or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Arrest this man...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arrest this man... - Page 3

post #81 of 156
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Why don't you go somewhere and get water-boarded and then report back to us that it isn't torture. Idiot.

I heard that the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu have reservations...
post #82 of 156
And thats precisely why I cheerfully wished SDW would die from his back operation....he's completely vile, the world does not need the SDW's.
post #83 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

And thats precisely why I cheerfully wished SDW would die from his back operation....he's completely vile, the world does not need the SDW's.

That's going too far. I may think he's a complete dink but I don't wish him ill despite my suggestion since I don't think he's dumb enough to voluntarily undergo water-boarding.
post #84 of 156
SDW doesn't want to know.
He just can't imagine he's wrong about this and other ridiculous arguments he tries to make.
Fair enough, but, ignoring facts just because you don't believe them and trying to buttress your argument by leaving out facts, as in your definition of torture, makes you the same as McClennan's description of Bush,
Quote:
someone who lacks inquisitiveness and is also deceitfully self-delusional.

The Bush Administration agrees that mental pain exists if accompanied by physical abuse.
You knew that right?
What comes first, the physical or the mental?
If I think that these guys waterboarding me don't have my best interests at heart, do I have to drown or think I'm going to drown.

Mental abuse is just as bad, if not worse than physical, just ask any kid, spouse or anyone continually berated, put down, bullied.

A study done,
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/64636.php
Mental And Physical Torture Do The Same Psychological Harm Say Researchers
Quote:
However, the researchers point out that after reports of human rights abuse on detainees held in US military camps in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, a US Defense Department working group and a US Justice Department policy argued for a much narrower definition that only includes mental pain if it results from physical pain.

This is what prompted them to conduct a scientific study to see if some of the psychologically stressful interrogation procedures and detention methods used in such camps are on a par with physical torture. They say their study confirms this to be the case and now call on the US and other nations who use the narrow definition of torture to revise it to include mental pain without physical pain.
post #85 of 156
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

That's going too far. I may think he's a complete dink but I don't wish him ill despite my suggestion since I don't think he's dumb enough to voluntarily undergo water-boarding.

I agree. Everybody knows it's torture...oh wait.
post #86 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

That's going too far. I may think he's a complete dink but I don't wish him ill despite my suggestion since I don't think he's dumb enough to voluntarily undergo water-boarding.

really....I dont think its going far enough.

We have put up with thousands of years of murder and torture on this planet - and its not the likes of Osama, Bush, Hitler, Pol-pots, stalins, mugabee's who are really to blame, because a psychopath on their own is a weak, powerless shadow of a person.

More to blame are the masses of coprolites who hang off the coat tails of the madmen and enable their evil.
post #87 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

really....I dont think its going far enough.

We have put up with thousands of years of murder and torture on this planet - and its not the likes of Osama, Bush, Hitler, Pol-pots, stalins, mugabee's who are really to blame, because a psychopath on their own is a weak, powerless shadow of a person.

More to blame are the masses of coprolites who hang off the coat tails of the madmen and enable their evil.

Neither Osama or Bush is a Hitler, Stalin or Pol-Pot. Categorizing folks you don't like as genocidal madmen is one reason folks don't take certain liberal (or conservative) elements very seriously.

Are Osama or Bush EVIL? Not in my opinion. Misguided, incompetent (at least Bush) and ruthless, yes. Kills millions for fun and personal glory? No. And it's not a matter of degree as much a whole different category of behavior/mindset.
post #88 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Neither Osama or Bush is a Hitler, Stalin or Pol-Pot. Categorizing folks you don't like as genocidal madmen is one reason folks don't take certain liberal (or conservative) elements very seriously.

Are Osama or Bush EVIL? Not in my opinion. Misguided, incompetent (at least Bush) and ruthless, yes. Kills millions for fun and personal glory? No. And it's not a matter of degree as much a whole different category of behavior/mindset.

As we approach 1/10th of the 21st Century, Bush et al. has had more people murdered than any other person this century. By the time his '100 year war' has played out he will be up there amongst historys' 'greats' for death, destruction and genocide - even if it is not plainly visible just yet - just as Hitlers torrent of death, destruction and genocide were not fully realised for decades after the event.

He and his admin are bad motherfuckers, whose modus operandi is a 21st Century reenactment of wartime Germany, granted, most of the sane world has managed to keep him somewhat in check...but had they, with their followers like SDW been allowed to fully realise the vision, the start of the 21st century would have been a carbon copy of the worst of the last.

