yes, I agree, the torture was extreme, we just
Posted By: () on 2009-06-12
In Reply to: It proves the extent of the torture that was used...(sm) - Just the big bad
got a 'glimpse' of it. But this is not the right time to expose it when the US troops are still in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
"I think the extreme left and extreme right both need to get a clue!"..sm
That's what you said in a post above, and yet, your post is definitely extreme right. I don't think you have a clue about most of the crap you spout out. 
Bush signs torture ban but reserves right to torture
Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.
''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief, Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.
Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.
A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.
''We are not going to ignore this law, the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment.
But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.
''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case, the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will.
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.
''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on.
Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks.
Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal.
Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. . . . I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president.
Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant without charges or access to an attorney.
And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law.
The issue heated up again in January 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad.
In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.
McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.
The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy.
But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it.
Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference.
''The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole, said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism.
Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront to both McCain and to Congress.
''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch, she said.
''Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view. ![src=http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif]() |
![src=http://nytbglobe.112.2o7.net/b/ss/nytbglobe/1/G.5-PD-S/s42010223224479?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=4/0/2006%2020%3A42%3A1%203%20300&pageName=News%20%7C%20Nation%20%7C%20Washington%20%7C%20Bush%20could%20bypass%20new%20torture%20ban&ch=News&events=event2&c1=News%20%7C%20Nation&c5=News%20%7C%20Nation%20%7C%20Washington%20%7C%20Bush%20could%20bypass%20new%20torture%20ban%20%7C%20PF&c6=Article%20Page%20%7C%20Globe%20Story&g=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban%3Fmode%3DPF&r=http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=1014&bh=589&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]]()
Sometimes this guy is way too extreme....
for me, but if you look past the rhetoric and pick out the points, he makes some good ones. Just my take.
How am I extreme right?
I think abortions should continue to be legalized but late-term abortions stopped. If doctors and/or certain hospitals do not believe in abortion, I believe they have the right to refuse to perform it. That is their right. They shouldn't be forced to do so for fear of losing funding or their job. I lean conversative but I'm not a right-wing nut job. I want a smaller government. I want people to grow up and learn how to be responsible for themselves instead of depending on others to provide for them. I do not want to reward laziness and stupidity....which is what we are heading for. We should reward hard work and achievement. Not everyone has a right to a house, car, etc. You have to earn that stuff. I don't want government telling me what I can and can't have done medically or for government to decide whether I should have treatment for an illness or not.
Like I said....I may lean conservative but I see the fault in both political parties....which.....it doesn't appear that you do. Everything is still Bush's fault in your eyes.
Other than extreme circumstances....SM
one is too many.
Can we say extreme prejudice? (sm)
Now where have I heard that kind of sentiment before......hmmmm....oh, I know. It was Hitler. In your statement you have shown a complete disregard for life. In my opinion, anyone who would so enthusiastically support genocide, regardless of the circumstances, is simply disgusting and a waste of good air.
And you don't think you are extreme? Christian bashing again, I see. nm
No liberals here just extreme leftists
I know some good liberals and the ones who are here are not them.
If you are not a Bush hater or a Bush basher on this board then you're a troll.
God help these people if they ever do get in a real fight.
Don't you think that is a bit extreme? She is no worse than anybody else and at least she doesn&
I may disagree with most of what she says but she doesn't resort to name calling, except maybe in sarcasm. I would even go so far as to say she is doing some actual debating, albeit maybe a bit much.
yeah, just another extreme leftist who would never
nm
All who oppose your party extreme? I put US first.
nm
I grew up in extreme poverty myself - I am only 40 - I know (sm)
I know what the world is really like. I am not superficial. You just have no idea what you are talking about. I AM being a resonsible American and this is not nonsense. That is the confusion here.
Not surprising, since you're an extreme liberal.
