|
Dear Dick, (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| josh4 |
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 |
Its no use explaining your real views to him. Like Olympia Snowe said, with Republicans you're either with them or against them. You might as well paint yourself a lesbian anti-American arugula-eating hippie. There's no middle ground.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Well, I hate to be a cynic but obama's condemnations of torture sound awfully like some of his campaign promises that have spontaneously combusted when actually put to the test. I'd like to be proven wrong though. |
What American President has ever gotten into office and satisfied all their campaign promises? No hes going to fall sort of expectations, we all remember how unrealistic those expectations were. Trying to justify that as examples of full blown hypocrisy is ludicrous.
That's why these guys can't get better sources than marginalized right wing bloggers. Yes, the "white washed" MSM... That sect is only going to get more frantic and radical as they are left behind to the reality that is America moving forward and leaning left.
I place the final coup de grace for them at the devastating midterm elections. Its going to be sweet to watch. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
What American President has ever gotten into office and satisfied all their campaign promises? No hes going to fall sort of expectations, we all remember how unrealistic those expectations were. Trying to justify that as examples of full blown hypocrisy is ludicrous. |
Im not saying its hypocrisy, im saying that so far when push has come to shove it has become more like the 'same old same old' rather than 'change'. but maybe i've got it all wrong. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Im not saying its hypocrisy, im saying that so far when push has come to shove it has become more like the 'same old same old' rather than 'change'. but maybe i've got it all wrong. |
no torture, economic stimulus plan, start of universal health care, opening of stem cell research, start of energy reform, $3.4 trillion federal budget
Agree or disagree with these things, all of them were campaign promises. And hes just getting started.
|
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Don't get me wrong, I'm terribly disappointed in him on a number of avenues that you are alluding to. But to put him in the same breathe and in the same light as your 2 mongering leaders in the past 8 years doesn't do you any favors. |
i cannot believe how conflicting this statement is given Obama's record on national security and the war on terror the last 4 months. from terribly disappointed to mongering with no discernable difference in acting policy, just ideology. unbelievable.
that aside, let me clarify this entire torture debate for you before you go off the deep end claiming things that just don't jive with the historical record...until the party in complete power defines by statute that waterboarding is illegal in accordance with Common Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions, you will continue to have no political leg to stand on.
| quote: | | My sentiments are shared by the majority in our party. |
right? last time i checked Pelosi's approval rating was at 9%. NINE ING PERCENT!!!!!!
| quote: | | c. The evidence is pretty incomplete at best that Pelosi was even involved in the timeline of events that your Wingnut bloggers went bat over last week. And I'm happy to discuss those events and the information that we know about it so far if you like. And even, at worst case scenario, Pelosi, Harmann, Rockefeller, and whoever else is implicated, see "b." above. Again these 3 turds are only 1 step above Liebermann in our party's list. |
thread it. be warned though, Pelosi's and Rockafeller's original stance is part of the Congressional record. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
ok well lets talk about you for a sec. would you say you've comprimised certain principles you had 6 months ago in support of the president? and if so, you you see that as a positive? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i cannot believe how conflicting this statement is given Obama's record on national security and the war on terror the last 4 months. from terribly disappointed to mongering with no discernable difference in acting policy, just ideology. unbelievable. |
And therein lies the difference between you and I. Considering it was you who once refused to admit or even believe Bush had made any mistakes in the past, I am more than happy to admit when the leaders of my party do so. It may seem strange to you, but I can be disappointed in Obama on some issues (NSA wiretapping, for example, to which the circuit courts bitchslapped him and Bush's "state secrets" argument a week ago), while being very excited and happy as hell with him on others (children's health insurance, embryonic stem cell research, education, keeping tax cuts for the middle class, etc. etc.).
I also acknowledge the fact that his stance on national security and foreign policy has wavered since he took office, to which again I'm not terribly pleased with. However, his wavering to some degree or another cannot in any way resemble the cowboy diplomacy, torture-policy, "with us or against us" bull tirades of Cheney and Bush over the last 8 years. But if you want to make that argument, then please do so.
| quote: | | that aside, let me clarify this entire torture debate for you before you go off the deep end claiming things that just don't jive with the historical record...until the party in complete power defines by statute that waterboarding is illegal in accordance with Common Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions, you will continue to have no political leg to stand on. |
So wait, what exactly does that mean - "complete power"? The DoJ has defined waterboarding as torture. We have prosecuted people in the past, including an Army investigation on our own soldiers for waterboarding, therefore there is precedent:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6100402005.html
Not to mention retired JAGS believe "waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, it is illegal:
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/11/0...-it-is-illegal/
Why set up a straw man like a party of "complete power" has to define the statute?
| quote: | | right? last time i checked Pelosi's approval rating was at 9%. NINE ING PERCENT!!!!!! |
You just proved my point. Did you read what I said? I said that I don't like her, nor does the majority in the party. The fact that she has a 9% approval rating strengthens that point.