And you can thank the 'liberals' for that.
post #89 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Neither Osama or Bush is a Hitler, Stalin or Pol-Pot. Categorizing folks you don't like as genocidal madmen is one reason folks don't take certain liberal (or conservative) elements very seriously.

Are Osama or Bush EVIL? Not in my opinion. Misguided, incompetent (at least Bush) and ruthless, yes. Kills millions for fun and personal glory? No. And it's not a matter of degree as much a whole different category of behavior/mindset.

In Bush's case, you have to know who those are that have his ear.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935?page=1
Quote:
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.

And if they hadn't fucked up so gloriously in Iraq,......
Yet they still have ardent followers.
I posted this before but you may hve missed it.
Who is the Neocon's hero?
http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/112.html
Quote:
Leo Strauss has long been a cult figure within the North American academy. And even though he had a profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy, his disciples have gone to great lengths to conceal the fact. And for the most part they have succeeded -- as the article by James Atlas in The New York Times and the article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker indicate. This picture of Strauss as the great American patriot, who was a lover of freedom and democracy is pure fabrication. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is ironic that American neoconservatives have decided to conquer the world in the name of liberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either.

If you believe this is the Neocon philosophy, then yes, they are at the least, manipulating the fear of the ignorant masses for their own benefit and Bush is their puppet.

At the worst, responsible for thousands of deaths for no reason other than control and power.
Thank god they were to incompetent to prevail.

Criminal? Yes.
post #90 of 156
I suppose we'll do this all over again with a certain poster in a couple of month's.
In the meantime, posted previously by Artman but not commented on.
http://news.smh.com.au/world/us-usin...0602-2ksd.html
US 'using prison ships in war on terror'
Quote:
The analysis - to be published later this year by the human rights group Reprieve - also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when US President George W Bush declared that the practice had stopped.

It used to be the US was given the benefit of the doubt, after all, they were the good guys.
Those days are gone.
post #91 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

So if I zap you repeatedly in the nuts at a low enough voltage that no permanent damage occurs it's not torture?

Depends on what the pain level is.

Quote:


You sound like a PRC apologist. "We aren't torturing people...we're re-educating them".

You sound like an ass.

Quote:



And waterboarding causes anguish of mind. Just like fake executions which are also prohibited. In fact it is a form of fake execution since it fakes the physiological impression of drowning to death.

That's debatable.

Quote:

That's the thing with fucktards. They don't realize that Actions Mean Stuff.

Worst. Comeback. Ever.

Quote:

Waterboarding is torture. There are plenty of conservatives that agree that waterboarding is torture. This isn't a conservative vs liberal distinction. It is a fucktard vs non-fucktard distinction.

First, I am not a "fucktard" because I think water boarding is not torture. Perhaps I should have made a distinction. It's not a conservative vs. liberal distinction...it's a fascist vs. non-fascist distinction. Usually it's liberals that use that tactic, but congrats..you have as well.

Quote:



Except that you have no principles worth mentioning if you support torture. No amount of idiotic semantic dancing on your part excuses that fundamental lack of morals.

Why don't you go somewhere and get water-boarded and then report back to us that it isn't torture. Idiot.

Wow. Vinea thinks he has the right to judge me from a moral standpoint. Fine. My turn: Anyone who doesn't support using enhanced techniques in defending this country (including waterboarding) is immoral. You want to see Americans die. You'd rather protect terror suspects than soccer moms. You think we're fighting a uniformed army under the Geneva Conventions. You don't realize that we're dealing with an enemy that literally loves death...one that cuts off people's heads and puts it YouTube. You're unwilling to do what it takes to protect our way of life. Seems to me you're the immoral bastard.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #92 of 156
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wow. Vinea thinks he has the right to judge me from a moral standpoint. Fine. My turn: Anyone who doesn't support using enhanced techniques in defending this country (including waterboarding) is immoral. You want to see Americans die. You'd rather protect terror suspects than soccer moms. You think we're fighting a uniformed army under the Geneva Conventions. You don't realize that we're dealing with an enemy that literally loves death...one that cuts off people's heads and puts it YouTube. You're unwilling to do what it takes to protect our way of life. Seems to me you're the immoral bastard.