Extreme medical situations is NOT what this doctor
--
Genocide? Talk about extreme. And Clinton's lies
Yes, it's not a newsflash that ALL politicians lie, Dem and Repub alike, but the guy was busted with his cigar in the ... err, his hand in the cookie jar, yet stood there and lied to everyone. Guess that's okay as long as he's DEMOCRAT. If you think Dems don't lie just as much as Repubs, then you are completely blind. It's just all in whose lies you are more willing to believe, and apparently for you it's Democrat. Please, if you can't admit one other darn thing, you all have to admit that they ALL lie to us. This country is going to hellina handbasket, but the people of the country share some of that blame. The economy is bad, but a lot of people bought houses they couldn't really afford (bad loan companies or not, they had to know), racked up credit card bills they could never pay, and the list goes on. WE share in the blame. The only way any change is going to happen, whether it's Repub or Dem on Nov. 4, is if we all pull up our sleeves and work toward it instead of lashing out at each other based on stupid party lines and making excuses and placing blame for every single thing that happens, even when it's a natural disaster like a hurricane, flood, etc. God help us all if there are a lot of other people that think like you do. You DO realize that while you're blaming Repubs for only believing what they read/see in media and not researching what they believe, a lot of what you say comes straight from the media and isn't even entirely accurate. Do yourself a favor and practice what you preach and do some truly unbiased research, not based in Dem or Repub muddle, before you reply. No hearsay, no op ed piece drivel, no blog spewing, but honest to goodness FACTS. Going to be hard to find when the media is so biased, but it's out there. Something tells me you won't bother because you've already made up your closed mind, as long as it's Republican affiliated, you hate it. That's your idea of being a broad thinker?
sounds like extreme liberal games to me to make mccain look bad...sm
I also think it's hypocritcal how burning mccain in effigy seems to be a-okay to the libs, and no one reports it.
think they're obama plants too...it's very plain to me.
Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness...see article/link
Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness
By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 10, 2005; Page A01
The 48-year-old man turned down a job because he feared that a co-worker would be gay. He was upset that gay culture was becoming mainstream and blamed most of his personal, professional and emotional problems on the gay and lesbian movement.
These fixations preoccupied him every day. Articles in magazines about gays made him agitated. He confessed that his fears had left him socially isolated and unemployed for years: A recovering alcoholic, the man even avoided 12-step meetings out of fear he might encounter a gay person.
He had a fixed delusion about the world, said Sondra E. Solomon, a psychologist at the University of Vermont who treated the man for two years. He felt under attack, he felt threatened.
Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.
And from Mr. Pro-torture
Powell Aide: Torture 'Guidance' from VP
CNN News
Monday 21 November 2005
Former staff chief says Cheney's 'flexibility' helped lead to abuse.
Retired U.S. Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told CNN that the practice of torture may be continuing in U.S.-run facilities.
There's no question in my mind that we did. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it, Wilkerson said on CNN's Late Edition.
There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated - in the vice president of the United States' office, he said. His implementer in this case was [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department.
At another point in the interview, Wilkerson said the vice president had to cover this in order for it to happen and in order for Secretary Rumsfeld to feel as though he had freedom of action.
Traveling in Latin America earlier this month, President Bush defended U.S. treatment of prisoners, saying flatly, We do not torture. (Full story)
Cheney has lobbied against a measure in Congress that would outlaw cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, calling for an exception for the CIA in cases that involve a detainee who may have knowledge of an imminent attack.
The amendment was included in a $491 billion Pentagon spending bill that declared 2006 to be a period of significant transition for Iraq. (Full story)
Proposed by Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, the amendment was approved in the Senate last month by a 90-9 vote. It was not included in the House version of the bill.
The White House has said that Bush would likely veto the bill if McCain's language is included, calling the amendment unnecessary and duplicative.
Rumsfeld told ABC's This Week on Sunday that the White House was in negotiations with the Senate over the amendment.
There's a discussion and debate taking place as to what the implications might be and what is supportable and what is not, he told the program. But the fact of the matter is the president from the outset has said that he required that there be humane treatment.
