History will show just how destructive liberalism in general and the current administration in particular is to our economy and our freedoms. You are behind the curve in your understanding of this as many other places have already experienced the devastation of tyranny in the name of building a Utopia.

Your comments don’t hurt, just the opposite.

There are extremists in every group, I could give you names of those on the left as well, but I don’t need to take that idiotic position.

We don’t put them in charge of the Democratic party and the country though. All y’all are extremists, and you elevate the most extreme among yourselves to positions of power. Being further away from the center is rewarded, and being closer to the center is punished.

The GOP is not only “wandering in the wilderness” right now, it’s actively travelling in that direction.

Everyone in the “mainstream” GOP at present excuses and justifies the following:

1. Torture.
2. Signing statements defying the law.
3. Holding people indefinitely without charges or trial.
4. Rape.
5. “Unitary Executive Theory,” i.e. Fascism.
6. Politicizing intelligence gathering
7. Politicizing science.

… there are many others, but I’m sick of having to remember the list every other day because some wingnut is shrugging his shoulders and trying to look innocent with a “who me?” expression. It comes down to this: you have been systematically and intentionally attempting to dismantle every key principle that the United States was founded on.

So don’t act all butt-hurt when I declare you an enemy of freedom and explain how and why you have earned the scorn, derision, and yes – hatred – of all decent Americans everywhere.

There are extremists in every group, I could give you names of those on the left as well, but I don’t need to take that idiotic position.

You are a moral lightweight, unwilling to see that sometimes the adults of this world have their hand forced by evil doers; Thank God someone such as yourself was not in power then.

I don’t know about hate, but nobody shows an inability to see what’s right in front of them as do liberals here.

great

sikis
porno izle
sikis

I dont care what anyone says … nobodys hates like a liberal… you gotta admire how much passion they put into the hatred of anything or anyone they disagree with. …. ya’ll hate on ….

What if it was your family that had been kidnapped by the Bush administration and were being tortured in a secret base offshore? What would you do then? Huh? Huh?

WHAT IF?!?

I think my outrage is perfectly justified, thank you. I have been given ample reasons to hate you. Yes, hate. Accusing me of hatred makes no point, because I freely admit it. I hate those who seek to destroy my country. That includes both Osama Bin Laden and all of the “conservative” apologists of torture.

But let’s compare what we’re complaining about here:

On the one hand: every disgusting thing we ever blamed Nazis for

On the other hand: being called mean names on the internet.

You equate these? Even remotely? Then you are truly vile.

NOBODY is going to convince ANYONE of anything.

I’m fully aware I’m not going to convince a wingnut that the sky is blue, if admitting the sky ain’t orange means that Cheney has to go to jail.

But there are four reasons why I fight with wingnuts:

1. There might be some third parties here who haven’t looked at it as much as we have. Maybe they’ve heard the numb-nuts on FAUX Noise saying these things and they’re interested in some more information on the subject. There’s a lot they should know. As long as insanity is allowed to roam free without rebuttal, we all suffer its consequences. So I respond.

2. Frankly, being forced to come up with responses to wingnut insanity, including logical reasoning, citations and research, and looking at things from different angles, helps me to clarify my own thinking on a particular subject. I know why I believe what I believe much better than I used to, in no small part because the wingnuts their insanity to me to deal with. Think of it as an intellectual exercise.

3. Sometimes the points the wingnuts deliver here show up more than 24 hours before FAUX Noise or some unelected Republican celebutante picks them up. Bill’O’s complaint cited at the top of this thread is one such; somebody was saying here over three days ago that BushCo must be innocent because they haven’t already been arrested; now Bill’O’s saying it. So dealing with them puts me ahead of the news curve for many things.

4. Delivering rhetorical flying roundhouse kicks through wingnut skulls is just plain fun! I mean, it’s not like they’re people or anything…

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions includes the following text:

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

The United States has violated all four of these provisions:

(a) We have committed violence on detainees. We have killed them. We have certainly marred many of them for life. We have been intentionally cruel to them, and we have tortured them.

(b) We have done things to their children in order to get them to talk, thereby taking hostages.

(c) The photographic evidence of humiliation and degradation is both extensive and incontrovertable.

(d) Bush’s multiple military tribunals constitute carrying passing sentences withough previous judgement prounounced by a regularly constituted court, etc.

Now, you can scream “they’re terrorists, we know it, how can you complain about it!” But the fact is, SCOTUS has ruled that doing these things is illegal. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and/or God knows how many others conspired to give orders to do these things. Therefore, they did something illegal. Even if you think it’s the “right thing to do,” it was still clearly illegal.

Now, I’m not judge, jury and executioner here. All I’m really asking for is a special prosecutor to prepare the case on this. An SP is necessary because a Presidential administration is implicated in these crimes, even if it’s not the current Presidential administration. When I say this, conservatives should realize that I’m really cutting them a break here – Ken Starr aside, the SP law is designed to be as non-political as possible. That is, any other approach would still be more political than appointing a special prosecutor.