Your ignorance astounds me. Us actually. Because you are the only person on this forum that believes this, no one here will defend you on this issue. But I guess that's what freedom of speech is all about, because if you didn't have a platform to spout off this bullshit, we wouldn't know where the crazy people are.
post #93 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

if you didn't have a platform to spout off this bullshit, we wouldn't know where the crazy people are.

Or the fucktards....
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #94 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Your ignorance astounds me. Us actually. Because you are the only person on this forum that believes this, no one here will defend you on this issue. But I guess that's what freedom of speech is all about, because if you didn't have a platform to spout off this bullshit, we wouldn't know where the crazy people are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Or the fucktards....

Actually, your (corrected from "you're"...thanks lurker) utter density astounds me. Here, I'll explain it so you can understand:

Of course I don't believe that. I was merely demonstrating how absurd Vinea sounds. My statement was made to illustrate what tactics some will use when disagreeing with someone else. Vinea believes that I am an immoral person (and a fucktard) because I don't think water boarding is torture. He can't just disagree, and neither can you. Usually it's the Left that uses this kind of rhetoric. If you oppose gay marriage, you're a bigot. If you oppose affirmative action, you're a racist. If you disagree with a liberal on taxes, you hate the poor. All I was doing was showing ridiculous it sounds when its turned around. Vinea and I disagree...that's all. That's what adults do. They don't call each other fucktards because they have a disagreement on policy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 156
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Actually, you're utter density astounds me. Here, I'll explain it so you can understand:

Of course I don't believe that. I was merely demonstrating how absurd Vinea sounds. My statement was made to illustrate what tactics some will use when disagreeing with someone else. Vinea believes that I am an immoral person (and a fucktard) because I don't think water boarding is torture. He can't just disagree, and neither can you. Usually it's the Left that uses this kind of rhetoric. If you oppose gay marriage, you're a bigot. If you oppose affirmative action, you're a racist. If you disagree with a liberal on taxes, you hate the poor. All I was doing was showing ridiculous it sounds when its turned around. Vinea and I disagree...that's all. That's what adults do. They don't call each other fucktards because they have a disagreement on policy.

Ok. You're ambiguity astounds me. I will agree that name calling shouldn't be tolerated (yet we all tend to do so anyway).

I disagree with your belief on waterboarding, Bushco, and Iraq, terrorism and many other issues. I tend to support the reasons why. Consistently, when you are presented with these, you ignore them or call them on there validity (even when supporting citations are made) all well and good for your behalf but many here find it disappointing that it's so. That usually is when others (and myself included) are reduced to name calling.

Pure and simple, your opinions on these issues are your own. But they are empty words here.
post #96 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Actually, you're utter density astounds me.

Uhhhh... actually that's YOUR utter density, oh Grand Lord Of Grammar...
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #97 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You don't realize that we're dealing with an enemy that literally loves death...one that cuts off people's heads and puts it YouTube. You're unwilling to do what it takes to protect our way of life. Seems to me you're the immoral bastard.

Why then did the administration feel they had to change the definition from torture to "enhanced interrogation".
I showed why and you ignored it.

Why did you ignore the full definition of torture and continue to.

I think the immoral bastards are the ones that condone this,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...+Report&st=nyt
Waterboarding Focus of Inquiry By Justice Dept.
Quote:
The document declared that interrogation methods were not torture unless they produced pain equivalent to that produced by organ failure or death.

Hats off to the good guys.
post #98 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You don't realize that we're dealing with an enemy that literally loves death...one that cuts off people's heads and puts it YouTube. You're unwilling to do what it takes to protect our way of life. Seems to me you're the immoral bastard.

Hm, where'd you get those views?



(addabox will appreciate this one)
post #99 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Ok. You're ambiguity astounds me. I will agree that name calling shouldn't be tolerated (yet we all tend to do so anyway).

I disagree with your belief on waterboarding, Bushco, and Iraq, terrorism and many other issues. I tend to support the reasons why. Consistently, when you are presented with these, you ignore them or call them on there validity (even when supporting citations are made) all well and good for your behalf but many here find it disappointing that it's so. That usually is when others (and myself included) are reduced to name calling.

Pure and simple, your opinions on these issues are your own. But they are empty words here.


Careful! He'll start correcting you on your grammer!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #100 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Ok. You're ambiguity astounds me. I will agree that name calling shouldn't be tolerated (yet we all tend to do so anyway).

