/diagram.html

[moderate democrat]

obfuscation by the king...

you asked a question as to how one thing could be illegal while another thing could remain legal. I answered your legal question.

I have zero compassion for terrorists and never have had any.

[red states rule]

obfuscation by the king...

you asked a question as to how one thing could be illegal while another thing could remain legal. I answered your legal question.

I have zero compassion for terrorists and never have had any.

No matter if you post under MFM, retiredman, or MD - facts always get in your way

In your world, pouring water down the nose of a terrorist to save lives and stop attacks is inhumane

Yet, drilling a hole in the skull of an unborn baby, sucking his/her brains out - if perfectly OK and it is right of women that must be defended and maintained

You have shown your concern for the rights of terrorists for years - nothing had changed much

[moderate democrat]

No matter if you post under MFM, retiredman, or MD - facts always get in your way

In your world, pouring water down the nose of a terrorist to save lives and stop attacks is inhumane

Yet, drilling a hole in the skull of an unborn baby, sucking his/her brains out - if perfectly OK and it is right of women that must be defended and maintained

You have shown your concern for the rights of terrorists for years - nothing had changed much


wrong. In my world, waterboarding is a violation of the supreme law of the land. abortion is legal. those are facts. I have been on this site since december of last year and I have never shown any compassion for terrorists. My ONLY concern regarding waterboarding is my respect for our constitution. period. If we want to waterboard... all we have to do is abrogate the treaty - which we are signatories to - that prohibits it.

[Jeff]

Because his party tells him to support the murder of the unborn, and defend the rights of terrorists

Simple question - straight answer

Yes I am afraid that is exactly what his answer is going to be, it just seems that no matter how much you love your party ya still should have a brain,

[red states rule]

wrong. In my world, waterboarding is a violation of the supreme law of the land. abortion is legal. those are facts. I have been on this site since december of last year and I have never shown any compassion for terrorists. My ONLY concern regarding waterboarding is my respect for our constitution. period. If we want to waterboard... all we have to do is abrogate the treaty - which we are signatories to - that prohibits it.

Like your party leaders - you are a liar

The Dems in Congress was fully briefed on these matters and never voiced any concern

Now that the liberal hero, George Soros, is pandering to the liberal base by suggesting the criminalization of the Bush administration, which has sent liberals like you into orgasmic spasms.

They have allowed their ignorance and arrogrance as to how the government works to overrun their agenda.

If anyone belongs on trial for these procedures, it is the members of congress who funded these programs, who are just as guilty as anyone else, and Pelosi is now blatantly lying to the American people.

Also, like your party leaders, you have selective recollection it is lame.

Pelosi appears to be under the influence of far left memory selection. It served Bill and Hillary Clinton well, so why not Pelosi?

Being in the majority party, it's a free pass. Wishy washy is the way for Democrats, like water filling in the contours of it's container.

If it doesn't fit, fill it with BS.

Meanwhile, keep slaughtering the unborn in exchange for votes from the Planned Paretnhood crowd

[Jeff]

wrong. In my world, waterboarding is a violation of the supreme law of the land. abortion is legal. those are facts. I have been on this site since december of last year and I have never shown any compassion for terrorists. My ONLY concern regarding waterboarding is my respect for our constitution. period. If we want to waterboard... all we have to do is abrogate the treaty - which we are signatories to - that prohibits it.

Virgil you are correct with your answer, as Red is correct with his reply, my question is ,being a mature adult ( not what the laws are Virgil) how can ya say waterboarding is bad abortion is OK???Again legally you are right , but what about as a human ?

[red states rule]

Virgil you are correct with your answer, as Red is correct with his reply, my question is ,being a mature adult ( not what the laws are Virgil) how can ya say waterboarding is bad abortion is OK???Again legally you are right , but what about as a human ?

Because his party tells him to support the murder of the unborn, and defend the rights of terrorists

Simple question - straight answer

[moderate democrat]

Virgil you are correct with your answer, as Red is correct with his reply, my question is ,being a mature adult ( not what the laws are Virgil) how can ya say waterboarding is bad abortion is OK???Again legally you are right , but what about as a human ?

I am first and foremost an American. What separates Americans from the rest of the world is our constitution and our unfailing reliance on the rule of law. Members of the Armed Forces take an OATH...not to protect the country, but to support and defend the constitution. That is how important our rule of law is - or ought to be.

Do I think that waterboarding is as "bad" as abortion? of course not.


Again... one is legal according to our constitution, and one is not. We have legal methods available to us as Americans for taking that which is now legal and making it illegal - by passing a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of the unborn... and we have legal methods available to us for taking that which is now illegal and making it legal - by having congress abrogate our signatory status in the UN Convention against torture. I say that we should obey our laws until we change them, and we should support and defend the constitution in its current form, whatever that is or will be.

[red states rule]

I am first and foremost an American. What separates Americans from the rest of the world is our constitution and our unfailing reliance on the rule of law. Members of the Armed Forces take an OATH...not to protect the country, but to support and defend the constitution. That is how important our rule of law is - or ought to be.

Do I think that waterboarding is as "bad" as abortion? of course not.


Again... one is legal according to our constitution, and one is not. We have legal methods available to us as Americans for taking that which is now legal and making it illegal - by passing a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of the unborn... and we have legal methods available to us for taking that which is now illegal and making it legal - by having congress abrogate our signatory status in the UN Convention against torture. I say that we should obey our laws until we change them, and we should support and defend the constitution in its current form, whatever that is or will be.

You are first and foremost a loyal liberal. Party comes before country, and you sprew the daily talking party talking points regardless of the facts and truth

Your party support protecting the rights of terrorists and murdering the innocent unborn. So you do as well.

[PostmodernProphet]

Again... one is legal according to our constitution, and one is not. We have legal methods available to us as Americans for taking that which is now legal and making it illegal - by passing a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of the unborn... and we have legal methods available to us for taking that which is now illegal and making it legal - by having congress abrogate our signatory status in the UN Convention against torture. I say that we should obey our laws until we change them, and we should support and defend the constitution in its current form, whatever that is or will be.

???.....are you claiming waterboarding is prohibited by the constitution?.....that's just silly......

[Yurt]

wrong. In my world, waterboarding is a violation of the supreme law of the land. abortion is legal. those are facts. I have been on this site since december of last year and I have never shown any compassion for terrorists. My ONLY concern regarding waterboarding is my respect for our constitution. period. If we want to waterboard... all we have to do is abrogate the treaty - which we are signatories to - that prohibits it.

the treaty does not specifically ban waterboarding. i think the key issue is whether the type of waterboarding committed is torture, which i think you mean by the treaty prohibiting it. is that right?

also people, hate to admit, but IMO, from my reading of the treaty, it is in fact the supreme law of the land and applies to everyone whether they are signatories or not. it is not bilateral, it is a signed treaty that commits the signor regardless of whether "any person" has signed it or not.

[red states rule]

the treaty does not specifically ban waterboarding. i think the key issue is whether the type of waterboarding committed is torture, which i think you mean by the treaty prohibiting it. is that right?

also people, hate to admit, but IMO, from my reading of the treaty, it is in fact the supreme law of the land and applies to everyone whether they are signatories or not. it is not bilateral, it is a signed treaty that commits the signor regardless of whether "any person" has signed it or not.

Virgil actually beleives is is morally superiour to the rest of us, and he like many liberals, beleives he was chosen by God to educate us on how we should think and what we should believe in

[Jeff]

I am first and foremost an American. What separates Americans from the rest of the world is our constitution and our unfailing reliance on the rule of law. Members of the Armed Forces take an OATH...not to protect the country, but to support and defend the constitution. That is how important our rule of law is - or ought to be.

Do I think that waterboarding is as "bad" as abortion? of course not.


Again... one is legal according to our constitution, and one is not. We have legal methods available to us as Americans for taking that which is now legal and making it illegal - by passing a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of the unborn... and we have legal methods available to us for taking that which is now illegal and making it legal - by having congress abrogate our signatory status in the UN Convention against torture. I say that we should obey our laws until we change them, and we should support and defend the constitution in its current form, whatever that is or will be.

One more question Virgil ( by the way thanks for the honest answer) why would you want to worship a party that feels waterboarding is worse than abortion, you yourself said you feel abortion is worse

[moderate democrat]

One more question Virgil ( by the way thanks for the honest answer) why would you want to worship a party that feels waterboarding is worse than abortion, you yourself said you feel abortion is worse

you are welcome...now why not exhibit a display of good faith and quit calling me Virgil.

To answer your question...I don't worship ANY party...and I do not think that democrats think that waterboading is worse than abortion...at least not most of them... I know many people who are concerned about torture for exactly the same reason that I am.... I believe that it violates our constitution by ignoring something our founding fathers would have considered the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Again....if we want to keep faith with the founding fathers, we should abrogate the UN Convention on torture before we use torture as an interrogation method... and if we want to keep faith with the founding fathers, we ought to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion before we stop women from being able to chose that option.

[moderate democrat]

???.....are you claiming waterboarding is prohibited by the constitution?.....that's just silly......

I am claiming that waterboarding is a type of cruel and inhumane treatment that is forbidden by a UN Convention to which we are a signatory. Have you ever READ Article VI of the constitution? I have.... when we ratified that Convention it became, according to our constitution, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

[moderate democrat]

the treaty does not specifically ban waterboarding. i think the key issue is whether the type of waterboarding committed is torture, which i think you mean by the treaty prohibiting it. is that right?

also people, hate to admit, but IMO, from my reading of the treaty, it is in fact the supreme law of the land and applies to everyone whether they are signatories or not. it is not bilateral, it is a signed treaty that commits the signor regardless of whether "any person" has signed it or not.

