another low down stunt, from our favorite president Options

[The Fanatic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ

[Mommy]

unless someone can point me to a link with solid evidence that we are needlessly torturing innocent people, i dont see anything wrong with this. i almost feel that bush should be protected from being charged with war crimes based upon what has gone on so far. now if he starts executing people left and right, then sure. I seriously doubt bush would trainwreck the republican party by doing that, though.


yeah its dumb, but i think people need to quit shitting their pants like a 2 year old everytime they think bush is trying to mastermind some great scheme.... its just not the case

[pebkac]

unless someone can point me to a link with solid evidence that we are needlessly torturing innocent people, i dont see anything wrong with this.

http://www.techsans.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2095

[Mommy]

http://www.techsans.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2095

I dont see how that is solid evidence. Some amateur writer...

Political commentary from a left wing perspective on current affairs. Either written by myself or articles that I find interesting or provocative enough to post. Covering The Iraq War, The War on Terrorism, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, the Neo-Cons and politics in general.

Better luck next time

Edit: He doesnt even know how to write a damn sentence.

This post has been edited by Jessica: Oct 4 2006, 12:56 PM

[Jim]

YEEHAW!

[impala454]

something tells me i've seen this thread before...

[The Fanatic]

unless someone can point me to a link with solid evidence that we are needlessly torturing innocent people, i dont see anything wrong with this. i almost feel that bush should be protected from being charged with war crimes based upon what has gone on so far. now if he starts executing people left and right, then sure. I seriously doubt bush would trainwreck the republican party by doing that, though.


yeah its dumb, but i think people need to quit shitting their pants like a 2 year old everytime they think bush is trying to mastermind some great scheme.... its just not the case

wtf. I dont even know how you can think that. The very fact that he is trying to do this says he is guilty. If he did not commit any crime then he has no reason to pardon himself.

[The Fanatic]

You guys always seem to think... well bush can not do anything wrong, he is a god. This is just crazy.

[Spectatrix]

Whether or not Bush and his administration are guilty of war crimes is irrelevant -- that's a matter for the courts to decide. Even if Bush were my favorite president, I'd think this legislation is a bad idea. What if this bill is upheld now and later we find out that Bush authorized the torture of innocent Iraqi civilians or something equally heinous?

[Mommy]

wtf. I dont even know how you can think that. The very fact that he is trying to do this says he is guilty. If he did not commit any crime then he has no reason to pardon himself.

no. it doesnt mean that he is guilty. it could just mean that he has made a lot of controversial decisions during his presidency and left wing extremists might try to burn him so he needs to protect himself even if he hasnt done anything wrong.

[Mommy]

You guys always seem to think... well bush can not do anything wrong, he is a god. This is just crazy.

i dont think he is god....i just think he is another president. frankly im sick of the bitching. if he was that bad he wouldnt have been voted in a second time (or first time depending on what you think of the results of the first election). everyone bitched about clinton until his presidency was over....no in hindsight everyone thinks he was great. WAH WAH WAH...dont like it? stop bitching on a message board and go reach out to more than 20 potential voters.

This post has been edited by Jessica: Oct 4 2006, 01:25 PM

[The Fanatic]

no. it doesnt mean that he is guilty. it could just mean that he has made a lot of controversial decisions during his presidency and left wing extremists might try to burn him so he needs to protect himself even if he hasnt done anything wrong.

oh of course....

How silly of me...

Bush should be able to grant HIMSELF immunity from laws...

[The Fanatic]

You know what, I should be able to do the same thing damnit. If i feel like robbing a store, it should be legal.

[Mommy]

oh of course....

How silly of me...

Bush should be able to grant HIMSELF immunity from laws...

my point: maybe its somewhat necessary seeing as how everyone blames him for things he has no control over (oil prices, soldiers torturing captures, the economy, etc).

[Jim]

It is NEVER necessary for anyone to ever be above the law.