However, this cannot go un-investigated. Whatever case there is to be made, should be investigated, assembled and then presented to a court of law. If the court rejects that, then fine – your guys get off. Frankly, it’s the only chance they’re ever going to have to gain any credibility in their protestations of innocence.

Otherwise they go down in the history books as war criminals, even if they never are indicted. It’s clear that what they ordered is a crime, and they’ve openly and repeatedly admitted to ordering those acts. Most of the people in the world who don’t vote for “conservatives” can figure out for themselves that 2 + 2 = 4.

NOBODY is going to convince ANYONE of anything.

What a bunch of blathering. And before someone tells me to piss off, I’ll remind you – I like reading the inane comments. It reminds me I’m not as f^%ked up as you people.

He’s the flipping President of the United States, those memos could have stayed classified!

The POTUS has to follow the law. This is the crux of the disagreement we’re having. Everything you’re arguing here, you’re arguing that the President gets to break the law.

You’re wrong.

The founding fathers created the USA explicitly with the foundation that nobody is above the law.

You hate America. Please leave it, and stop trying to make it into something it’s not.

He’s the flipping President of the United States, those memos could have stayed classified! And you sit on your high horse as a moral lightweight if you would let thousands die so that 3 terrorists wouldn’t experience waterboarding.

You also have no basis to say we didn’t gain valuable intel, all you can do is continue your emotional ranting against all things Bush.

No pete, it was not illegal in these 3 cases. Read the conventions.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:

The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character. ” That reasoning is erroneous.

Disagree with me all you want, but my SCOTUS trumps your imagination.

.

Romartin16985 Says:

You have the luxury of not being in the position of having to make the decision to waterboard 3 murderous terrorists when presented with a situation where lives were at stake.

I do have the “luxury” of actually having moral standards though, so my decision’s already been made.

Torture doesn’t work, btw.

.

Romartin16985 Says:

Maybe you, as President, would have shrugged your shoulders and let another attack occur after all your acceptable techniques had been tried.

Except that torturing people never prevented any attacks.

Also, torture doesn’t work.

.

Romartin16985 Says:

That he released information for political purposes only, knowing it would make his opponents look bad, and did this even though he would also be giving the same information to enemies of the United States?

I believed he released the information in response to a court order requiring him to do so. That is to say, he obeyed the law.

I have yet to see a credible argument even from the most rabid wingnut regarding how the information divulged would be of any assistance to any enemies of the United States.

Although, I might add, that the overwhelming majority of scholars would disagree with your interpretation of international law as well.

And thanks, again, for admitting that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal.

There’s also the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, effective June 26 1987, to add to it.

Don’t you get that they weren’t affiliated with any specific state and were not abiding by the normal practices of war, and as such ARE NOT AFFORDED THE PROTECTIONS YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT!

I don’t grant to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban the premise that they are enemy soldiers of any recognized state. That would only elevate their legitimacy. They are common criminals. They are to be treated as such.

However, the Geneva Conventions cover a lot more than just POW’s; one doesn’t have to be a soldier of a sinatory state to fall under their protection, as written. If all you know about the Geneva Conventions is what you learned watching Hogan’s Heroes… then yeah, you’re a fcuking Republican, alright.

Here’s the full text of the Geneva Conventions. I refer you specifically to Common Article 3; the Scotus ruled that Gitmo prisoners are not exempt from it in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld.

There’s also the http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm, effective June 26 1987, to add to it.

Also the War Crimes Act.

The 2nd Circuit ruling on Filartiga v. Peña-Irala ruled torture to be is universal, obligatory, specific and definable. Which is to say, it’s illegal to do it to anybody, anywhere.

While we’re at it, I’ll throw in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For you to say that torture isn’t illegal ignores vast quantities of law; multiple laws, declarations, conventions, rulings, and rulings based on rulings. So you can take your little Col. Klink crap out of here.

.

Romartin16985 Says:

Are you saying that you believe Obama knows the memos show another attack was prevented, and you are okay with this?

I didn’t say anything remotely like that.

You have the luxury of not being in the position of having to make the decision to waterboard 3 murderous terrorists when presented with a situation where lives were at stake.

Maybe you, as President, would have shrugged your shoulders and let another attack occur after all your acceptable techniques had been tried.

I doubt that the families and the world would have been comforted, as you apparently would be, that at least the terrorists had not experienced any discomfort.

Waterboarding THOSE 3 TERRORISTS was NOT illegal. They are excluded from protections as described in the conventions. Don’t you get that they weren’t affiliated with any specific state…

Yes. It was, is, and always shall be illegal to torture another human being. Period.

Plus. Since you just admitted that they were men without countries you have just admitted that we illegally invaded two sovereign nations without cause. Thanks for proving our case so eloquently.

Please provide a link to your evidence.

We will wait.