Thank you Yurt....Yes... I believe that waterboarding falls clearly within this definition:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

[Yurt]

Thank you Yurt....Yes... I believe that waterboarding falls clearly within this definition:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

where do you see waterboarding in there? the way it was done in the cases we are talking about...

[moderate democrat]

where do you see waterboarding in there? the way it was done in the cases we are talking about...

I would suggest that being placed in a situation where you believe that you are on the brink of drowning is a pretty textbook definition of severe mental suffering.

[Yurt]

I would suggest that being placed in a situation where you believe that you are on the brink of drowning is a pretty textbook definition of severe mental suffering.

you suggest....ok, fine. didn't some dem try to stop waterboarding and lost in court because it was in fact not illegal at that time...2006 i believe

somebody mentioned it on another board without a link

[actsnoblemartin]

I would suggest that being placed in a situation where you believe that you are on the brink of drowning is a pretty textbook definition of severe mental suffering.


I agree, it is creul, unususual, and barbaric.

were better then that

[Yurt]

I agree, it is creul, unususual, and barbaric.

were better then that

no, you said because AQ did it, then it must be bad...

AQ kills.....

[actsnoblemartin]

they dont kill, killing on a battlefield is one thing.

the rules of engagement should always be looked at to see if they are out dated, but to torture, im not sold on that


no, you said because AQ did it, then it must be bad...

AQ kills.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Have you ever READ Article VI of the constitution? I have.... when we ratified that Convention it became, according to our constitution, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

didn't take long....


All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

nope, no waterboarding.....I was right.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I would suggest that being placed in a situation where you believe that you are on the brink of drowning is a pretty textbook definition of severe mental suffering.

I can think of several Hollywood movies that qualify for inflicting severe mental suffering.....are they prohibited by the Constitution as well?.......

[Yurt]

they dont kill, killing on a battlefield is one thing.

the rules of engagement should always be looked at to see if they are out dated, but to torture, im not sold on that

dude....

you know i have talked with you via various pm's and i consider you a cool dude overall. i want you to consider your arguments. or thoughts if that makes more sense. i argue for a living....so your thoughts might not be as argumentive as mine...but you should formulate your own thoughts. your thoughts are not stone, never, but, do not change your thoughts on the whim of the masses.


"they don't kill".....yes they do and you know that

"killing on the battlefield".....good argument

the torture argument is fraught with problems....people accuse those that would support torture of "appealing to emotion", a logical fallacy. problem with that is, torture and the lives that may or may not be saved from the use of torture NECESSARILY appeals to emotion.

it is not an easy thing to say you agree this way or that way, but it is never a thing to take so lightly that you would sway your beliefs as the minute changes.

[actsnoblemartin]

sorry

let me rephrase.

killing is one thing

boom, i shoot you your dead

that is killing

taking a rusty knife and cutting off your head, that is murder

both killing, but one is evil

i was trying to say that while killing on the battlefield is killing, its not evil like cutting off someones hand


dude....

you know i have talked with you via various pm's and i consider you a cool dude overall. i want you to consider your arguments. or thoughts if that makes more sense. i argue for a living....so your thoughts might not be as argumentive as mine...but you should formulate your own thoughts. your thoughts are not stone, never, but, do not change your thoughts on the whim of the masses.


"they don't kill".....yes they do and you know that

"killing on the battlefield".....good argument

the torture argument is fraught with problems....people accuse those that would support torture of "appealing to emotion", a logical fallacy. problem with that is, torture and the lives that may or may not be saved from the use of torture NECESSARILY appeals to emotion.

it is not an easy thing to say you agree this way or that way, but it is never a thing to take so lightly that you would sway your beliefs as the minute changes.

[actsnoblemartin]

no first amendment


I can think of several Hollywood movies that qualify for inflicting severe mental suffering.....are they prohibited by the Constitution as well?.......

[moderate democrat]

you suggest....ok, fine. didn't some dem try to stop waterboarding and lost in court because it was in fact not illegal at that time...2006 i believe

somebody mentioned it on another board without a link


wow...now that is some quality argument you've presented there, counselor.

[moderate democrat]

didn't take long....



nope, no waterboarding.....I was right.....

nope... but that doesn't mean that you ain't dumber than a sack of hair....moron....
did you MISS this:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" ???

why don't you just stick with posting stupid baby pictures?

[PostmodernProphet]

no first amendment

I don't think there is a first amendment right to make someone watch a movie.....

[PostmodernProphet]

did you MISS this:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" ???



no, actually I didn't miss it....doesn't mean that you know what the fuck you are talking about, however.....feel free to continue trying to make a point, of course.....

[moderate democrat]

I can think of several Hollywood movies that qualify for inflicting severe mental suffering.....are they prohibited by the Constitution as well?.......

post this stupid shit in a humor forum....

either you argue your case, or go home....


take some more inane baby pictures...I am not sure I can go another day without seeing a new one.

[actsnoblemartin]

I don't think there is a first amendment right to make someone watch a movie.....

of course not

[moderate democrat]

no, actually I didn't miss it....doesn't mean that you know what the fuck you are talking about, however.....feel free to continue trying to make a point, of course.....

feel free to try explain how the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is NOT, then, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

or, as a pathetic attempt at obfuscation, post some stupid excuse for humor, or some dorky retardo baby picture... (I certainly hope you have the parent's permission!)

[Yurt]

wow...now that is some quality argument you've presented there, counselor.

well preacher.....

are you saying that no dem has brought a claim to stop the bush admin from waterboarding? and that such claim was shut down because waterboarding is not illegal?

[PostmodernProphet]

feel free to try explain how the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is NOT, then, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.


no, present your argument......it's irrelevant whether you call the treaty a "supreme law"..........does some treaty we have entered into mention waterboarding?.......

[moderate democrat]

no, present your argument......it's irrelevant whether you call the treaty a "supreme law"..........does some treaty we have entered into mention waterboarding?.......

it does not. It does say, however, that the following is prohibited:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

waterboarding undeniably causes severe mental suffering and it is inflicted for the purposes of obtaining information. Any more questions?

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=moderate democrat;364646]it does not. It does say, however, that the following is prohibited:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."


From the words, and actions, ofliberals, they would rather not waterboard the single terrorist and instead worrying about being "ethical" and making sure the terrorist gets habeas corpus rather than saving the lives of thousands of innocent Americans.

To most liberals, the treatment of one terrorist is more important than thousands of American lives.

I do not consider waterboarding to be torture. It does not cause any physical harm and can not kill or injure if done properly.

[moderate democrat]

waterboarding undeniably causes severe mental suffering and it is inflicted for the purposes of obtaining information.... ergo, it violates the supreme law of the land and those who advocate its use would piss on our constitution.

[red states rule]

waterboarding undeniably causes severe mental suffering and it is inflicted for the purposes of obtaining information.... ergo, it violates the supreme law of the land and those who advocate its use would piss on our constitution.

and like most you are more worried about the terrorists then defeating them and keeping America safe

[red states rule]

feel free to try explain how the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is NOT, then, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

or, as a pathetic attempt at obfuscation, post some stupid excuse for humor, or some dorky retardo baby picture... (I certainly hope you have the parent's permission!)

Damn, I thought I read this same post over and over


Originally Posted by manfrommaine
so...you ARE saying that you get to pick and chose which laws of the land you will obey and which ones you will ignore.

I'm saying it is my right to agree or disagree with anything the government of the US agrees to. If I consider a law contrary to the spirit and intent of the US Constitution, I do not feel compelled to either obey nor disobey it.

I personally have no problem with a law against torture.

I DO have a problem with the govenment of the United States in any way degrading the sovereignty of this Nation.

I never said anything about the UN charter. I DID, however, say something about a treaty. ANd the constitution is crystal clear as to the status of treaties signed by our government. Whether you agree with them or not...whether you support the organization that drafted them or not, those treaties ARE the law of the land. It IS very unAmerican of you to spit on the constitution so blithely.



Originally Posted by manfrommaine
the FACT remains. America signed a treaty about torture. The moment we signed it, it became the law of the land. If you disagree with it, get it overturned...get our government to withdraw from the convention...but until we do... like it or not...it IS the LAW OF THE LAND...and if you advocate ignoring the supreme law of the land, you are an domestic enemy of the constitution. pure and simple.


Originally Posted by manfrommaine
when the United States government signs a treaty, it becomes the LAW OF THE LAND according to Article VI of the Constitution. People like YOU who would piss on that, are domestic enemies of the state and should be shot.


Originally Posted by manfrommaine
how many times we pissed on the constitution is really not the issue. The fact that we pissed on it is.

I never saw any tapes. I have always been against torturing prisoners because I believe it is against the law of the land, as delineated in the Un Convention regarding torture and inhumane treatment, of which we are a signatory.

[Classact]

Bill O'Reilly announced yester on his program that Obama has returned to his earlier position to look forward and not backward.

Here's a good review on the methods and what went down http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/04/the-torture-memos.html

Any congressperson or sworn government official that was briefed on the methods authorized by the administration that realized the authorization was a violation of US law is required by OATH to report the violation of law... to not do so the person can be found as a conspirator.