I disagree with your belief on waterboarding, Bushco, and Iraq, terrorism and many other issues. I tend to support the reasons why. Consistently, when you are presented with these, you ignore them or call them on there validity (even when supporting citations are made) all well and good for your behalf but many here find it disappointing that it's so. That usually is when others (and myself included) are reduced to name calling.

I support my reasons as well, and you turn around do exactly what you accuse me of dong. Also, I will call into question that which is clearly invalid, biased or otherwise not credible. You don't see me linking to Rush Limbaugh (at least not without a disclaimer), yet you link to Huffington and other sites with clearly slanted points of view. Beyond that, you simply cannot disagree without going batshit crazy. It must be frustrating for you. I mean, after all...you demonstrated that UN and John McCain say water-boarding is torture, so it must be so!

Quote:

Pure and simple, your opinions on these issues are your own. But they are empty words here.

Why...because the Smart Liberals on the board say so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Uhhhh... actually that's YOUR utter density, oh Grand Lord Of Grammar...

OK, good find. My apologies.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #101 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Why then did the administration feel they had to change the definition from torture to "enhanced interrogation".
I showed why and you ignored it.

Why did you ignore the full definition of torture and continue to.

I think the immoral bastards are the ones that condone this,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...+Report&st=nyt
Waterboarding Focus of Inquiry By Justice Dept.

Hats off to the good guys.



Quote:
''Despite the virtually unanimous consensus of legal scholars and the overwhelming weight of legal precedent that waterboarding is illegal,'' the senators wrote, ''certain Justice Department officials, operating behind a veil of secrecy, concluded that the use of waterboarding is lawful. We believe it is appropriate for you to investigate the conduct of these Justice Department officials.''

Translation: We disagree with their opinion, so they should be disciplined. It's a legal OPINION. What is the implication here...that Bush said "make this legal" and they complied? Good luck proving that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #102 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Translation: We disagree with their opinion, so they should be disciplined. It's a legal OPINION. What is the implication here...that Bush said "make this legal" and they complied? Good luck proving that.

Another eg. of your opinion carrying no weight on this issue.
You completely ignore evidence that goes against your defense of the indefensible.
You think that redefining torture happened in a vacuum?
Like everything pertaining to the "War on Terror", they chose what they wanted to believe to justify their goals.
Framing it as Bush said make it so is in the same ballpark as saying, find me a way to make it so.
Even though an opinion isn't law.
Enter Mr Yoo,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...+Report&st=nyt
Quote:
Mr. Yoo, who asserted that a president during wartime has extraordinarily broad powers, was a highly influential figure in the Justice Department in the first year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. His views found favor with Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal adviser, David S. Addington, who shared his views of presidential power.

So they found a legal scholar to justify the redefining of torture etc.
The question is, why would they think they needed to do this?
Quote:
Mr. Whitehouse, a former United States attorney, said in an interview that he believed the August 2002 memo on torture, as well as classified opinions he had reviewed, fell far short of the Justice Department's standards for scholarship. He said that in approving waterboarding, the opinions ignored both American military prosecutors' cases against Japanese officers for waterboarding American prisoners during World War II and a federal appeals court's decision that upheld the 1983 conviction of a Texas sheriff for using ''water torture'' on jail inmates.

I see, in case they need cover.
Are the actions a lawyer said a legal a defense?
Apparently not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/ma...=y&oref=slogin
Quote:
The Hamdan decision demolished the argument that the president’s war powers were limitless and beyond review. It also meant that C.I.A. and other administration officials faced possible criminal liability for past and future acts of abuse. So the administration scrambled to both justify the torture and change the law.

Quote:
The result was a “showdown” in Congress, wherein the president requested the power to redefine the legal standard for torture and the power to determine whether and how the Geneva Conventions apply.

I want you'all to make it legal, to paraphrase.
Quote:
Congress passed legislation decreasing Congressional and judicial oversight of detainees. When Bush admitted, in short, that the second narrative — America tortures people in secret — was true, Congress effectively made it legal.

So yeah, Bush did ask lawmakers to make it legal.
Is it illegal for him to get the law changed? No.
After the fact, well, maybe, if the administration believed they weren't breaking any law, even though that isn't an excuse right?
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for the masses right?