[Mommy]

You know what, I should be able to do the same thing damnit. If i feel like robbing a store, it should be legal.

dont be dumb. that has nothing to do with this and you know it. you arent the president of the US. You dont get blaimed for every domestic disaster and some foreign disasters. do you want the government to waste millions and millions of dollars investigating in order to try Bush just for him to be found not guilty *CLINTON* or be given a pardon by his successor *WATERGATE*

[Mommy]

you people need to stop thinking of Bush as Saddam

[Jim]

you people need to stop thinking of Bush as Saddam

...?











At least we're not saying that a person should be exempt from the law because they say so. I say that all duckies should be painted orange and then shot out of a cannon into the sun.

[Seeker]

i do know secret torture camps exist in certain former soviet states
let just say they buy certain american made telephony and network equipment for their infrastructure

[Jim]

i do know secret torture camps exist in certain former soviet states
let just say they buy certain american made telephony and network equipment for their infrastructure

Weren't the secret prisons and camps made public knowledge recently?

[Mommy]

...?











At least we're not saying that a person should be exempt from the law because they say so.  I say that all duckies should be painted orange and then shot out of a cannon into the sun.

dont bring ducks into this...they havent done anything to you. they are innocent


im not saying he should be above the law. im just saying you all are crying over nothing. its not going to change anything because (a) he isnt doing anything that could warrant an investigation against him and (B ) if he was, it would be a huge WASTE of tax dollars. just wait until we get a new president.... all the bitching will start over again. you know why?...because chosing between a democrat and a republican is a joke. both suck and it will be a long ass time before we get some real opposition to those 2 parties

This post has been edited by Jessica: Oct 4 2006, 01:41 PM

[Seeker]

Weren't the secret prisons and camps made public knowledge recently?

i don't know if its public knowledge or not

[Spectatrix]

At least we're not saying that a person should be exempt from the law because they say so.  I say that all duckies should be painted orange and then shot out of a cannon into the sun.

Duckies?

You, sir, are no longer fit to be called a Sports Racer! I'm petitioning to have you kicked out of the League of Aweseomness!

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Oct 4 2006, 01:55 PM

[Jim]

dont bring ducks into this...they havent done anything to you. they are innocent


im not saying he should be above the law. im just saying you all are crying over nothing. its not going to change anything because (a) he isnt doing anything that could warrant an investigation against him and (B ) if he was, it would be a huge WASTE of tax dollars. just wait until we get a new president.... all the bitching will start over again. you know why?...because chosing between a democrat and a republican is a joke. both suck and it will be a long ass time before we get some real opposition to those 2 parties

So, you're saying this doesn't matter because of one of two things:

1.) He's done nothing wrong.

2.) If he does somethign wrong, it's not worth our time to prosecute him.



If that's the case, every criminal case that is on trial right now is a waste of our money and time.

[Jim]

Duckies?

You, sir, are no longer fit to be called a Sports Racer! I'm petitioning to have you kicked out of the League of Aweseomness!

LIEZ!!!

I NO THREATEN THE DUCKIEZ!!!!!!!!

[Spectatrix]

POOR DUCKIES!!!!!

[Jim]

For the record (so the League of Awesomeness can see this), I would never hurt a duckie nor ever dream of it.

I used the most awesome animal EVER to prove a point. I felt that my point was so awesome that I'd have to match it with something just as awesome.

[Mommy]

If that's the case, every criminal case that is on trial right now is a waste of our money and time.

no. thats not true. Im just saying, historically based, the likelihood of him being found guilty and having to pay the consequences is like 33%...if that. that and it would cost millions cuz we all know how the govt loves to waste our money

[The Fanatic]

If that is the case, so be it...


This could set a dangerous precedent; presidents should not be ABOVE the law. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

[The Fanatic]

no. thats not true. Im just saying, historically based, the likelihood of him being found guilty and having to pay the consequences is like 33%...if that. that and it would cost millions cuz we all know how the govt loves to waste our money

so....