[red states rule]

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/04/21/Editorial_cartoon_April_22_t756.jpg?362c89b9f4298c 1f7d888d4fceb46698f5dfcc26

[Classact]

Obama has done more to harm American national security in less than 100 days than any other president in our history. I truely think he lusts for a Jimmy Carter Nobel Peace Prize presidency that will leave America in even worse condition than Carter did.

[red states rule]

Obama has done more to harm American national security in less than 100 days than any other president in our history. I truely think he lusts for a Jimmy Carter Nobel Peace Prize presidency that will leave America in even worse condition than Carter did.

Amazing who the Obama administration considers a threat.

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/04/22/sk0420d_t756.jpg?362c89b9f4298c1f7d888d4fceb46698f 5dfcc26


It is also very telling how worried the left is worried about the right of terrorists as they spread and show their hate toward their fellow citizens

[moderate democrat]

and like most you are more worried about the terrorists then defeating them and keeping America safe

I could care less about terrorists. I am worried about our constitution as it is under seige from domestic enemies like you.

[red states rule]

I could care less about terrorists. I am worried about our constitution as it is under seige from domestic enemies like you.

Shades of post 98 Virgil

You change your name but not your posting style :laugh2:

You really do make it way to easy son

[moderate democrat]

Shades of post 98 Virgil

You change your name but not your posting style :laugh2:

You really do make it way to easy sonwhy do you hide frolm the fact that you are perfectly willing to piss on our constitution?

waterboarding clearly fits the definition for the UN Convention. We signed trhat convention. IT is the supreme law of our land. Why do you run away from that?

and the name is not Virgil....

quit blowing smoke about who you think I AM as a way of avoiding your own weak arguments.

You are a domestic enemy of our constitution. pure and simple.

[red states rule]

why do you hide frolm the fact that you are perfectly willing to piss on our constitution?

waterboarding clearly fits the definition for the UN Convention. We signed trhat convention. IT is the supreme law of our land. Why do you run away from that?

and the name is not Virgil....

quit blowing smoke about who you think I AM as a way of avoiding your own weak arguments.

You are a domestic enemy of our constitution. pure and simple.

Thank you for making and proving my case Virgil. You never stop with your over the top, insulting, condescending, and arrogrant posting style

You are so devoted to your party, and what they tell to say and belive in - nothing else matters. Not even the lives of your fellow Americans, or the security of the nation

You keep lying about who you are and what you believe in. The facts do indeed prove otherwise. The facts are in your own words anyway Virgil

[Yurt]

why do you hide frolm the fact that you are perfectly willing to piss on our constitution?

waterboarding clearly fits the definition for the UN Convention. We signed trhat convention. IT is the supreme law of our land. Why do you run away from that?

and the name is not Virgil....

quit blowing smoke about who you think I AM as a way of avoiding your own weak arguments.

You are a domestic enemy of our constitution. pure and simple.

take one guess which other poster on this board constantly used that phrase....

and no, waterboarding does not clearly fit that definition, wrong again

[moderate democrat]

Thank you for making and proving my case Virgil. You never stop with your over the top, insulting, condescending, and arrogrant posting style

You are so devoted to your party, and what they tell to say and belive in - nothing else matters. Not even the lives of your fellow Americans, or the security of the nation

You keep lying about who you are and what you believe in. The facts do indeed prove otherwise. The facts are in your own words anyway Virgil


again...you are willing to piss on the constitution. I am not. If you disagree with the premise of the UN Convention against torture, why did you not press congress to abrogate it? If we had done so, waterboarding would not be a violation of our own laws.

[red states rule]

take one guess which other poster on this board constantly used that phrase....

For the answer see post # 98 and take a walk down Memory Lane Yurt

[Kathianne]

Let your opinion out, interesting thread here:

http://volokh.com/posts/1240608202.shtml


[David Kopel, April 24, 2009 at 5:23pm] Trackbacks
The Obama prosecutions of 2013/17:
Hypothesize that the Obama administration, or perhaps foreign/international courts, prosecute and convict various officials of the Bush administration. Further assume that the new President who takes office in 2013 or 2017 has promised "I will ensure that the crimes of the previous administration are vigorously prosecuted."

Which, if any, acts of the First 100 Days of the Obama administration might be prosecuted? In answering the question, you may aggressively interpret any statute, treaty, jurisdictional claim, etc., in favor of the prosecution, but the interpretation may not involve a greater stretch than would be required to hypothesize the convictions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, their attorneys, CIA officers, and so on.


100 days doesn't provide as much fodder as 8 years, but some of the lawyers are doing a credible job. ;)

[moderate democrat]

take one guess which other poster on this board constantly used that phrase....

other people use it? I hope they use it appropriately.

Blithely disregarding Article VI of our constitution is pretty disrespectful of the document, don't you think?

[red states rule]

other people use it? I hope they use it appropriately.

Blithely disregarding Article VI of our constitution is pretty disrespectful of the document, don't you think?

Eh, YOU are the only one Virgil. Again, you can change your name but not your style. It is not so hard for anyone to figure it out

[moderate democrat]

Eh, YOU are the only one Virgil. Again, you can change your name but not your style. It is not so hard for anyone to figure it out

the name is not Virgil... but you clearly won't give up the ploy....you need to to avoid answering simple questions....

let me know when you want to act like an adult.

I'll be waiting.

[Yurt]

other people use it? I hope they use it appropriately.

Blithely disregarding Article VI of our constitution is pretty disrespectful of the document, don't you think?

i'm not disrespecting it

your problem is you do not have a court defining waterboarding in this case as torture, all you have is your opinion which you treat as fact

you then shit on people about thier loyalty to the constitution, something that you hate people telling you, hypocrite

[moderate democrat]

i'm not disrespecting it

your problem is you do not have a court defining waterboarding in this case as torture, all you have is your opinion which you treat as fact

you then shit on people about thier loyalty to the constitution, something that you hate people telling you, hypocrite

do you honestly think that any court of law would not find that waterboarding creates extreme mental distress? Don't you think the thought that you are going to drown any second would be extremely mentally distressing?

honestly?

[moderate democrat]

don't you think that forcing someone to stay standing and awake for eleven days in a row would cause extreme mental distress? really?

[Yurt]

do you honestly think that any court of law would not find that waterboarding creates extreme mental distress? Don't you think the thought that you are going to drown any second would be extremely mentally distressing?

honestly?

i don't know. but at least i am not passing off my opinion as fact and then shitting on people regarding their patriotism....hypocrite

[red states rule]

don't you think that forcing someone to stay standing and awake for eleven days in a row would cause extreme mental distress? really?

Ah, what a shame

As usual, you would rather have thousands of dead Americans, then a stressed out terrorist

[Kathianne]

i'm not disrespecting it

your problem is you do not have a court defining waterboarding in this case as torture, all you have is your opinion which you treat as fact

you then shit on people about thier loyalty to the constitution, something that you hate people telling you, hypocrite

Indeed. It's the very reason that I would no longer interact with the 'old' one, who sounded so like MD.

We keep hearing how the US prosecuted a Japanese officer for water boarding in WWII, what's ignored is what else he did.


http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm


Defendant: Asano, Yukio

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

Verdict: 15 years CHL
So, Asano beat people with clubs and burned them with cigarettes — and I think there's no real debate about whether that consitutes torture. But wait, there's more. Asano practiced a much more severe form of waterboarding, according to the Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html):


Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

In waterboarding as it is practiced by the U.S., cellophane or cloth is placed over the subject's mouth to keep water out of nose and mouth. Asano was pouring water directly into the mouths and noses of subjects which is considerably more harsh and dangerous.

[Kathianne]

Seems that discussions may be useful if conducted on a more rational premise:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php



ADVERTISEMENT

OPENING ARGUMENT
Did Torture Save Lives?

THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING US SHOULD DIRECT AN UNBLINKING, UNBIASED REVIEW.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
by Stuart Taylor Jr.
"A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals," President Obama said on April 16, "and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past."

But is it really a false choice? It's certainly tempting to think so. The fashionable assumption that coercive interrogation (up to and including torture) never saved a single life makes it easy to resolve what otherwise would be an agonizing moral quandary.

The same assumption makes it even easier for congressional Democrats, human-rights activists, and George W. Bush-hating avengers to call for prosecuting and imprisoning the former president and his entire national security team, including their lawyers. The charge: approving brutal methods -- seen by many as illegal torture -- that were also blessed, at least implicitly, by Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker, and other Intelligence Committee members in and after 2002.

But there is a body of evidence suggesting that brutal interrogation methods may indeed have saved lives, perhaps a great many lives -- and that renouncing those methods may someday end up costing many, many more.

To be sure, the evidence in the public record is not conclusive. It comes mainly from Bush appointees and Central Intelligence Agency officials with records to defend and axes to grind. There is plenty of countervailing evidence coming from critics who have less access to the classified information that tells much of the story and have their own axes to grind. There are also plausible arguments for renouncing coercive interrogation even if it does save some lives.

But it would be an abdication for the president to proceed on the facile assumption that his no-coercion executive order is cost-free. Instead, he should commission an expert review of what interrogators learned from the high-value detainees both before and after using brutal methods and whether those methods appear to have saved lives. He should also foster a better-informed public debate by declassifying as much of the relevant evidence as possible, as former Vice President Cheney and other Republicans have urged.... lots more...

[moderate democrat]

Seems that discussions may be useful if conducted on a more rational premise:



lots more...


does the fact that waterboarding may have been effective somehow make it legal in your eyes?