The administration knew they were breaking International Law by redefining torture before they tried to get it changed.
This is indisputable.
post #103 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Another eg. of your opinion carrying no weight on this issue.
You completely ignore evidence that goes against your defense of the indefensible.
You think that redefining torture happened in a vacuum?
Like everything pertaining to the "War on Terror", they chose what they wanted to believe to justify their goals.
Framing it as Bush said make it so is in the same ballpark as saying, find me a way to make it so.
Even though an opinion isn't law.
Enter Mr Yoo,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...+Report&st=nyt

So they found a legal scholar to justify the redefining of torture etc.
The question is, why would they think they needed to do this?

I see, in case they need cover.
Are the actions a lawyer said a legal a defense?
Apparently not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/ma...=y&oref=slogin


I want you'all to make it legal, to paraphrase.

So yeah, Bush did ask lawmakers to make it legal.
Is it illegal for him to get the law changed? No.
After the fact, well, maybe, if the administration believed they weren't breaking any law, even though that isn't an excuse right?
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for the masses right?

The administration knew they were breaking International Law by redefining torture before they tried to get it changed.
This is indisputable.

Oohh! International Law! That's another term I love.

Screener, all you've done is present your own spin. Let me offer an alternative view:

The administration knew that water-boarding was a valuable way to get information in extreme cases. They knew it was controversial and wanted a legal opinion stating it was acceptable given that the individuals being subjected to it were not POWs. The got such an opinion.

Now that opinion is being called into question. There are many who disagree with it. Therefore, it's time to prosecute! We can't have lawyers writing opinions that others disagree with, after all.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #104 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oohh! International Law! That's another term I love.

Screener, all you've done is present your own spin. Let me offer an alternative view:

The administration knew that water-boarding was a valuable way to get information in extreme cases. They knew it was controversial and wanted a legal opinion stating it was acceptable given that the individuals being subjected to it were not POWs. The got such an opinion.

Now that opinion is being called into question. There are many who disagree with it. Therefore, it's time to prosecute! We can't have lawyers writing opinions that others disagree with, after all.

Yeah, the Geneva Convention sucks.
Waging a "War" on Terror without POW's makes the Geneva Convention so passe.
So your spin is water-boarding was, is, only controversial.
And you answered your own question, " What is the implication here...that Bush said "make this legal" and they complied? Good luck proving that."
by admitting they "wanted a legal opinion stating it was acceptable"
I ask again, why need a legal opinion if it's only controversial?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
Quote:
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, several memoranda,[108][109] including the Bybee memo, were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos,"[110] advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, while pointing out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.

Translation.
Why worry about War Crimes charges when you can blame it on bad legal advice.
Quote:
Commenting on the so-called "torture memoranda" Scott Horton pointed out

"the possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves. That, after all, is the teaching of United States v. Altstötter, the Nuremberg case brought against German Justice Department lawyers whose memoranda crafted the basis for implementation of the infamous Night and Fog Decree.

I wonder if said authors knew this at the time.
Quote:
On February 22, 2008 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made public that "the Justice Department has announced it has launched an investigation of the role of top DOJ officials and staff attorneys in authorizing and/or overseeing the use of waterboarding by U.S. intelligence agencies."

Quote:
Both houses of the United States Congress approved a bill by February 2008 that would ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods. But President George W. Bush vetoed the bill on March 8, 2008. It appears unlikely that bill supporters will be able to gather enough votes to overturn the veto.

And some believe Bush will be looked on kindly in the future.
post #105 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Yeah, the Geneva Convention sucks.
Waging a "War" on Terror without POW's makes the Geneva Convention so passe.

For the last time, the Geneva Conventions don't apply because these are not prisoners of war as defined under them. That is, unless you think that we should grant the full rights POWs have to people that cut off heads and use women and children as human shields.

Quote:
So your spin is water-boarding was, is, only controversial.
And you answered your own question, " What is the implication here...that Bush said "make this legal" and they complied? Good luck proving that."
by admitting they "wanted a legal opinion stating it was acceptable"
I ask again, why need a legal opinion if it's only controversial?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Translation.
Why worry about War Crimes charges when you can blame it on bad legal advice.

I wonder if said authors knew this at the time.


And some believe Bush will be looked on kindly in the future.

War crimes charges? Jesus...we have another one here, folks. I say again: Anyone that honestly believes George Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes is not to be taken seriously.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 156
Thread Starter 
For anyone interested......here's Congressman Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.

In PDF format.