It is better for presidents to be criminals and not prosecuted then to waste money just on the off chance that they may be innocent because they get blaimed for everything. Even though that COMES with the job and it is prefectly fine to be critical of the gov. Oh wait, we should make a law that anyone who bad mouths the executive should be executed!

[Mommy]

If that is the case, so be it...


This could set a dangerous precedent; presidents should not be ABOVE the law. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

i would like to know what this piece really says. first off, a president shouldnt be the only one guilty of war crimes....or just his administration at that. there are a TON of people that would go down with him. I want to know the specifics of what exactly he is above... like what cant he get away with and what can he. There is no damn way that Congress would pass a law putting the administration completely above the law. I comprehend what you are saying. I just think its unnecessary to bitch about the same shit over and over, especially when none of us know the full story or law.

[Mommy]

so....

It is better for presidents to be criminals and not prosecuted then to waste money just on the off chance that they may be innocent because they get blaimed for everything. Even though that COMES with the job and it is prefectly fine to be critical of the gov. Oh wait, we should make a law that anyone who bad mouths the executive should be executed!

if this is in any way a reference to 1984, I will hereby stop reading your opinoin alltogether. Great book, but people compare it to everything and its a FICTIONAL book. Yes, be critical of the government...WITH THINGS THAT MATTER. this doesnt matter right now because we dont know the full scope of the law. Find out what the law says from something other than a news commentary show. I can guarantee he is blowing it way out of proportion.

and just for the record, I dont like bush so im not sucking his dick. I just think that its retarded to start 4 billion threads all about the same damn thing.

This post has been edited by Jessica: Oct 4 2006, 02:18 PM

[pebkac]

I dont see how that is solid evidence. Some amateur writer...



Better luck next time

Edit: He doesnt even know how to write a damn sentence.

Of course I'm sure you noticed that his source was the Washington Post. But if that doesn't suit you, do a google search for Maher Arar. I'm sure you'll find one that meets your exceptionally high standards.

[cupcake]

You guys always seem to think... well bush can not do anything wrong, he is a god. This is just crazy.

I think Bush is an idiot.

but the simple fact is, some people need the fear of god put into them in order to gather valuable intel. it's how it's always has been and always should be.

there is the possibility of getting bum scoop from them, because they could just tell you anything they want to hear for fear of their safety/life, but that is a distinction best left to experts in interrogation and intel fields.

not some legislative body.

america's pussy-ness is reason #1 we're gonna go down in flames...

[pebkac]

if this is in any way a reference to 1984, I will hereby stop reading your opinoin alltogether. Great book, but people compare it to everything and its a FICTIONAL book. Yes, be critical of the government...WITH THINGS THAT MATTER. this doesnt matter right now because we dont know the full scope of the law. Find out what the law says from something other than a news commentary show. I can guarantee he is blowing it way out of proportion.

and just for the record, I dont like bush so im not sucking his dick. I just think that its retarded to start 4 billion threads all about the same damn thing.

The fact that he took away the most fundamental right in our constitution to certain people doesn't matter?

[Mommy]

The fact that he took away the most fundamental right in our constitution to certain people doesn't matter?

if those certain people arent citizens then no, it doesnt matter

[cupcake]

You know what, I should be able to do the same thing damnit. If i feel like robbing a store, it should be legal.

your analogy has zero fruit.

you robbing a store is not going to possibly save lives or strike a blow against the enemy of the america.

[Mommy]

your analogy has zero fruit.

you robbing a store is not going to possibly save lives or strike a blow against the enemy of the america.

exactly

[pebkac]

I think Bush is an idiot.

but the simple fact is, some people need the fear of god put into them in order to gather valuable intel. it's how it's always has been and always should be.

there is the possibility of getting bum scoop from them, because they could just tell you anything they want to hear for fear of their safety/life, but that is a distinction best left to experts in interrogation and intel fields.

not some legislative body.

america's pussy-ness is reason #1 we're gonna go down in flames...