Does the fact that waterboarding might have gotten some information from some terror suspects somehow change the meaning of the definition of torture in the UN Convention against torture that, when we signed it, became the supreme law of the land for us?

As I have said over and over again... if you folks really think that torturing our captives is a red white and blue American thing to be doing, why don't you simply stand up and strongly demand that we abrogate our signature on that treaty?

Why don't you support and defend our constitution?

[Yurt]

we have people serving on active duty who are willing - today and every day - to lay down their lives to protect the constitution.

Again...if you and your ilk think that torturing our captives is the sort of thing that proud Americans do, then why don't you all simply demand that congress abrogate that treaty? I have not heard ONE WORD from the right about that. Any explanation, other than, it's just easier to ignore the constitution than it is to follow it?

you would watch your family die rather than violate the constitution

[red states rule]

does the fact that waterboarding may have been effective somehow make it legal in your eyes?

Does the fact that waterboarding might have gotten some information from some terror suspects somehow change the meaning of the definition of torture in the UN Convention against torture that, when we signed it, became the supreme law of the land for us?

As I have said over and over again... if you folks really think that torturing our captives is a red white and blue American thing to be doing, why don't you simply stand up and strongly demand that we abrogate our signature on that treaty?

Why don't you support and defend our constitution?

Seems one of the "in" things for the left to do these days is to smear America, slander those who hvae kept us safe, worry about the rights and comfort of terrorists - while giving a damn is the lives of innocent people have been saved by squirting a little water down the nose of a terrorist

[Yurt]

does the fact that waterboarding may have been effective somehow make it legal in your eyes?

Does the fact that waterboarding might have gotten some information from some terror suspects somehow change the meaning of the definition of torture in the UN Convention against torture that, when we signed it, became the supreme law of the land for us?

As I have said over and over again... if you folks really think that torturing our captives is a red white and blue American thing to be doing, why don't you simply stand up and strongly demand that we abrogate our signature on that treaty?

Why don't you support and defend our constitution?

to you the constitution is a suicide pact, to you the constitution is more important than your family, you would rather them die than violate the constitution even one time

IMO, that is not patriotic, that is pathological

[moderate democrat]

to you the constitution is a suicide pact, to you the constitution is more important than your family, you would rather them die than violate the constitution even one time

IMO, that is not patriotic, that is pathological

we have people serving on active duty who are willing - today and every day - to lay down their lives to protect the constitution.

Again...if you and your ilk think that torturing our captives is the sort of thing that proud Americans do, then why don't you all simply demand that congress abrogate that treaty? I have not heard ONE WORD from the right about that. Any explanation, other than, it's just easier to ignore the constitution than it is to follow it?

[red states rule]

we have people serving on active duty who are willing - today and every day - to lay down their lives to protect the constitution.

Again...if you and your ilk think that torturing our captives is the sort of thing that proud Americans do, then why don't you all simply demand that congress abrogate that treaty? I have not heard ONE WORD from the right about that. Any explanation, other than, it's just easier to ignore the constitution than it is to follow it?

and we have the left in this country who are ready to smear, insult, amd slime those who are willing to lay down their lives

Libs have clearly put the rights and comfort of terrorists over the lives of those serving and US citizens

[Yurt]

we have people serving on active duty who are willing - today and every day - to lay down their lives to protect the constitution.

Again...if you and your ilk think that torturing our captives is the sort of thing that proud Americans do, then why don't you all simply demand that congress abrogate that treaty? I have not heard ONE WORD from the right about that. Any explanation, other than, it's just easier to ignore the constitution than it is to follow it?

you would watch your family die rather than violate the constitution

[moderate democrat]

you would watch your family die rather than violate the constitution


If I were on active duty, I would go to MY death supporting and defending the constitution against ALL enemies...foreign AND domestic.

Why can't you answer the simple question about abrogation?

[Yurt]

If I were on active duty, I would go to MY death supporting and defending the constitution against ALL enemies...foreign AND domestic.

Why can't you answer the simple question about abrogation?

you would watch your family die rather than violate the constitution

[red states rule]

If I were on active duty, I would go to MY death supporting and defending the constitution against ALL enemies...foreign AND domestic.

Why can't you answer the simple question about abrogation?

You mean supporting and defending the rights and comfort of terrorists

Thank God you are not in the service. Our troops have enough to worry about with terrorists attaking from the front and Democrats attacking from the rear

[Kathianne]

you would watch your family die rather than violate the constitution

Which was part of the reason for my post above. The Democrats act as if water boarding is definitely torture, while even the Washington Post differentiates between what the Japanese officer did which put the prisoners in real drowning situation, not too mention many instances of 'agreed torture'.

For all MD's instance that water boarding is torture, the truth is it's still undecided. Which really was what those memos were about. The operatives asking about legalities and parameters, with lawyers providing cover. With what Obama has now done, the lawyers will be afraid to counsel, but won't matter as the operatives will not go beyond the manual or will not report what they do.

[Yurt]

Which was part of the reason for my post above. The Democrats act as if water boarding is definitely torture, while even the Washington Post differentiates between what the Japanese officer did which put the prisoners in real drowning situation, not too mention many instances of 'agreed torture'.

For all MD's instance that water boarding is torture, the truth is it's still undecided. Which really was what those memos were about. The operatives asking about legalities and parameters, with lawyers providing cover. With what Obama has now done, the lawyers will be afraid to counsel, but won't matter as the operatives will not go beyond the manual or will not report what they do.

:clap:

[moderate democrat]

Which was part of the reason for my post above. The Democrats act as if water boarding is definitely torture, while even the Washington Post differentiates between what the Japanese officer did which put the prisoners in real drowning situation, not too mention many instances of 'agreed torture'.

For all MD's instance that water boarding is torture, the truth is it's still undecided. Which really was what those memos were about. The operatives asking about legalities and parameters, with lawyers providing cover. With what Obama has now done, the lawyers will be afraid to counsel, but won't matter as the operatives will not go beyond the manual or will not report what they do.

do YOU honestly think that being placed in a situation where YOU felt as if your own death by drowning is imminent would be a situation that you would characterize as causing extreme mental distress? yes or no?

[red states rule]

do YOU honestly think that being placed in a situation where YOU felt as if your own death by drowning is imminent would be a situation that you would characterize as causing extreme mental distress? yes or no?


Liberal priorities now include making sure the mental wellbeing of terrorists - while wanting to toss fellow Americans into a jail cell for keeping america safe

[Kathianne]

:clap:

Thank you. Seems some are of the idea that if a subject is asked questions, refuses to answer or disseminates demonstrably false information, there should be no recourse or that the only recourse would be torture.

If I burn you or pull your fingernails out, cut off fingers/toes, harm you in ways physically or psychologically that result in permanent injuries, that is torture.

The Japanese officer was convicted of water torture and many other more demonstrably tortuous acts. The way that water boarding was committed, didn't 'simulate' drowning, he was drowning the person, but then stopped. Yes, there is a difference.

[Kathianne]

Actually while this is interesting in some of the issues brought up, it's really moot. President Obama has forbidden all and made everything regarding instances and how they were done, public. Many, including myself, think he's made a tremendous mistake:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339_pf.html


Security Before Politics
By Porter J. Goss
Saturday, April 25, 2009

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now....

...Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have....

[moderate democrat]

Thank you. Seems some are of the idea that if a subject is asked questions, refuses to answer or disseminates demonstrably false information, there should be no recourse or that the only recourse would be torture.

If I burn you or pull your fingernails out, cut off fingers/toes, harm you in ways physically or psychologically that result in permanent injuries, that is torture.

The Japanese officer was convicted of water torture and many other more demonstrably tortuous acts. The way that water boarding was committed, didn't 'simulate' drowning, he was drowning the person, but then stopped. Yes, there is a difference.

are you aware of how the UN convention against torture defines torture?

[red states rule]

Something else to consider



Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007
Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency

By the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. General Determinations. (a) The United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. Members of al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and for many other terrorist attacks, including against the United States, its personnel, and its allies throughout the world. These forces continue to fight the United States and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and they continue to plan additional acts of terror throughout the world. On February 7, 2002, I determined for the United States that members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war. I hereby reaffirm that determination.

(b) The Military Commissions Act defines certain prohibitions of Common Article 3 for United States law, and it reaffirms and reinforces the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) ``Common Article 3'' means Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

(b) ``Geneva Conventions'' means:

(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(c) ``Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Sec. 3. Compliance of a Central Intelligence Agency Detention and Interrogation Program with Common Article 3. (a) Pursuant to the authority of the President under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including the Military Commissions Act of 2006, this order interprets the meaning and application of the text of Common Article 3 with respect to certain detentions and interrogations, and shall be treated as authoritative for all purposes as a matter of United States law, including satisfaction of the international obligations of the United States. I hereby determine that Common Article 3 shall apply to a program of detention and interrogation operated by the Central Intelligence Agency as set forth in this section. The requirements set forth in this section shall be applied with respect to detainees in such program without adverse distinction as to their race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth.

(b) I hereby determine that a program of detention and interrogation approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3, provided that:

(i) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices of the program do not include:

(A) torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code;

(B) any of the acts prohibited by section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code, including murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments;

(C) other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code;

(D) any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited by the Military Commissions Act (subsection 6(c) of Public Law 109-366) and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (section 1003 of Public Law 109-148 and section 1403 of Public Law 109-163);

(E) willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield; or

(F) acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of the individual;

(ii) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices are to be used with an alien detainee who is determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

(A) to be a member or part of or supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated organizations; and

(B) likely to be in possession of information that:

(1) could assist in detecting, mitigating, or preventing terrorist attacks, such as attacks within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror with the United States, or their armed forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities; or

(2) could assist in locating the senior leadership of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces;

(iii) the interrogation practices are determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, based upon professional advice, to be safe for use with each detainee with whom they are used; and

(iv) detainees in the program receive the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat and cold, and essential medical care.