Kucinich Offers Impeachment Articles Against Bush

Quote:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on Monday night, reading the resolution into the Congressional Record.

Kucinich, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year, unveiled a litany of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes.

Kucinich has introduced a similar impeachment resolution against Vice President Cheney. That resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which has taken no action on the measure. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top House Democratic leaders have stated that there will be no consideration of impeachment proceedings against Bush, calling the idea "off the table."

Kucinich and other liberal Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), have sought the removal of the current administration, arguing that Bush and Cheney have lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the "War on Terror" following the 9/11 attacks.

No, I don't think this will be successful (Kucinich has tried before), but I commend him for being persistent. This also was the only MSM source I could find on the subject.
post #107 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

For anyone interested......here's Congressman Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.

In PDF format.

Kucinich Offers Impeachment Articles Against Bush



No, I don't think this will be successful (Kucinich has tried before), but I commend him for being persistent. This also was the only MSM source I could find on the subject.

You're trolling, but I'll play along. I read them again, as I have before. Where to begin? First, Kucinich is a loon. Let's start there. He's also a loon that doesn't understand grounds for impeachment. Many of his "articles" are simply his own subjective interpretation of events. They are literally laughable, as are the details provided for each one. I could give examples if you'd like.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #108 of 156
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're trolling.



Laugh at this.
post #109 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

For the last time, the Geneva Conventions don't apply because these are not prisoners of war as defined under them. That is, unless you think that we should grant the full rights POWs have to people that cut off heads and use women and children as human shields.

Full rights aside, how should "detainees" with no rights be treated?
The GC was redefined by Bush and company because,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996
Quote:
The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party.

The military recommended making breaches by U.S. soldiers war crimes as well "because doing so set a high standard for others to follow."

Until the Abu Ghraib abuse of prisoners came to light, the parsing of the GC didn't seem to matter.
What I don't know won't bother me.
Until they saw what the US was doing in the name of protecting the homeland.

From a Bush memo, to try and deflect the scandal,
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...7/02.02.07.pdf
Paragraph 3,
Quote:
of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment.

Unless you believe that detainees were always treated humanely and the Whitehouse had no idea they weren't, or all those the memo was sent to did know of inhumane treatment and were told to shape up.

Then again,
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPoli...4635175&page=1,
Quote:
President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

But before Wednesday's report, the extraordinary level of involvement by the most senior advisers in repeatedly approving specific interrogation plans -- down to the number of times the CIA could use a certain tactic on a specific al Qaeda prisoner -- had never been disclosed.

Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

War crimes charges? Jesus...we have another one here, folks. I say again: Anyone that honestly believes George Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes is not to be taken seriously.

He took steps to protect himself.
What does that tell you?
post #110 of 156
Thread Starter 
Don't forget how this whole POW or Detainee or "Teh Terrorist" thing keeps fucking things up either...

German sues for CIA extradition

Quote:
Mr Masri says his case is an example of the US policy of "extraordinary rendition" - a practice whereby the US government flies foreign terror suspects to third countries without judicial process for interrogation or detention.

He says he was kidnapped in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, in 2003, flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, nicknamed the "salt pit" and tortured there.

On his flight to Afghanistan, he says, he was stripped, beaten, shackled, made to wear nappies and drugged.

Mr Masri says he was finally released in Albania five months later after the CIA realised they had got the wrong man.

He wasn't just "released" though. He was dumped in the middle of a deep forest - blindfolded and alone - between Albania, Macedonia and Serbia. He was in Albania, but he wasn't given any papers.

It wasn't enough for America to admit that they were wrong and return him to his family. Instead they hoped he would die in a remote forest, and they would be off the hook.

Out of everything that the US has done in it's so-called War or Terror™, his "release" is one of the most utterly immoral and disgusting things that I have read. And I have no doubt that he is one of the lucky innocents.

As Alan Moore said...

Quote:
If you are on a list targeted by the CIA, you really have nothing to worry about. If however, you have a name similar to somebody on a list targeted by the CIA, then you are dead.
post #111 of 156
Thread Starter 
#1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq

#2 Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

#3 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

#4 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

#5 Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

#6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

#7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war.

#8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law.

#9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor.

#10: Falsifying accounts of US troops deaths and injuries for political purposes

#11: Establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq

#12: Initiating a war against Iraq for control of that nation’s natural resources.