Yes of course. The myth that terrorists are using our pussified "human rights" against us. Did anyone stop and think about whether or not torture is effective in the first place?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...s_opinion/opeds

The Torture Myth

By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21

Just for a moment, let's pretend that there is no moral, legal or constitutional problem with torture. Let's also imagine a clear-cut case: a terrorist who knows where bombs are about to explode in Iraq. To stop him, it seems that a wide range of Americans would be prepared to endorse "cruel and unusual" methods. In advance of confirmation hearings for Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales last week, the Wall Street Journal argued that such scenarios must be debated, since "what's at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the ability of U.S. forces to interrogate enemies who want to murder innocent civilians." Alan Dershowitz, the liberal legal scholar, has argued in the past that interrogators in such a case should get a "torture warrant" from a judge. Both of these arguments rest on an assumption: that torture -- defined as physical pressure during interrogation -- can be used to extract useful information.

But does torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I'm repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods ("Too Nice for Our Own Good" was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week's trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.

Bill Perry, a member Of Veterans Against Torture, listens to the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales on Jan. 6. (Evan Vucci -- AP)

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.

[pebkac]

if those certain people arent citizens then no, it doesnt matter

So you're saying legal aliens should have no rights?

[Mommy]

why do you post insanely long articles? cant you just quote the relavent part or give a quick synopsis. If i wanted to read like that, I would go to the library.

And yes, i know it says not to bitch about it in the NPR rules, but if you are going to make a point, quote pieces that are relavent.

[Jim]

if those certain people arent citizens then no, it doesnt matter

All people are created equal. Some are just more equal than others.


One of these sentences is fundamental to America. One isn't. Which is which?

[cupcake]

Did anyone stop and think about whether or not torture is effective in the first place?

save your book report for someone else, professor peabody.

I know firsthand a little wall-to-wall counseling renders effective results.

[pebkac]

why do you post insanely long articles? cant you just quote the relavent part or give a quick synopsis. If i wanted to read like that, I would go to the library.

And yes, i know it says not to bitch about it in the NPR rules, but if you are going to make a point, quote pieces that are relavent.

I think the entire article is relevant. But if you want a summary: torture is ineffective.

[The Fanatic]

Good old fashioned research... ahhh

( Protection of Personnel- Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that--

(1) relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens described in such section;

(2) is grounded in section 2441©(3) of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) relates to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005.

RETRO-ACTIVE RESOLUTION
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109...p/~c109JjvXkZ::

Now what exactly is this amending...

Here is the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005:

SEC. 1004. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN AUTHORIZED INTERROGATIONS.
(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel- In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity ...

( Counsel- The United States Government may provide or employ counsel, and pay counsel fees, court costs, bail, and other expenses incident to the representation of an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent described in subsection (a), with respect to any civil action or criminal prosecution arising out of practices described in that subsection, under the same conditions, and to the same extent, to which such services and payments are authorized under section 1037 of title 10, United States Code.

Source: http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/detainee_act_2005.html

Emphasis Added

[Jim]

save your book report for someone else, professor peabody.

I know firsthand a little wall-to-wall counseling renders effective results.

If I have vital information and someone starts torturing me, I'll probably give them false information out of spite.

[pebkac]

save your book report for someone else, professor peabody.

I know firsthand a little wall-to-wall counseling renders effective results.

Yes. If you torture somebody, I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that they'll tell you something. Anything. Whatever it takes to get out of that situation. Even if they don't know anything at all.

[Mommy]

So you're saying legal aliens should have no rights?

i didnt say that. but when its a matter of national security...yes. I dont feel like explaining my whole point but in essence, they chose to come over here and not take the proper steps in becoming a citizen. If they are suspect of something, I dont care if more steps are taken to find out information... wiretappings, unwarranted searches, and yes a minimal amount of fear. remember.... NATIONAL SECURITY...in other words our citizens lives are at stake.