(c) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall issue written policies to govern the program, including guidelines for Central Intelligence Agency personnel that implement paragraphs (i)(C), (E), and (F) of subsection 3(b) of this order, and including requirements to ensure:

(i) safe and professional operation of the program;

(ii) the development of an approved plan of interrogation tailored for each detainee in the program to be interrogated, consistent with subsection 3(b)(iv) of this order;

(iii) appropriate training for interrogators and all personnel operating the program;

(iv) effective monitoring of the program, including with respect to medical matters, to ensure the safety of those in the program; and

(v) compliance with applicable law and this order.

Sec. 4. Assignment of Function. With respect to the program addressed in this order, the function of the President under section 6(c)(3) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is assigned to the Director of National Intelligence.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, this order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prevent or limit reliance upon this order in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, or otherwise, by the Central Intelligence Agency or by any individual acting on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency in connection with the program addressed in this order.



[signed:] George W. Bush

THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 20, 2007.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13440.htm

[Kathianne]

I had this argument ad nauseum with an old member here. Even Jeff recognized that I'd proven my points with both Geneva Conventions, UN documents and Constitution. That poster and MD are too similar for me to waste that time and effort again.

[PostmodernProphet]

waterboarding undeniably causes severe mental suffering and it is inflicted for the purposes of obtaining information. Any more questions?

yes....why do you think you opinion is the "supreme law of the land"?........

[PostmodernProphet]

again...you are willing to piss on the constitution.

actually, we are only pissing on your interpretation of the UN treaty......

[moderate democrat]

actually, we are only pissing on your interpretation of the UN treaty......

are you honestly suggesting that waterboarding and it's ability to create the sensation that death by drowning is imminent does not cause extreme mental suffereing?

[red states rule]

are you honestly suggesting that waterboarding and it's ability to create the sensation that death by drowning is imminent does not cause extreme mental suffereing?

Will Obamacare cover extreme mental suffering? I can see you supporting terrorists being covered under the Dems national health care plan Virgil

[moderate democrat]

Will Obamacare cover extreme mental suffering? I can see you supporting terrorists being covered under the Dems national health care plan Virgil

I look at posts like this, and I think that even those intelligent posters from the right have got to be appalled by this....but then, I see that RSR has the highest reputation score on this entire website and I know, that all of those posters from the right are just as silly as RSR is... it saddens me, and makes me realize that intelligent debate between folks who have different points of view is really a thing of the past. sad. I cannot believe that this is what jimnyc envisioned when he started this site.

[red states rule]

I look at posts like this, and I think that even those intelligent posters from the right have got to be appalled by this....but then, I see that RSR has the highest reputation score on this entire website and I know, that all of those posters from the right are just as silly as RSR is... it saddens me, and makes me realize that intelligent debate between folks who have different points of view is really a thing of the past. sad. I cannot believe that this is what jimnyc envisioned when he started this site.

Your posts show you are more worried about the comfort, well being, and mental stability of the terrorists, then the security iof the US, the lives of US citizens, and the security of the country

You have also shown your contempt for the members of the US military by calling them infidels and supporting those Dems who have openly smeared and slimed them

And keep whining about the rep Virgil - it is something you have whined about for the 2 years I have been here - as well as playing your role of the poor abused and mistreated liberal

[Yurt]

I look at posts like this, and I think that even those intelligent posters from the right have got to be appalled by this....but then, I see that RSR has the highest reputation score on this entire website and I know, that all of those posters from the right are just as silly as RSR is... it saddens me, and makes me realize that intelligent debate between folks who have different points of view is really a thing of the past. sad. I cannot believe that this is what jimnyc envisioned when he started this site.

you're whiny little bitch aint ya....

you've dragged this board down into the worst of the gutters plenty of time and yet you complain about the board....

if you don't like it, leave

you would rather watch your family die than violate the constitution

[red states rule]

you're whiny little bitch aint ya....

you've dragged this board down into the worst of the gutters plenty of time and yet you complain about the board....

if you don't like it, leave

you would rather watch your family die than violate the constitution

Different name - same type of posts

BTW, Iit’s no longer called waterboarding.

We now refer to it as Underwater Contingency Operations.

[moderate democrat]

you're whiny little bitch aint ya....

you've dragged this board down into the worst of the gutters plenty of time and yet you complain about the board....

if you don't like it, leave

you would rather watch your family die than violate the constitution

I have dragged this board down ZERO times... but alas...

he's your hero....the reputation totals speak for themselves.

you LOVE RSR and his wonderful style of posting.

I would rather die than betray the oath to the constitution that I took. Sad that you have no such higher calling.... counselor.


and you know what.... my family is not more important than the survival of our democracy. I care more about my country than I do about my own selfish interests.

[red states rule]

he's your hero....the reputation totals speak for themselves.

you LOVE RSR and his wonderful style of posting.

I would rather die than betray the oath to the constitution that I took. Sad that you have no such higher calling.... counselor.

http://z.about.com/d/pregnancy/1/0/m/X/3/cryingbaby.jpg

Shades of MFM, and retiredman - still whining and about rep.

What is next ,the conspiracy rant about the Posse?

[red states rule]

you're whiny little bitch aint ya....

you've dragged this board down into the worst of the gutters plenty of time and yet you complain about the board....

if you don't like it, leave

you would rather watch your family die than violate the constitution

Virgil everytime he get a neg rep

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EVjSdtlAaMQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EVjSdtlAaMQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Yurt]

UOTE=moderate democrat;364808]I have dragged this board down ZERO times... but alas...

that is a flat out lie and you know it


he's your hero....the reputation totals speak for themselves.

you LOVE RSR and his wonderful style of posting.

I would rather die than betray the oath to the constitution that I took. Sad that you have no such higher calling.... counselor.


and you know what.... my family is not more important than the survival of our democracy. I care more about my country than I do about my own selfish interests.

you say that many presidents have pissed on the constitution, yet our REPUBLIC (not democracy moron) is still alive and well. i am sure our republic can withstand some violations of the constitution now and then. you believe the constitution is a suicide pact, i doubt the framers agree with you.

i would not watch my family die, i would violate the constitution to save their lives. i think you place way to much value in a man made document preacher. WE THE PEOPLE are more important than the constitution, for without WE THE PEOPLE the document is meaningless. and i am not talking about wholesale abandonment of the constitution, i am talking minor violations that would save this country or my family. you are a fool for believing that fallible man should so worship the constitution that you would allow your family to die....simply for upholding the constitution....

you do realize the constitution held that blacks were only 3/5 of a person....tell me, all those people who drank alcohol during the prohibition, were they pissing on the constitution? how, oh how did our country survive all those people violating the constitution? :poke:

[Yurt]

MD would return slaves to their owners:

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned

..

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/constitutiononslavery.html

[PostmodernProphet]

are you honestly suggesting that waterboarding and it's ability to create the sensation that death by drowning is imminent does not cause extreme mental suffereing?

beyond that, MD....I can honestly tell you that not only I, but presidents, and cabinet members, and justice department attorneys, and judges have all agreed that waterboarding does not violate the constitution......so, I guess that pretty much wraps it up for "supreme law of the land" doesn't it.....

[Yurt]

beyond that, MD....I can honestly tell you that not only I, but presidents, and cabinet members, and justice department attorneys, and judges have all agreed that waterboarding does not violate the constitution......so, I guess that pretty much wraps it up for "supreme law of the land" doesn't it.....

so those people's opinion....supreme law of the land?

you're joking.....right....

[PostmodernProphet]

so those people's opinion....supreme law of the land?

you're joking.....right....

????.....MD is the one claiming "supreme law", not me......the status of waterboarding as torture is subjective.......people who demand prosecution for a subjective decision in a political arena are idiots......

[Jeff]

are you honestly suggesting that waterboarding and it's ability to create the sensation that death by drowning is imminent does not cause extreme mental suffereing?

Virgil speaking for myself I am sure it does cause extreme mental suffering but how gives a damn about that terrorist piece of trash??

Also I wonder if the children of those that died at the Towers have any mental suffering going on? :poke:

[moderate democrat]

Virgil speaking for myself I am sure it does cause extreme mental suffering but how gives a damn about that terrorist piece of trash??

Also I wonder if the children of those that died at the Towers have any mental suffering going on? :poke:

Jeff...I understand what you are saying... but nonetheless, we are a country of laws and the constitution sets us apart from other nations.

Again... if you don't WANT to adhere to the UN Convention against torture, all we need to do is abrogate that treaty. Why is that so hard?

[Missileman]

are you honestly suggesting that waterboarding and it's ability to create the sensation that death by drowning is imminent does not cause extreme mental suffereing?

I'm sure that captivity itself might cause extreme mental suffering...are you honestly suggesting we just let them go?

[moderate democrat]

I'm sure that captivity itself might cause extreme mental suffering...are you honestly suggesting we just let them go?


I know of no one who would seriously suggest that captivity itself was torture. But, I am sure you knew that.

[Missileman]

I know of no one who would seriously suggest that captivity itself was torture. But, I am sure you knew that.