#13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy

#14: Misprision of a felony, misuse and exposure of classified information and cover up (Plame outing)

#15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq

#16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors

#17: Illegal detention – detaining indefinitely, and without charge, American citizens and foreign captives (suspension of habeus)

#18: Torture – secretly authorizing and encouraging use of torture, as matter of official policy

#19 Rendition

#20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002.

#21 Misleading Congress about threats from Iran

#22. HAS ESTABLISHED A BODY OF SECRET LAWS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THE YOO MEMORANDUM WAS DECLASSIFIED YEARS AFTER IT SERVED AS LAW UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

#23 Violated Posse Comitatus Act ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FOR THE USE OF THE MILITARY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE MILTARY CANNOT BECOME A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE.

#24 Spying on citizens violating 4th Amendment

#25 Directing telecoms to collect databases on US citizens.

#26 Announcing intent to violate laws w/signing statements, and then violating those laws.

#27 Failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and instructing others to do so.

#28 tampering with free and fair election. Corruption with the administration of justice, False allegations of voter fraud in selected districts, immediately preceding elections. Undermining process.

#29: Conspiracy to violate voting rights act of 1965, Ohio Sec of State 2004-06

#30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare.

#31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration.

#32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports - 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings.

#33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11. Clark warned the president in daily briefings of the threat. Clark was unable to conviene a cabinet level position. Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn of threat. Still no meetings of top officials.

#34: Obstruction into the investigation of 9/11

#35: endangering the health of 9/11 first responders
post #112 of 156
Questioning a sitting President in a time of war while there are troops in harms way? Hannity is going to yell at you
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #113 of 156
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

Questioning a sitting President in a time of war while there are troops in harms way? Hannity is going to yell at you

Seems that at the very moment Kucinich was on the floor of the House of Representatives introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush, his website was DOS attacked. It's still down.
post #114 of 156
Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. What WAS the reason for attacking Iraq? Overthrow the government? Down Fascist! Down boy! Sorry SD, this is serious shit. If you want a case against Bush read this book. Maybe you'll agree, maybe you won't.

post #115 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

For the last time, the Geneva Conventions don't apply because these are not prisoners of war as defined under them. That is, unless you think that we should grant the full rights POWs have to people that cut off heads and use women and children as human shields.

War crimes charges? Jesus...we have another one here, folks. I say again: Anyone that honestly believes George Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes is not to be taken seriously.

http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?v...ntent&Itemid=9

One of the reasons the Geneva Conventions and other agreements about torture and treatment of detainees have been set up is because each time you detain someone, there is a risk that they are innocent. This risk exists whether those detainees are citizens, foreign troops, or "enemy combatants". Anyone who suggests that it is okay to deny anyone proper protections against cruel and inhuman treatment simply because they can interpret the law to say that they can deny those protections is missing the entire concept of human rights. This is not the spirit that America was built upon. People acting upon such beliefs should be tried for treason, as their actions directly threaten the integrity of the United States of America.
post #116 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?v...ntent&Itemid=9

One of the reasons the Geneva Conventions and other agreements about torture and treatment of detainees have been set up is because each time you detain someone, there is a risk that they are innocent. This risk exists whether those detainees are citizens, foreign troops, or "enemy combatants". Anyone who suggests that it is okay to deny anyone proper protections against cruel and inhuman treatment simply because they can interpret the law to say that they can deny those protections is missing the entire concept of human rights. This is not the spirit that America was built upon. People acting upon such beliefs should be tried for treason, as their actions directly threaten the integrity of the United States of America.

Very well said.

Hey, remember "Red Dawn", a beloved classic of right wing agit-prop? It should be remade to reflect the new conservative paradigm: Patrick Swayze gets caught, labeled an enemy combatant and a terrorist, and disappeared into a Soviet prison camp where he is held forever in secret without charges or trial while being routinely tortured. He's a high value target, after all, and he and his band of terrorists killed a lot of brave Soviet fighting men and blew a lot of shit up.

Oh, and in the new version we're rooting for the Russians.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #117 of 156
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ7lSPA9g8s

Not as effective, as I would hope, but the shaking hands are an indicative image...
post #118 of 156
This is the kind of person Bush, McCain and SDW think it's okay to waterboard, deny a trial or any recourse, then refuse to pay compensation for false detention to:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3976928.shtml

This is exactly why the supreme court's decision is the only correct one.
post #119 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunocrat View Post

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. What WAS the reason for attacking Iraq? Overthrow the government? Down Fascist! Down boy! Sorry SD, this is serious shit. If you want a case against Bush read this book. Maybe you'll agree, maybe you won't.