[Jim]

i didnt say that. but when its a matter of national security...yes. I dont feel like explaining my whole point but in essence, they chose to come over here and not take the proper steps in becoming a citizen. If they are suspect of something, I dont care if more steps are taken to find out information... wiretappings, unwarranted searches, and yes a minimal amount of fear. remember.... NATIONAL SECURITY...in other words our citizens lives are at stake.

Am I less equal?

[pebkac]

i didnt say that. but when its a matter of national security...yes. I dont feel like explaining my whole point but in essence, they chose to come over here and not take the proper steps in becoming a citizen. If they are suspect of something, I dont care if more steps are taken to find out information... wiretappings, unwarranted searches, and yes a minimal amount of fear. remember.... NATIONAL SECURITY...in other words our citizens lives are at stake.

So what you're saying is that you believe it's just for someone to be held against their will when they don't have any ties to any terrorist organizations?

[Mommy]

Am I less equal?

are you canadian?

if so, yes

[cupcake]

If I have vital information and someone starts torturing me, I'll probably give them false information out of spite.

no you won't.

everyone breaks. sure there are anomalies that won't break, or can deceive, but they are very low percentage. even those going in with good training under their belts fail.

the average person off the street will fail miserably.

those who want your intel are well-versed enough in the gig to distinguish lies from the truth.

do a little of your beloved web-research and find the various methods/symptoms of lie detecting.

you'll just get worse treatment for lying.

[cupcake]

Yes.  If you torture somebody, I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that they'll tell you something.  Anything.  Whatever it takes to get out of that situation.  Even if they don't know anything at all.

keyword in my post was "effective".

no, you can usually tell within a few minutes who's bs'ing just to get out of a beating and who is actually hiding something.

[Jim]

no you won't.

everyone breaks. sure there are anomalies that won't break, or can deceive, but they are very low percentage. even those going in with good training under their belts fail.

the average person off the street will fail miserably.

those who want your intel are well-versed enough in the gig to distinguish lies from the truth.

do a little of your beloved web-research and find the various methods/symptoms of lie detecting.

you'll just get worse treatment for lying.

And you speak from personal experience or are you just infallible?

[cupcake]

So what you're saying is that you believe it's just for someone to be held against their will when they don't have any ties to any terrorist organizations?

where in her post did she say that?

I didn't read it that way.

[The Fanatic]

if this is in any way a reference to 1984, I will hereby stop reading your opinoin alltogether. Great book, but people compare it to everything and its a FICTIONAL book. Yes, be critical of the government...WITH THINGS THAT MATTER. this doesnt matter right now because we dont know the full scope of the law. Find out what the law says from something other than a news commentary show. I can guarantee he is blowing it way out of proportion.

and just for the record, I dont like bush so im not sucking his dick. I just think that its retarded to start 4 billion threads all about the same damn thing.

It was not a reference to 1984, there are plenty of place and times when such things were practiced on a daily basis

[The Fanatic]

your analogy has zero fruit.

you robbing a store is not going to possibly save lives or strike a blow against the enemy of the america.

Analogy is not meant to be perfect... it is meant to proove a point, that no one should be above the law.

[Mommy]

So what you're saying is that you believe it's just for someone to be held against their will when they don't have any ties to any terrorist organizations?

I said if they are a suspect. Im sorry, but I was born here. I am a citizen. I get more rights then aliens because thats how our government works. Aliens cant vote either. Why arent you bitching about that? There shouldn't have to be some strong evidence but not like this:

Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity.

This post has been edited by Jessica: Oct 4 2006, 02:43 PM

[cupcake]

And you speak from personal experience or are you just infallible?

certainly not infallible. just experienced it on both sides. but I am no expert in it by any means.

[pebkac]

keyword in my post was "effective".

no, you can usually tell within a few minutes who's bs'ing just to get out of a beating and who is actually hiding something.

I refer you back to my source:

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

You have at best an ineffective way of getting information and at worst a dangerous source of misinformation. Take your pick.