You're the one who wants to include mental suffering in the definition of torture.

[PostmodernProphet]

I wonder if causing anger is torture....

[Yurt]

that is a flat out lie and you know it



you say that many presidents have pissed on the constitution, yet our REPUBLIC (not democracy moron) is still alive and well. i am sure our republic can withstand some violations of the constitution now and then. you believe the constitution is a suicide pact, i doubt the framers agree with you.

i would not watch my family die, i would violate the constitution to save their lives. i think you place way to much value in a man made document preacher. WE THE PEOPLE are more important than the constitution, for without WE THE PEOPLE the document is meaningless. and i am not talking about wholesale abandonment of the constitution, i am talking minor violations that would save this country or my family. you are a fool for believing that fallible man should so worship the constitution that you would allow your family to die....simply for upholding the constitution....

you do realize the constitution held that blacks were only 3/5 of a person....tell me, all those people who drank alcohol during the prohibition, were they pissing on the constitution? how, oh how did our country survive all those people violating the constitution? :poke:


MD would return slaves to their owners:

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned

..

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/constitutiononslavery.html


Jeff...I understand what you are saying... but nonetheless, we are a country of laws and the constitution sets us apart from other nations.

Again... if you don't WANT to adhere to the UN Convention against torture, all we need to do is abrogate that treaty. Why is that so hard?

let's give a big hand to MD for returning slaves to their rightful owner :clap:

[Jeff]

Jeff...I understand what you are saying... but nonetheless, we are a country of laws and the constitution sets us apart from other nations.

Again... if you don't WANT to adhere to the UN Convention against torture, all we need to do is abrogate that treaty. Why is that so hard?

It's not hard Virgil but it is frustrating to me , I had asked you earlier in this thread why you would worship a party that believes terrorist have more rights than American babies, I didn't see your response but I am sure it was a correct one( we all have the right to belong to any party we decide) but to me the protecting of terrorist over our un born babies , protecting them even though they act like animals is just wrong, so even though I dis agree with ya I understand it is the law, but maybe if more people answered questions a bit more honestly as you did, we could get the right laws in.

[emmett]

Extracting information from an enemy is something that cannot be compromised.


OK Mister Terrorist, Hi.... my name is Libby Leftsider and I'm the interrogator assigned to extract information out of you so as to protect America. First of all...Are you comfortable in your chair? can we get you anything?

Now ... let's get started. Would you be so kind as to tell me if you are knowledgeable of any plots against Americans at this time?

Now Mr. Terrorist....I must remind you that the US Government has authorized me to use extreme methods such as making you stand in the corner if you do not cooperate. If you continue to refuse after that I can even utilize "time out" so you better reconsider not being co-operative. Don't worry though, our government has laid out explicit standards concerning the use of these harsh methods, prolonged standing in the corner has been curved to ten minute intervals.


Let's get real! This argument about torture is making people all over the world laugh at us. I'm sorry but it is just flat stupid to take the tools away that allow any level of information retreival from these people who would plan attacks on our country.

[red states rule]

Jeff...I understand what you are saying... but nonetheless, we are a country of laws and the constitution sets us apart from other nations.

Again... if you don't WANT to adhere to the UN Convention against torture, all we need to do is abrogate that treaty. Why is that so hard?

Waterboarding is not illegal.

I know you think it should be, as it is unpleasant and all.

But I know - making people uncomfortable to save thousands of lives is not what America is about.

(And thanks for being the only lib so far who's had the courage to expose themselves. Rhetorically, of course.)

[moderate democrat]

You're the one who wants to include mental suffering in the definition of torture.

I don't "WANT" to include anything. Article 1.1 of the UN Convention against torture defines torture as

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

The United States is a signatory to that Convention. That convention is, therefore, the supreme law of the land. That is an inescapable fact. If you think that America should be able to use torture as an interrogation technique, all you need to do is get the Congress to abrogate our participation in that convention and then we can do so without violating the constitution.

[red states rule]

It is comical Dems (and their supporters) are advocating a full investigation and bi-partisan justice yet say nothing about Diane Feinstein (FDIC conflict of interest), Chris Dodd (ethics questions surrounding campaign contributions), Charlie Rangal (junkets & tax evasion), John Murtha (earmark issue & ABSCAM past) etc, etc

BTW, has Khalid Mohammed's mental state suffered any after having been "tortured"?

Any bruises left behind?

Do they have him on suicide watch or Prozac?

[red states rule]

Extracting information from an enemy is something that cannot be compromised.


OK Mister Terrorist, Hi.... my name is Libby Leftsider and I'm the interrogator assigned to extract information out of you so as to protect America. First of all...Are you comfortable in your chair? can we get you anything?

Now ... let's get started. Would you be so kind as to tell me if you are knowledgeable of any plots against Americans at this time?

Now Mr. Terrorist....I must remind you that the US Government has authorized me to use extreme methods such as making you stand in the corner if you do not cooperate. If you continue to refuse after that I can even utilize "time out" so you better reconsider not being co-operative. Don't worry though, our government has laid out explicit standards concerning the use of these harsh methods, prolonged standing in the corner has been curved to ten minute intervals.


Let's get real! This argument about torture is making people all over the world laugh at us. I'm sorry but it is just flat stupid to take the tools away that allow any level of information retreival from these people who would plan attacks on our country.

Emmett, on my opinion the Obama administration is releasing information that could cripple the US in our attempts to gather National security information.

We don't want Gitmo prisoners here in the US either. Why let the terrorists into this country?

This nation went from a slight recession in 08 to a depression in 09 due to the new policies put into place. The tax payers are paying for bailouts by irresponsible companies, and the Democratic governors are raising taxes at the State level causing a double whammy.

No one is planning for the future because libs want to live in the past

[glockmail]

waterboarding undeniably causes severe mental suffering and it is inflicted for the purposes of obtaining information.... ergo, it violates the supreme law of the land and those who advocate its use would piss on our constitution.
The complex tax code undeniably causes severe mental suffering and it is inflicted for the purposes of obtaining information.... ergo, it violates the supreme law of the land and those who advocate its use would piss on our constitution.

[red states rule]

So, is are any Democratic lawmakers pushing for an investigation into Feinstein's conflict of interest & ethics violations regarding the FDIC?

I think that if the Dems want to air the truth, & hand out legitimate justice, then Feinstein has a lot more to be worried about than Bush adminstistration officials who were trying to keep the country safe.

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't "WANT" to include anything. Article 1.1 of the UN Convention against torture defines torture as

[B]"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

so tell me....do you read that as 1) "severe pain" or "suffering" or 2) "severe" and "pain or suffering, because personally I don't consider waterboarding as severe suffering....if you interpret it to cover any suffering at all we're not going to get anywhere, since letting a person have a hangnail can cause suffering to a certain degree.....

[moderate democrat]

so tell me....do you read that as 1) "severe pain" or "suffering" or 2) "severe" and "pain or suffering, because personally I don't consider waterboarding as severe suffering....if you interpret it to cover any suffering at all we're not going to get anywhere, since letting a person have a hangnail can cause suffering to a certain degree.....

I think the belief that one's death by drowning is imminent is severe mental suffering.

[glockmail]

I think the belief that one's death by drowning is imminent is severe mental suffering. I think watching the United States being taken over by socialists is severe mental suffering.

[Missileman]

I don't "WANT" to include anything. Article 1.1 of the UN Convention against torture defines torture as

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

The United States is a signatory to that Convention. That convention is, therefore, the supreme law of the land. That is an inescapable fact. If you think that America should be able to use torture as an interrogation technique, all you need to do is get the Congress to abrogate our participation in that convention and then we can do so without violating the constitution.

And I'll repeat that captivity itself causes mental suffering, in some cases severe. I'll offer as proof the huge number of people who have committed suicide rather than suffer captivity. "Severe pain or suffering" is highly subjective and obviously open to interpretation.

The "inescapable fact" is that the jury is still out on whether waterboarding is torture any more than sleep deprivation, panties on heads, rap music, or any other harmless interrogation methods.

[Missileman]

I think the belief that one's death by drowning is imminent is severe mental suffering.

Thanks for your opinion. I'll wager it's one held by lots of people who will scramble for any excuse in order to extract a pound of flesh from the former administration.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think the belief that one's death by drowning is imminent is severe mental suffering.

well, I'm glad we have straightened out that it's just what you think instead of the supreme law of the land.....

[Mr. P]

I think the belief that one's death by drowning is imminent is severe mental suffering.

Well, that belief is just pure Bullshit! Everyone knows if they kill ya ya ain't gonna talk.

Waterboarding is an extremely affective non-invasive, non-injurious interrogation technique.

[red states rule]

I think watching the United States being taken over by socialists is severe mental suffering.

Or when they see how much more in taxes they will pay to foot the bill for Obama Care

[red states rule]

I think the belief that one's death by drowning is imminent is severe mental suffering.

What's worse - waterboarding or death?

Here is what Obama said he would do to Bin Laden and other terrorists...



"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority," Obama said during the presidential debate on October 7.

So I'm assuming you have a problem with this too Virgil?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/12/binladen.hunt/index.html

[Jeff]

What's worse - waterboarding or death?

Here is what Obama said he would do to Bin Laden and other terrorists...



"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority," Obama said during the presidential debate on October 7.

So I'm assuming you have a problem with this too Virgil?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/12/binladen.hunt/index.html

Wow I am wondering if the left will be honest and admit he was just telling people what they wanted to hear in order to get elected as he did with all his other lie's.