Cheney has come under mounting criticism for his position. Last week, Stansfield Turner, a military veteran who served as director of the CIA during the Carter administration, labeled him the vice president for torture. (Full story)
In a statement responding to Turner's remark, Cheney said his views are reflected in the administration's policy. Our country is at war and our government has an obligation to protect the American people from a brutal enemy that has declared war upon us.
We are aggressively finding terrorists and bringing them to justice and anything we do within this effort is within the law, the statement said, adding that the United States does not torture.
Rumsfeld Denies 'Cabal' Charge
Bush administration officials, including Rumsfeld and military officials, have denied that instances of torture were ever officially condoned. Some personnel accused of torture have been convicted and sentenced for prisoner abuse.
All the instructions I issued required humane treatment, Rumsfeld told ABC. Anything that was done that was not humane has been prosecuted.
But Wilkerson argued last month in a speech that Cheney and Rumsfeld formed a cabal that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
Wilkerson told CNN Sunday he does not know if the president was witting in this or not.
I voted for him twice, he said. I prefer to think that he was not.
Earlier, on the same CNN program, Rumsfeld dismissed as ridiculous the claim that he was involved in a cabal.
Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they had no recollection of Wilkerson having attended meetings with Rumsfeld or Cheney.
In terms of having first-hand information, I just can't imagine that he does, said Rumsfeld. The allegation is ridiculous.
I was in every meeting with the joint chiefs. I was in every meeting with the combatant commanders. I went to the White House multiple times to meet with the National Security Council and with the president of the United States. I have never seen that colonel, added Pace.
They made my point for me, responded Wilkerson. The decisions were not made in the principals' process, in the deputies' process, in the policy coordinating committee process. They were not made in the statutory process.
Wilkerson said his insights came from Powell walking through my door in April or March of 2004 and telling me to get everything I could get my hands on with regard to the detainee abuse issue - ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] reporting, memoranda, open-source information and so forth - so that I could build some kind of story, some kind of audit trail so we could understand the chronology and we can understand how it developed.
While he acknowledged having no proof that the United States is torturing detainees, Wilkerson said, I can only assume that, when the vice president of the United States lobbies the Congress on behalf of cruel and unusual punishment and the need to be able to do that in order to get information out of potential terrorists... that it's still going on.
He said U.S. officials should realize they are involved in a war of ideas that cannot be advanced with torture.
In a war of ideas, you cannot damage your own ideas, your own position by seeming to do things that are in contradiction of your values, he said.
Rumsfeld told ABC that the military has overwhelmingly treated people humanely.
The history of the United States military is clear. Torture doesn't work. The military knows that. We want our people treated humanely, he said.
So torture is okay?
Sorry, don't watch TV. Homeland security - horse and pony show.........Our current govt is hiring people left and right, recruiting nonstop to hire people to protect our country. We will get attacked again. Can't blame anyone but the perps for that. It is what Obama will do about it that I am concerned with. Bush promised to get bin laden and invaded Iraq instead. Look at Katrina. Bush could not fix the knot in his own undershorts, let alone run a country.
Torture is torture
Torture is wrong, no matter where it took place. Do you think God is going to look kindly on anyone torturing another human being...A.K.A. "Playing God"??
I thought McCain was going to have a stroke. He was grimacing, rolling his eyes, showing extreme
anger. Not much poise at all which is needed.
Now Mr. Pro-torture is scheduled
Cheney to raise funds for DeLay
The White House is not distancing itself from embattled former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who is facing charges of breaking state campaign finance law.
Vice President Cheney is scheduled to appear at a December 5, Houston fundraiser on DeLay's behalf. Donors are being asked to contribute at least $500, according to an e-mail sent by the Fort Bend (Texas) Republican Party. Shannon Flaherty, DeLay's spokeswoman, confirmed details of the fundraiser.
For five years, Congressman DeLay has served as a key ally to pass the White House's agenda through Congress, and Ronnie Earle's political sideshow isn't going to get in the way of the real business at hand, said Flaherty. This event shows the Democrat strategy of avenging their ballot box losses with smear tactics and lawsuits is not going to work -- Republicans stick by their friends and don't back down from a fight.