Bugliosi is an idiot. Have a nice day.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #120 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

#1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq

No evidence exists of Bush knowingly presenting false information.

Quote:

#2 Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

I love the terms: Systematically, Criminal Intent (what criminal intent?), War of Aggression, etc. Well done. See answer to #1. Also, the administration did not link 9/11 and Iraq directly.

Quote:

#3 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

An utter crock of shit. Just about the entire world thought he had WMD. They thought so before was even in office.

Quote:

#4 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

It one believed Saddam had terrorist ties and WMD, it was.

Quote:

#5 Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

Really. How?

Quote:

#6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

Actually, Bush complied with the resolution to the letter.

Quote:

#7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war.

Then we have to impeach every President that has taken any "offensive" military action. Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy and Ike.

Quote:

#8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law.

Even if true, that's not a crime. The President can only be impeached for CRIMES.

Quote:

#9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor.

Not a crime.
Quote:

#10: Falsifying accounts of US troops deaths and injuries for political purposes

Unsupported, and not a crime.

Quote:

#11: Establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq

If true, not a crime. Also impossible to prove.

Quote:

#12: Initiating a war against Iraq for control of that nations natural resources.

And gas is $4.00 a gallon now? Guess how much it was when we invaded? Also, not a crime.

Quote:

#13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy

OMG! Secrets! NOT A CRIME, Dennis.
Quote:

#14: Misprision of a felony, misuse and exposure of classified information and cover up (Plame outing)

Unproven. Completely unproven.

Quote:

#15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq

Not a crime.

Quote:

#16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors

R..R...R.. Reckless misspending? This is from a member of CONGRESS?

Quote:

#17: Illegal detention detaining indefinitely, and without charge, American citizens and foreign captives (suspension of habeus)

Not a crime, but I agree American citizens should not be held like that.

Quote:

#18: Torture secretly authorizing and encouraging use of torture, as matter of official policy

Not true.

Quote:

#19 Rendition

Crime?

Quote:

#20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002.

This is absurd. Imprisoning children?

[quote]

#21 Misleading Congress about threats from Iran[/quoite]

I'd LOVE to hear this one.

Quote:

#22. HAS ESTABLISHED A BODY OF SECRET LAWS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THE YOO MEMORANDUM WAS DECLASSIFIED YEARS AFTER IT SERVED AS LAW UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

I'd like to know what "secret law" is exactly.

Quote:

#23 Violated Posse Comitatus Act ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FOR THE USE OF THE MILITARY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE MILTARY CANNOT BECOME A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE.

Actually, he should have done this after Katrina. He didn't.

Quote:

#24 Spying on citizens violating 4th Amendment

Not a crime, whether or not it stands up to judicial review.

Quote:

#25 Directing telecoms to collect databases on US citizens.

See above.

Quote:

#26 Announcing intent to violate laws w/signing statements, and then violating those laws.

Not something I support, but not a crime.

Quote:

#27 Failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and instructing others to do so.

You mean...gasp..invoking executive privilege? The horror!

Quote:

#28 tampering with free and fair election. Corruption with the administration of justice, False allegations of voter fraud in selected districts, immediately preceding elections. Undermining process.

---See Gore, Al.

Quote:

#29: Conspiracy to violate voting rights act of 1965, Ohio Sec of State 2004-06

Oh boy..now we're really getting looney.

Quote:

#30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare.

...by expanding it.

Quote:

#31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration.

Not crimes.

Quote:

#32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports - 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings.

OMFG! I can't get enough! We disagree with Bush, so let's impeach him! First, Bush doesn't ratify treaties, the Senate does. Kyoto stood no chance of being ratified. Secondly, where is the crime?

Quote:

#33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11. Clark warned the president in daily briefings of the threat. Clark was unable to conviene a cabinet level position. Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn of threat. Still no meetings of top officials.

It just keeps getting better. Bush is now responsible for 9/11. See, he did nothing about it despite warnings from superhero Clark.



Quote:

#34: Obstruction into the investigation of 9/11

Proof?

Quote:

#35: endangering the health of 9/11 first responders

Bush did this? Let me guess...by "leaving their funding behind?"
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Arrest this man...