Republicans

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

You cannot think of ONE thing Bush 43 did? I have 118 questionable acts, and 30 impeachable ones?

Torture is a war crime when committed in WWII, and waterboarding was the crime. Starting a war deliberately. Bush 43 broke the FISA law with wiretapping, and this NASA thing is OUTRAGEOUS?

I'm not going to loose any sleep over some foreign terrorist being waterboarded. And I've already talked about bush starting the Iraqi war. How did Bush break the FISA law? The wiretapping was discontinued January 2007 and the FISA law went into effect in June 2008?
Not just the Nasa thing, but BO's entire time in office is outrageous. But the Nasa thing is certainly more of a concern than lying about a blowjob.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

If you can impeach and convict Clinton & Obama, but not Bush 43 you are blinded by party loyalty and ideology. Are you also for a coup to throw out leaders you disagree with?

Pay attention. I never said Clinton should have been impeached. I wrote this a week ago.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You can't take down the president over a blowjob. This wasn't about Clinton lying under oath. It was the republicans trying to tarnish Clinton for policies they didn't like. So rather than attacking Clinton's policies they go for the cheap shot of impeaching him for lying about a blowjob. I think they knew they weren't going to actually get him out of office over this, so the whole thing was a useless distraction when the country had more important things to worry about. The best way to handle it wasn't out in the open. It should have been taken care of maturely and out of the public eye. Clinton knew he was caught, the republicans knew they had this over him. Meet in private and reach a deal and let it blow over.

Now tell me about being blinded by party ideology again?

Originally Posted by Talvenada

If everyone had a narrow view like yours, we would be better off with a one-party system.

Can you elaborate about my narrow view? I stick up for some things Bush does, but not all. I stick up for Clinton, and constantly bash BO. But you just see it as me blindly supporting republicans and trashing democrats. Who has the narrow view?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm not going to loose any sleep over some foreign terrorist being waterboarded. And I've already talked about bush starting the Iraqi war. How did Bush break the FISA law? The wiretapping was discontinued January 2007 and the FISA law went into effect in June 2008?




Now tell me about being blinded by party ideology again?

Can you elaborate about my narrow view? I stick up for some things Bush does, but not all. I stick up for Clinton, and constantly bash BO. But you just see it as me blindly supporting republicans and trashing democrats. Who has the narrow view?

TRACY:

The FISA law was put into effect because of Nixon's misuse of power; the FISA law you're talking about was put into effect to protect Bush's violations AFTER THE FACT. It's a bogus law, like John Yoo's legal mumbo-jumbo that legalized waterboarding AFTER THE FACT, which America has prosecuted as a violation of The Geneva Convention. Bush violated that law too. AFTER THE FACT also applies to wiretapping violations to protect Bush and phone companies.

If Obama did that, Conse 'Pubs would push for WAR CRIMES to win the election of '08. The point is that laws and treaties cannot be violated or respected based on the situation. There are ways to legally do what Bush wanted, but he didn't want a 95% chance of getting it the right way--or having someone else besides him having final say, like The SC. That's what a DICTATOR does, dude. Waterboarding is torture if done against us, but not when we do it, right? We're all good guys, and they are all worst of the worst, right. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
Bush violated the FISA laws that were in effect from before RR, and violated The Geneva Convention.

It's rule of law, and not rule of law that can be changed on the fly for Conse 'Pubs ONLY!! That's NARROW!!


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

It's a bogus law, like John Yoo's legal mumbo-jumbo that legalized waterboarding AFTER THE FACT, which America has prosecuted as a violation of The Geneva Convention. Bush violated that law too.
...

Waterboarding is torture if done against us, but not when we do it, right? We're all good guys, and they are all worst of the worst, right. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
Bush violated the FISA laws that were in effect from before RR, and violated The Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by The Geneva Convention Article 4 regarding status of who may be protected under The Geneva Convention as a POW(prisoner of war)

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

As terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

As terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

ANGRY:

I said TORTURE, which is NOT permitted, dude. Torture is waterboarding, and that is NOT permitted under any circumstances.

No rights doesn't mean you can do anything you want up to and including death.


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

I said TORTURE, which is NOT permitted, dude. Torture is waterboarding, and that is NOT permitted under any circumstances.

No rights doesn't mean you can do anything you want up to and including death.


TAL

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

ANGRY:

So, we can do anything we want to them, including kill them?

Are there any things we cannot do?


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

So, we can do anything we want to them, including kill them?

Are there any things we cannot do?

How do you go from waterboarding is ok to killing them is ok? Are you not able to grasp varying degrees of concepts or can you only handle black and white?

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

Waterboarding is international described as torture.
The US has prosecuted water torture as war crime many times in history, what should Waterboarding exclude from this?

In the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court of the United States decides that prisoners of terror can?t be treated as Unlawful Combatant.
So they fall under the Laws of War or Public International Law, and forbid torture.

It is not right to punish someone who infracted the law (terrorism) with lawless methods. That is an antinomy itself.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Tread

Waterboarding is international described as torture.
The US has prosecuted water torture as war crime many times in history, what should Waterboarding exclude from this?

In the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court of the United States decides that prisoners of terror can?t be treated as Unlawful Combatant.
So they fall under the Laws of War or Public International Law, and forbid torture.

It is not right to punish someone who infracted the law (terrorism) with lawless methods. That is an antinomy itself.

Simulating drowing is not torture; actually carrying through with trying to drown a person would be.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: 1tor?ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

This is how the "noble Arabs" operate: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2torture1.html

Comparing waterboarding to what they do is like comparing a pea shooter to a 155mm howitzer. Is this method uncomfortable? Yes. Does simulated drowning physically or mentally debilitate someone compared to beatings or other barbaristic actions? No.

I think people fail to recognize that the people who get waterboarded are not your average, run-of-the-mill citizen who has been mistakenly detained. They are die-hard fanatics who would kill innocent people in a heartbeat and with a smile on their face.

When you have commandos abduct you in the middle of the night, chances are high that you did something to deserve it.

[jimnaseum]

I'm not sure what President Dwight David Eisenhower would have made of Obama, but he would have busted Bush and Cheney down to buck privates in about 2 weeks. It wasn't til Nixon that you had a President you couldn't trust. We came out of WWII smelling like a rose, American products were the best back then. Even Germany and Japan respected us. Things sure have changed.