But I am sure they will come up with some other trash to explain it.

OK Virgil your up.

[emmett]

Wow I am wondering if the left will be honest and admit he was just telling people what they wanted to hear in order to get elected as he did with all his other lie's.

But I am sure they will come up with some other trash to explain it.

OK Virgil your up.


:lol:


No Jeff...we're using a pinch hitter today!:laugh2:

[Jeff]

:lol:


No Jeff...we're using a pinch hitter today!:laugh2:

LOL, the other one that comes to mind is a real nut job, lol, and they are in charge, man are we in trouble

[moderate democrat]

Wow I am wondering if the left will be honest and admit he was just telling people what they wanted to hear in order to get elected as he did with all his other lie's.

But I am sure they will come up with some other trash to explain it.

OK Virgil your up.

why would I have a problem killing our enemies on the battlefield Jeff?

Do you think that, because I think that torture is against the law of the land and NOT a behavior that I think speaks very well of America, I somehow don't want us to prevail in military skirmishes, battles, campaigns and wars?

I don't think there is anything unethical about killing one's enemy on the battlefield. I think there IS something unethical about torturing a helpless, unarmed captive.

The fact that you don't see anything wrong with that speaks volumes about your own moral compass, imho.

[Jeff]

why would I have a problem killing our enemies on the battlefield Jeff?

Do you think that, because I think that torture is against the law of the land and NOT a behavior that I think speaks very well of America, I somehow don't want us to prevail in military skirmishes, battles, campaigns and wars?

I don't think there is anything unethical about killing one's enemy on the battlefield. I think there IS something unethical about torturing a helpless, unarmed captive.

The fact that you don't see anything wrong with that speaks volumes about your own moral compass, imho.

My own moral compass as you put it Mr. + Franken = 60 ooo goodie goodie goodie, is simple, if waterboarding a few terrorist will save 1 American life then I am all for it

You had some respect from me Virgil, not much mind you, but you showed your true colors with the + Franken = 60, you don't give a damn about this country you only care about YOU PARTY, pathetic

[red states rule]

Wow I am wondering if the left will be honest and admit he was just telling people what they wanted to hear in order to get elected as he did with all his other lie's.

But I am sure they will come up with some other trash to explain it.

OK Virgil your up.

Jeff, "torture" isn't an important part of the story, I think the bigger part is that Obama has opened the door to prosecution of those that were involved. Everyone can debate whether or not they agree with the 'torture', but prosecuting the hard working men and women who did what they were told and/or what they thought they had to do to keep us safe is completely unacceptable and dangerous.

We should all be grateful that they had the cajones to do what was needed to save lives, not throw them in jail.

But the left will now show the same support for these people as they did the troops. In both caees, the left will openly show their distain and disrespect they have for them

[Jeff]

Jeff, "torture" isn't an important part of the story, I think the bigger part is that Obama has opened the door to prosecution of those that were involved. Everyone can debate whether or not they agree with the 'torture', but prosecuting the hard working men and women who did what they were told and/or what they thought they had to do to keep us safe is completely unacceptable and dangerous.

We should all be grateful that they had the cajones to do what was needed to save lives, not throw them in jail.

But the left will now show the same support for these people as they did the troops. In both caees, the left will openly show their distain and disrespect they have for them

You can take this board as example, look at the Men?? supporting Obama, it is a different type of man than I know, but I do know right will always win, the men and women that Obama now wishes to prosecute will have there day, the American people are not that stupid , all this we won get over it, we now have 60 will run thin very soon, and when we have another attack on the land people will be out for blood, I just hope they remember then who they really need to prosecute

[red states rule]

You can take this board as example, look at the Men?? supporting Obama, it is a different type of man than I know, but I do know right will always win, the men and women that Obama now wishes to prosecute will have there day, the American people are not that stupid , all this we won get over it, we now have 60 will run thin very soon, and when we have another attack on the land people will be out for blood, I just hope they remember then who they really need to prosecute


Being a liberal means smeatring your own country and being a proud member of the "Blame America First" club

[Jeff]

Being a liberal means smeatring your own country and being a proud member of the "Blame America First" club

Yes it is very easy to see it is a very UN patriotic bunch, sad to say.

[red states rule]

Yes it is very easy to see it is a very UN patriotic bunch, sad to say.

Libs keep saying there are other methods to get information, but not one has ever told what those methods might be.

Maybe they mean these type of methods:

Time Out

Restriction

Taking away their cell phone

Or, the really bad "Just wait until your father gets home!"

I don't think Obama is stupid, I think he has a God complex. He has proven that he doesn't really care what kind of reaction his behavior and policies cause, so why would this be any different?

I think he would love nothing more than to take this "Bush is Bad" agenda to the extreme, no matter what the cost.

[Jeff]

Libs keep saying there are other methods to get information, but not one has ever told what those methods might be.

Maybe they mean these type of methods:

Time Out

Restriction

Taking away their cell phone

Or, the really bad "Just wait until your father gets home!"

I don't think Obama is stupid, I think he has a God complex. He has proven that he doesn't really care what kind of reaction his behavior and policies cause, so why would this be any different?

I think he would love nothing more than to take this "Bush is Bad" agenda to the extreme, no matter what the cost.

emmett posted here somewhere exactly how the libs figure is a good way to get info from a terrorist

As for Obama being stupid, not at all, it is the people he has worshiping his ever move that are stupid, these are the same people that criticized GW's ever move and lets face it allot of what Obama is doing is what GW had done only in a much bigger way. No Obama isn't stupid he is riding high on the stupids shoulders .

[red states rule]

emmett posted here somewhere exactly how the libs figure is a good way to get info from a terrorist

As for Obama being stupid, not at all, it is the people he has worshiping his ever move that are stupid, these are the same people that criticized GW's ever move and lets face it allot of what Obama is doing is what GW had done only in a much bigger way. No Obama isn't stupid he is riding high on the stupids shoulders .

100 days of failure.

100 days of unconstitutional laws and executive orders.

100 days of the introduction of socialist communism.

And the libs remain mostly silent. The silent majority, if there is such a group, need to start street demonstrations daily now before it becomes to late to stop this totalitarian take over by the socialist communist democrats.

[moderate democrat]

My own moral compass as you put it Mr. + Franken = 60 ooo goodie goodie goodie, is simple, if waterboarding a few terrorist will save 1 American life then I am all for it

You had some respect from me Virgil, not much mind you, but you showed your true colors with the + Franken = 60, you don't give a damn about this country you only care about YOU PARTY, pathetic


I continue to have respect for you Jeff... I continue to believe that the ideas espoused by the democratic party will better benefit our country. I am sure that you believe that the ideas espoused by the republican party will better benefit our country. I think we both have our country at the top of our priority list... we just differ as to what road to take to improve it and protect it.

[moderate democrat]

Jeff, "torture" isn't an important part of the story, I think the bigger part is that Obama has opened the door to prosecution of those that were involved. Everyone can debate whether or not they agree with the 'torture', but prosecuting the hard working men and women who did what they were told and/or what they thought they had to do to keep us safe is completely unacceptable and dangerous.

We should all be grateful that they had the cajones to do what was needed to save lives, not throw them in jail.

But the left will now show the same support for these people as they did the troops. In both caees, the left will openly show their distain and disrespect they have for them

I don't think Obama has indicated that he will consider prosecuting the CIA operatives who followed the torture memoranda... I think he has indicated that he will let the DOJ determine whether those people who wrote and authorized those memos broke any laws when they did so.

[Jeff]

I continue to have respect for you Jeff... I continue to believe that the ideas espoused by the democratic party will better benefit our country. I am sure that you believe that the ideas espoused by the republican party will better benefit our country. I think we both have our country at the top of our priority list... we just differ as to what road to take to improve it and protect it.

As I stated earlier in this thread Virgil, I don't really think any in DC are honest, I think they are all party over country, I just Like the republican liars more so than the Dems, and you proved my point when ya were dancing like a teenager that just lost her virginity cause y'all now have 60

[moderate democrat]

As I stated earlier in this thread Virgil, I don't really think any in DC are honest, I think they are all party over country, I just Like the republican liars more so than the Dems, and you proved my point when ya were dancing like a teenager that just lost her virginity cause y'all now have 60

you weren't happy when Bush won in '00 and '04?? you weren't happy when Gingrich and the republicans took congress in '94?

I am pleased that the democrats can move their agenda forward without roadblocks. If it doesn't work, they will deserve to be booted from power, like they were in 94.

[red states rule]

you weren't happy when Bush won in '00 and '04?? you weren't happy when Gingrich and the republicans took congress in '94?

I am pleased that the democrats can move their agenda forward without roadblocks. If it doesn't work, they will deserve to be booted from power, like they were in 94.

So you support this?

Fox is reporting that Obama and the crew have spent $4.2 trillion in Barry's first 100 days.

Hope our grandkids enjoy paying those bills. That's a giant anvil that will be hanging around all our necks for decades.

We haven't even done health care yet...Haven't sold out completely to the greenies yet.

So that $4.2 trillion will do nothing but grow.

How anyone can see the Teleprompter in Chief as anything other than a catastrophe is beyond me.

[Jeff]

you weren't happy when Bush won in '00 and '04?? you weren't happy when Gingrich and the republicans took congress in '94?

I am pleased that the democrats can move their agenda forward without roadblocks. If it doesn't work, they will deserve to be booted from power, like they were in 94.