[The Fanatic]

i would like to know what this piece really says. first off, a president shouldnt be the only one guilty of war crimes....or just his administration at that. there are a TON of people that would go down with him. I want to know the specifics of what exactly he is above... like what cant he get away with and what can he. There is no damn way that Congress would pass a law putting the administration completely above the law. I comprehend what you are saying. I just think its unnecessary to bitch about the same shit over and over, especially when none of us know the full story or law.

I posted the bill, which is now a law

[cupcake]

Analogy is not meant to be perfect... it is meant to proove a point, that no one should be above the law.

I agree with that.

it's that hand-tying governing action, however, that should be done away with.

[The Fanatic]

I agree with that.

it's that hand-tying governing action, however, that should be done away with.

laws should be made both to protect the people from criminals and their own gov.

[pebkac]

I said if they are a suspect. Im sorry, but I was born here. I am a citizen. I get more rights then aliens because thats how our government works. Aliens cant vote either. Why arent you bitching about that? There should have to be some strong evidence but not like this:

Yes, but that's the problem. There doesn't have to be strong evidence. All the president has to do is label someone an "enemy combatant" and then he can lock them away for life without a shred of evidence.

Even if you trust Pres Bush to do this, how can you trust any future presidents who may or may not be quite so nice? And more importantly, even if you trust President Bush, how can you trust every single person who's in a position to make decisions on this?

EDIT: Secondly, the Constitution limits a legal immigrant's right to vote. It doesn't apply such limits on habeas corpus.

[Mommy]

I posted the bill, which is now a law

i see where you posted it. i read it and i agree with it.


people are trying to blame Bush for 9/11. It wasnt his fault

Bush is trying to protect our nation from further attacks

[The Fanatic]

i see where you posted it. i read it and i agree with it.


people are trying to blame Bush for 9/11. It wasnt his fault

Bush is trying to protect our nation from further attacks

You say that you don't suck the dick of our president...


But I think you are a liar!

[pebkac]

i see where you posted it. i read it and i agree with it.


people are trying to blame Bush for 9/11. It wasnt his fault

Bush is trying to protect our nation from further attacks

By asking for the ability to jail who he wants when he wants for whatever reason he wants?

Right. And I like pussy.

[Mommy]

Even if you trust Pres Bush to do this, how can you trust any future presidents who may or may not be quite so nice? And more importantly, even if you trust President Bush, how can you trust every single person who's in a position to make decisions on this?

I thought this bill was only to protect the Bush administration?

[Spectatrix]

I dont feel like explaining my whole point but in essence, they chose to come over here and not take the proper steps in becoming a citizen.

It takes several years to become a citizen, Jessica.

[Mommy]

It takes several years to become a citizen, Jessica.

i know. thats time well spent becoming a respectable member of society.

[Mommy]

You say that you don't suck the dick of our president...


But I think you are a liar!

i dont like him. i just think he is handling this whole terrorism problem the best way he knows how...and thats better than gore or kerry could do

[The Fanatic]

I thought this bill was only to protect the Bush administration?

It sets a precedent for future presidents.

[Mommy]

It sets a precedent for future presidents.

so does getting a blow job in the oval office....

[pebkac]

so does getting a blow job in the oval office....

If a president does a good job, he can get all the blow jobs in the Oval Office he wants as far as I'm concerned.

[Jim]

so does getting a blow job in the oval office....

Because we all know infidelity is far worse than torture.

[impala454]

i love how this has turned from:

"President Bush doesn't want the president to be prosecuted in case some interrogators get carried away"

to

"President Bush wants to be exempt from all law"

[Mommy]

If a president does a good job, he can get all the blow jobs in the Oval Office he wants as far as I'm concerned.

case and point. people thinking that clinton was a great president.... nope

[pebkac]

case and point. people thinking that clinton was a great president.... nope

That's the subject of an entirely different thread.