For once, we're in agreement.
| quote: | | thread it. be warned though, Pelosi's and Rockafeller's original stance is part of the Congressional record. |
I don't think we need to thread it into a new topic. Plenty of room to discuss it here, and it's relevant to this discussion. What is your evidence that they are directly involved and complicit? |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
ok well lets talk about you for a sec. would you say you've comprimised certain principles you had 6 months ago in support of the president? and if so, you you see that as a positive? |
lol I'll answer those type of questions from you when you open up about your feelings for Bush's failures
you can start here
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=496814
EDIT:
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And therein lies the difference between you and I. Considering it was you who once refused to admit or even believe Bush had made any mistakes in the past, I am more than happy to admit when the leaders of my party do so. It may seem strange to you, but I can be disappointed in Obama on some issues (NSA wiretapping, for example, to which the circuit courts bitchslapped him and Bush's "state secrets" argument a week ago), while being very excited and happy as hell with him on others (children's health insurance, embryonic stem cell research, education, keeping tax cuts for the middle class, etc. etc.).
|
bingo |
|
|
| Krypton |
| It's pretty obvious the previous administration approved torture against both domestic AND international law, and they deserve to be prosecuted for it. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And therein lies the difference between you and I. Considering it was you who once refused to admit or even believe Bush had made any mistakes in the past, I am more than happy to admit when the leaders of my party do so. It may seem strange to you, but I can be disappointed in Obama on some issues (NSA wiretapping, for example, to which the circuit courts bitchslapped him and Bush's "state secrets" argument a week ago), while being very excited and happy as hell with him on others (children's health insurance, embryonic stem cell research, education, keeping tax cuts for the middle class, etc. etc.). |
ok fine. but given your vitriol in the past about wiretapping and such it seems like a deliberate gloss-over.
| quote: | | So wait, what exactly does that mean - "complete power"? |
its a simple proposition. the Democrats are in complete power now. why haven't they explicitly defined, by statute, that waterboarding is torture in accordance with CA(3) of Geneva? i know why. do you know why?
| quote: | | The DoJ has defined waterboarding as torture. |
no. don't play dumb Opus. Eric Holder considers waterboarding torture. yes, he is the head of the DoJ but there is a big difference between a lawer taking an opinioned position and statute defining something as illegal. got it?
| quote: | | We have prosecuted people in the past, including an Army investigation on our own soldiers for waterboarding, therefore there is precedent: |
whatever that is, 1) thats probably a violation of the UCMJ carrying with it completely different set of legal standards. 2) apparently led to only an investigation, not a prosecution, which obviously lends NOTHING to the notion of it being illegal
| quote: | Not to mention retired JAGS believe "waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, it is illegal:
|
again, i'm not sure if understand this but there is a difference between a lawyers expressing their opinion and a defining statute.
...btw does any of that sound familiar ^^^^
| quote: | | You just proved my point. Did you read what I said? I said that I don't like her, nor does the majority in the party. The fact that she has a 9% approval rating strengthens that point. |
i was just remarking. it wasnt really directed at you |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| Wait a second. Are you actually defending waterboarding? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
Wait a second. Are you actually defending waterboarding? |
not here. but i am defending it's legal ambiguity as it was practiced in the 2 years after 9/11.
as far as any known records the procedure was given up after Khalid Sheik Mohammed in the spring of 2003. afaik no one is disputing that. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
ok fine. but given your vitriol in the past about wiretapping and such it seems like a deliberate gloss-over. |
A gloss-over to hold different opinions on different subjects involving the same Administration? Okay then.
| quote: | | its a simple proposition. the Democrats are in complete power now. why haven't they explicitly defined, by statute, that waterboarding is torture in accordance with CA(3) of Geneva? i know why. do you know why? |
Well now I'm really in suspense. My thoughts are that given the current stance of this Administration, i.e. signing an Executive Order that bans all military and CIA personnel from using waterboarding for interrogation:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITIC...interrogations/
It becomes a moot point for Congress to come in and make it official, so to speak.
| quote: | | no. don't play dumb Opus. Eric Holder considers waterboarding torture. yes, he is the head of the DoJ but there is a big difference between a lawer taking an opinioned position and statute defining something as illegal. got it? |
That's not merely a lawyer, that's the AG, the head of the DoJ. And his opinion certainly has merit as to the stance of the DoJ.
Who's playing dumb here?
| quote: | | whatever that is, 1) thats probably a violation of the UCMJ carrying with it completely different set of legal standards. 2) apparently led to only an investigation, not a prosecution, which obviously lends NOTHING to the notion of it being illegal |
Right, that must be why the soldier in Vietnam was court marshaled and dishonorably discharged then:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investiga...tory?id=1356870
And why we gave that man in WWII 15 years of hard labor.
It must also be why Reagan's DoJ convicted a Texas Sheriff of waterboarding someone too back in 1983:
http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/85...-prisoners.html
Different set of rules back then in our DoJ too, right?
| quote: | | again, i'm not sure if understand this but there is a difference between a lawyers expressing their opinion and a defining statute. |
No need, given the historical record of events I transcribed combined with Obama's Executive order banning it.
| quote: | | ...btw does any of that sound familiar ^^^^ |
?
| quote: | | i was just remarking. it wasnt really directed at you |
Fair enough.
By the way, here's a thought experiment - would gentle raping be considered torture?
Added in Edit: Gosh, it sure is strange how the CIA destroyed all their tapes like that, ain't it?:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E0DA1E31F93BA35751C1A9619C8B63
Can't imagine why they'd do that....... |
|
|
|
|