Was I happy when Bush won of course I was , look at the idiot he ran against, as far as .

As far as if it doesn't work it won't, look back when Clinton was in, same will happen in 2010

And 1 more time ( you must quit dancing and read) I am not happy to see either in control, I would love to see Obama do as he promised and run the country down the middle of the isle, but he is a liar and I am sure he is know dancin g in the streets like you screaming WE GOT 60!!!

[moderate democrat]

How anyone can see the Teleprompter in Chief as anything other than a catastrophe is beyond me.


some things you'll just have to accept, even if you can't comprehend it. The fact of the matter is that Obama is a popular president and people trust him.

too bad for you. too bad for the GOP

[red states rule]

some things you'll just have to accept, even if you can't comprehend it. The fact of the matter is that Obama is a popular president and people trust him.

too bad for you. too bad for the GOP

Did you miss this part of the post Virgil?

So you support this?

Fox is reporting that Obama and the crew have spent $4.2 trillion in Barry's first 100 days.

Hope our grandkids enjoy paying those bills. That's a giant anvil that will be hanging around all our necks for decades.

We haven't even done health care yet...Haven't sold out completely to the greenies yet.

So that $4.2 trillion will do nothing but grow.

Or are you ignoring those pesky facts again?

[Jeff]

some things you'll just have to accept, even if you can't comprehend it. The fact of the matter is that Obama is a popular president and people trust him.

too bad for you. too bad for the GOP

He use to be popular amongst Blacks and nit wit's, now only the people dancing in the street that don't give a damn about there Country only there party is he still popular

[Jeff]

He use to be popular amongst Blacks and nit wit's, now only the people dancing in the street that don't give a damn about there Country only there party is he still popular

OOOO I am sorry he is also popular with Chavez, the terrorist, and anyone else that hates America

Makes me wonder where your heart really is Virgil

[moderate democrat]

Did you miss this part of the post Virgil?

So you support this?

Fox is reporting that Obama and the crew have spent $4.2 trillion in Barry's first 100 days.

Hope our grandkids enjoy paying those bills. That's a giant anvil that will be hanging around all our necks for decades.

We haven't even done health care yet...Haven't sold out completely to the greenies yet.

So that $4.2 trillion will do nothing but grow.

Or are you ignoring those pesky facts again?

Ignoring it? not at all. I don't have a big problem with Obama's spending.

[red states rule]

Ignoring it? not at all. I don't have a big problem with Obama's spending.

But you had a problem with Bush's spending - why not Obama's?

Or does that "D" at the end of Obama's name earn him your protection?

Or will you deny you objected to Bush's spending?

[moderate democrat]

But you had a problem with Bush's spending - why not Obama's?

Or does that "D" at the end of Obama's name earn him your protection?

Or will you deny you objected to Bush's spending?

I never objected to Bush's spending... I disagreed only with his spending priorities.

[red states rule]

I never objected to Bush's spending... I disagreed only with his spending priorities.

What a tap dance you do Virgil :laugh2:

[Jeff]

I never objected to Bush's spending... I disagreed only with his spending priorities.

Know it is his priorities, come on Virgil it is exactly how I said, Bush was bad cause he spent , Obama spends 3 times as much he is good,

PARTY OVER COUNTRY!!!!

[moderate democrat]

What a tap dance you do Virgil :laugh2:


the name is not Virgil...and I never objected to Bush's spending levels...I was never worried about deficits as a major issue because I know that a growing economy can deal with them... I disagreed with Bush's spending on tax cuts for rich folks and on his spending for the Iraq war... I disagreed with many of the Bush administration decisions to NOT spend on programs that I supported.

[red states rule]

Know it is his priorities, come on Virgil it is exactly how I said, Bush was bad cause he spent , Obama spends 3 times as much he is good,

PARTY OVER COUNTRY!!!!

and he could care less that Obama will break his "promise" that 95% of Americaans will get a tax cut

Need that money to pay for Obama Care and grow government

[Jeff]

and he could care less that Obama will break his "promise" that 95% of Americaans will get a tax cut

Need that money to pay for Obama Care and grow government

That statement was proven true Red when Virgil went dancing over 60

[red states rule]

That statement was proven true Red when Virgil went dancing over 60

Libs like Virgil do not give a damn about the working class. They look down on them, and see them as nothing more then a poltical prop

All they really want is as much money as they can squeeze out them (a infamous liberal poster admitted that to me) and increase their power over those people they claim to care about

[moderate democrat]

Know it is his priorities, come on Virgil it is exactly how I said, Bush was bad cause he spent , Obama spends 3 times as much he is good,

PARTY OVER COUNTRY!!!!
I was more concerned about what Bush did NOT spend money on than I was about the fact that he spent a lot of money.

I am not worried about Obama's spending, because I approve of his priorities.

[red states rule]

I was more concerned about what Bush did NOT spend money on than I was about the fact that he spent a lot of money.

I am not worried about Obama's spending, because I approve of his priorities.

You mean like $5 billion to ACORN
50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”

[moderate democrat]

You mean like $5 billion to ACORN
50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
yeah... that's what I mean. I like all of that.

[red states rule]

yeah... that's what I mean. I like all of that.

Yep, reall job creators ther Virgil

The US taxpayer will get a great return on their "investment"

[moderate democrat]

Yep, reall job creators ther Virgil

The US taxpayer will get a great return on their "investment"

I think they will. I do not consider that spending to be reckless.

Have you figured out oversampling yet?

[Jeff]

I was more concerned about what Bush did NOT spend money on than I was about the fact that he spent a lot of money.

I am not worried about Obama's spending, because I approve of his priorities.

Virgil a serious question, what bothered you that GW was spending money on?

[moderate democrat]

Virgil a serious question, what bothered you that GW was spending money on?

jeff .... one more time...if you want to have a serious discussion with me, stop calling me virgil.


but to answer your question... I was bothered by the war in Iraq. I was more upset with his lack of spending on things than I was his spending.

[Jeff]

jeff .... one more time...if you want to have a serious discussion with me, stop calling me virgil.


but to answer your question... I was bothered by the war in Iraq. I was more upset with his lack of spending on things than I was his spending.

Virgil is just a name, what is the big deal, especially when it is your name?

Did you not hear Obama tell S Korea we will stand by them no matter what there decision with N. Korea is, sounds like it could be another war

And Virgil we are all entitled to our beliefs so I try to remember that, but the people screaming the loudest about GW was for his spending( not you per say) and know it is ok for Obama to do so, don't you see how messed up that is?

[moderate democrat]

Virgil is just a name, what is the big deal, especially when it is your name?

Did you not hear Obama tell S Korea we will stand by them no matter what there decision with N. Korea is, sounds like it could be another war

And Virgil we are all entitled to our beliefs so I try to remember that, but the people screaming the loudest about GW was for his spending( not you per say) and know it is ok for Obama to do so, don't you see how messed up that is?

it is not my name and I have asked you not to call me that. I would think that such a request would be sufficient. Why would you think that I would want to continue to have a serious discussion with someone so rude as to ignore my repeated requests?

I have no problem with Obama standing by our allies. Comparing that to starting a war in Iraq is incoherent.

As I said, I did not scream about the level of his spending...only about what he was spending it on - and not spending it on.

[Jeff]

it is not my name and I have asked you not to call me that. I would think that such a request would be sufficient. Why would you think that I would want to continue to have a serious discussion with someone so rude as to ignore my repeated requests?

I have no problem with Obama standing by our allies. Comparing that to starting a war in Iraq is incoherent.

As I said, I did not scream about the level of his spending...only about what he was spending it on - and not spending it on.

And if you noticed Virgil I put a ( not you per say) I did respect that, I can't prove that ya did so I will take your word for it

As for Korea , be real man what the hell do you think that means , I know in Obama's eyes we will all sit down and talk, the rest of the world don't do things like that

AS for Virgil yes that is your name, this I can prove so yes I will continue to call you that, I am to old to play childish games of guess who I am this week

Know we have been getting along OK, just realize I know who you are and won't change that cause you want to hide

[red states rule]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3609/3490510053_1e0c390ec0.jpg?v=0

[Jeff]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3609/3490510053_1e0c390ec0.jpg?v=0

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

a very good image of Obama I must say

[red states rule]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

a very good image of Obama I must say

Reminds me of an actual quote from a liberal talking head who said any Republican who was opposed to more gun control laws should be shot

Many liberals actually do have more compassion and concern for our enemies then they do their fellow citizens

[red states rule]

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/04/27/Editorial_cartoon_April_27_t756.jpg?362c89b9f4298c 1f7d888d4fceb46698f5dfcc26

[Jeff]

LOL, I must spread some reps Red, LOL, but that is a good one

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/150527

[Kathianne]

don't you think that forcing someone to stay standing and awake for eleven days in a row would cause extreme mental distress? really?

I don't think we've come up with a decent definition of torture. As for methods, speaking of 'full disclosure', I just was looking at the Obama eo on torture:

Executive order: Interrogation - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-22-execorder-interrogation_N.htm)

With this little clause, Obama really changed nothing it's what was done regarding Justice & the CIA memo:

Section 3:


c) Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual. From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation — including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34 52 issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.

[DragonStryk72]

If she broke any laws, I think she should be prosecuted. I think that for anyone of any party. As I said, I am not certain whether merely KNOWING about an illegal activity is itself illegal but would be perfectly willing to have the courts decide that.

The term is aiding and abetting, and yes it's a crime.