[Mommy]

Because we all know infidelity is far worse than torture.

if those being tortured deserve it...then yes

[Mommy]

That's the subject of an entirely different thread.

i just made reference earlier in this thread to people in hindsight thinking clinton was a good president but while he was in office, everyone bitched like crazy like they are doing now

[Jim]

if those being tortured deserve it...then yes

And what's your reasoning behind this?

Are you saying it's ok to allow someone to brutally beat the living crap out of someone but it's not ok to have someone give you head? If that's the case, then you are fucked up in the head.

[Mommy]

i love how this has turned from:

"President Bush doesn't want the president to be prosecuted in case some interrogators get carried away"

to

"President Bush wants to be exempt from all law"

people twist things the way that they want to in order to fit it into their own personal political agenda....its pretty much a given that most here want Bush out of office

[The Fanatic]

No court, Justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a write of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaitin such determination.

7b. Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this act and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act wichi relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

[The Fanatic]

i love how this has turned from:

"President Bush doesn't want the president to be prosecuted in case some interrogators get carried away"

to

"President Bush wants to be exempt from all law"

If you follow the logic of this law, then yes it makes perfect sense

[impala454]

yeah pretty much

i loved how the one about recording like 500 suspected terrorist-linked people's phone calls went from that to "BUSH IS TRYING TO RECORD EVERYBODYZ CALLS ZOMGZSFJDF!111!!1oneoneone"

[The Fanatic]

Elected officials SHOULD be held accountable to the american people

[impala454]

If you follow the logic of this law, then yes it makes perfect sense

no, this case is referring to one part of one international law.

[Mommy]

And what's your reasoning behind this?

Are you saying it's ok to allow someone to brutally beat the living crap out of someone but it's not ok to have someone give you head? If that's the case, then you are fucked up in the head.

brutally? I said IF THEY DESERVE IT. If someone helped orchestrate 9/11 then beat the living shit out of them. I dont care.

Additionally, the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. Military rules strictly forbid infidelity. Additionally, he lied UNDER OATH. I dont want a liar as my president. Bush is just misinformed a lot...he isnt a liar. I honestly believe that he believes everything that comes out of his mouth.

You all love to twist what I say. Read more carefully please

[Jim]

Elected officials SHOULD be held accountable to the american people

No, that'd just make sense.

[The Fanatic]

This whole thing reeks of guilt. "Oh let us get this through congress before the midterm elections because the democrats may win the election because we have done such a shitty job running the country."

[The Fanatic]

It is ok to prosecute war criminals as long as they are not presidents of the United States...

[Mommy]

It is ok to prosecute war criminals as long as they are not presidents of the United States...

he isnt a criminal. Its just hippy liberals love to make him out to be one.

[impala454]

spivey you're just getting delusional now. you really believe they're sitting around saying "man we're doing a shitty job!"

[Billy]

So does anyone here know exactly what they are doing to these prisoners? I am curious to know what they are calling torture. And until I know this, I don't think I can form an opinion on the subject.

[Jim]

he isnt a criminal. Its just hippy liberals love to make him out to be one.

And if a person doesn't deserve this torture? What then, it's all duckies and cuter duckies? It's ok, he may have gotten some improtant information, even if hundreds of innocent people went through hell. I mean, sacrafice the many for the one, huh?

[Billy]

And if a person doesn't deserve this torture? What then, it's all duckies and cuter duckies? It's ok, he may have gotten some improtant information, even if hundreds of innocent people went through hell. I mean, sacrafice the many for the one, huh?

Since you like to throw this term around, torture, so much, maybe you could answer my above question.

[The Fanatic]

spivey you're just getting delusional now. you really believe they're sitting around saying "man we're doing a shitty job!"

it is called sarcasm


Learn it and love it

[The Fanatic]

he isnt a criminal. Its just hippy liberals love to make him out to be one.

and it is just fascist conservative pigs who support him

[impala454]

and it is just fascist conservative pigs who support him

well then i supposed this is a country of fascist conservative pigs, considering he was elected.

[The Fanatic]

By a slim plurality


Remember his first term? He was appointed by the supreme court of the United States...