DeLay was forced to step down from his leadership position in late September after Earle, the Travis County (Texas) district attorney, charged him with illegally directing corporate donations to Texas candidates. DeLay has asked that his trial be moved from Travis to Fort Bend County.
As of September 30, 2005, DeLay had $1.164 million in his warchest. Former Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) is challenging DeLay for his seat.
Gitmo Torture
This will undoubtably shake some things up. If the detainees' trials cannot proceed because the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by the Bush administration have tainted the process so much that prosecutors cannot proceed in some of their cases, what happens now?
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
....
Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.
Torture and Oppression?
What kind of marshmallow life have you been living, my dear? Do you have any idea what some people go through in other parts of the world?
How can we help but laugh at you if you insist on making a fool of yourself?
Religulous torture....(sm)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
The Washington Region Religious Campaign Against Torture rallied on Capitol Hill in March 2008.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small. !["](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/interactive.gif") See results of the survey »
The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Leith Anderson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The survey asked: "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
Roughly half of all respondents -- 49 percent -- said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.
The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html#cnnSTCText
Obviously, "torture is torture".
The question is what constitutes torture. In my view, none of the techniques used, under the conditions in which they were used, constitute torture, including waterboarding.
I'd get into the notion of waterboarding as torture if we didn't do it to our own troops by way of training. That, to me, puts the tin hat on any idea that waterboarding constitutes torture.
This idea that interrogation should constitute nothing more severe than a game of "Simon Says" or "Mother May I?" suggests to me that we should bring back the draft and extend it to both sexes. There are too many people in this country who have never had to confront anything in this world more evil than their best friend running off with their boyfriend. They seem to think the world is made of gingerbread, and populated by Sunday School teachers. A stint in the military would open their eyes to reality.
If waterboarding isn't torture...(sm)
then why did we execute Japanese war criminals for waterboarding American POWs after WWII? Maybe it's just considered torture when done to Americans? You can't have it both ways.
Definitely NOT by torture, If I were Obama I would probably know how!...nm
nm
O is not going to engage in torture. He does not
believe in torture.
Bush's and Cheney's way DID NOT WORK.
How can you say that I am naive, maybe you are. Who knows?
Time will tell.
I can only pray, hope and wish that O will be successful in protecting and promoting the United States of America.
No to torture ! This brings only hate and more war! ..nm
nm
NO to torture. YES to tough interrogations!
nm
No, you are wrong. Obama is against torture,
he does not want to go the same path like Bush and Cheney, the wrong path.
He wants to compromise and negotiate. He started already with Iran and Netanyahu. He snubbed Natanyahu and told him that Natanyahu has to accept and agree to a 2-state solution or there will most probably be war.
O is very, very smart and I pray to God that he will stay strong and prevail when even certain Americans wish him failure.
It proves the extent of the torture that was used...(sm)
as well as shows the public exactly what the last admin did. It puts in front of the public (in particular republicans who would be against prosecuting the Bush admin) the facts. I honestly think the main point of showing pics is to gain public support for the prosecution of the last admin. I think dems are kind of fighting the battle before it gets there to make prosecution easier......but that's just my opinion.
Torture memos update
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31378360
They call "sleep deprivation" torture. Then I have
nm
torture,-if waterboarding can save thousands of
nm
Hmmm, didn't a lot of the torture start
after 9-11 which I recall being a horrible terrorist attack? At that time, maybe torture was the right thing to do to find Obama, sorry, I mean Osama.
We do not purposely kill, cut off heads, torture.
nm
Still not torture. Poilcemen TAZER our own citizens.
Heck, the 'resource officers' at my kid's high school tazed a kid for spitting in the commons area.
Maybe we should just taze the terrorists. I'll bet they'll talk then. When they start sh!tting themselves and going into convulsions, I'll bet they'll cough up whatever info they have.
Plus, it'll save on the Gitmo water bill, and I think we're ALL for that.
It must be hard for you to accept that even the DEMS voted to keep Gitmo going.
Hey, maybe the terrorits could all live at YOUR house. You guys seem to have a lot in common.
I hope that O will not have to torture wrong confessions out
of Muslim prisoners. He has a different strategy, talking, negotiating, compromising, CHANGE and WISDOM.
This thread started with waterboarding, torture or not?
Everybody is FREE to post one's opinion.
I NEVER STARTED being rude, maybe I REACTED rude.
The one who starts is the guilty one, even with insulting language. I dislike it immensely when people run out of ideas to defend their stance, the personal attacks, taken out of the blue, set in, like
'take your meds' or 'take your Xanax', or 'chill out.'
This puts them immediately into the loser position.
Or they become all of a sudden 'Grammar Nazis', because they run out of choices to prove their points, whereas these are mostly just TYPOS.
Or do you follow the Christian rule:
'If somebody slaps you on your right cheek, offer him also your left cheek.'
I NEVER understood this weird suggestion.
Torture memos update/correction...(sm)
First, please note that I never said that pics would be released in the OP, only redacted portions of the memos. (Presumably testimonies of the prisoners) The previous thread about this turned into a debate about releasing pics, and I erroneously didn't catch and correct that. My bad.
Update:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31334053
is it right to torture a prisoner to prove that he is innocent?..sm
More prisoners are tortured to death or drippled for life because they do not have anything to confess.
You can't spell or pick a winner; it's torture, not tortue
Keep chomping those sour grapes.
Sorry, JTBB, other countries use worse torture than what was stated here.
They starve, cut off fingers, hands, pull nails out, burn private parts, and decapitate prisoners in other countries. Why do you call other people with their comments "nimrods?"
If you want to torture to stop, why don't you go to those countries and fight against their torture? No...you'd rather call the American people nimrods. What is it with you? You used to have thoughtful posts, but now all you do is spew hate for Americans that do not support your views.
You are becoming anti-American IMHO and its sad that you could let the present government blind you to everything. You're either a socialist, facist, or a communist without announcing it up front. You have absolutely made me furious with your one-sided posts since the election. I try not to read them, but sometimes I do get a good laugh at your outrageous statements.
Lets talk about the torture of our soldiers by our enemies
Electrocution, beatings, broken bones, etc, etc, oh and their favorite of all times....beheadings.
The witch hunt should end here. What happened, happened. It's done and your god is in their now. I may have not liked what went on in the last administration (reason why I voted them out), but there is no reason to burn Bush/Cheney at the stake. What the other side does is 100 times worse.
Oh I guess you would rather the rape rooms and torture rooms go back online
You extreme leftists don't follow a wild thought through to the end. If you did you'd never post some of the stuff you pass off as coherent thought. You would rather defend a murderous dictator, his sons, and his terrorist friends than even entertain the thought of supporting your president even if you think he's wrong. You are really quite transparent about where your loyalties lie. You want to see the U.S. crash and burn. You are sucidal in your leftist loyalties.
You are not a liberal you are a wacko who has gone off the deep end and in need of serious help.
Your opinion of torture is your opinion. Tough
nm
I agree, that goes for both sides. I don't agree with those starting trouble over...sm
on your board either, but then some of you come and take it out on the people who only post here and we have nothing to do with the fights over there.
I enjoy communicating with liberals and occasionally do learn something from conservative posters, so I refuse to let the driveby, no moniker, one-sided finger pointers, self-indulging posters drive me off.
Rush is right. I agree. Somebody's gotta agree.
....in many of his policies in his attempt to completely socialize America.
I hope he fails.
I hope he succeeds, however, in the office of president, and doing the right thing, and moves to the center.
However, it's not looking good. He's left of left so far, isn't he. Showing who he truly is, in his first acts as president.
I sure don't agree with
the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)
And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.
I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)
But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)
I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.
But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.
As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )
With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.
I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."
NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.
Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.
We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.
First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."
I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them. 
|
