Sigh, more lies about abuses

The determinative factor is that Obama has no interest in pursuing a hypocritical prosecution of Bush for trying to save American lives.

Oralloy wrote:

The determinative factor is that Obama has no interest in pursuing a hypocritical prosecution of Bush for trying to save American lives.

Who said anything about Bush? There are dozens or hundreds of people who signed off on this.

You believe what you want, and just try and keep the bile down after more and more people get tried and convicted. You might be pissed, but you'll do nothing; for in your heart you know that 'trying to save lives' is no excuse for breaking the law at all. It's a pathetic dodge for people who couldn't be bothered to follow the rules.

Cycloptichorn

Snort.


So...if anyone in the whole world committed a crime or misdemaenour, this lets American administrations off th ehook for any illegal act they perform?

I assume this works both ways:

You guys illegally invade a country and kill untold thousands of its citizens. This means that anyone whyo invaded you has no moral case to answer, by your apparent logic (logic not being a strong point of yours, so your actual argument is not clearly formulated.)

You guys illegally detain and torture ...I presume this means you are happy to have this done to you?

You assassinate or attempt to assassinate or support assassination of other country's leaders...i assume you have no objection to others doing this to you?

Clinton had sex...this somehow makes murder, torture, breaking your own laws, breaking international treaties etc fine?

Ok...I guess there is no law and no morality that we need to be concerned about, then.

What a mindless, amoral cretin you are.

Do YOU wish to actually discuss the article, McG? I doubt it.

If you don't, then leave the thread.

No defence?


Mindless and amoral cretin you are.

Changing your name?

Of course, that is what Oralloy already means to anyone cleverer and more ethical than the dumbest US redneck cretin.


Faugh.

You disgust me.

No, some people just tire of those who pervert what the USA is supposed to be about.

Dlowan was right on the mark. You are an amoral and mindless cretin, as is Brandon, McG, Woiyo, ... .

I should note the fact that there is more logic in my little toe than you'll ever possess.

Torture is illegal, but there is nothing illegal about us detaining captured enemy soldiers.

As for "having it done to us", it has always been done to American soldiers, and no one ever does anything about it. Nothing new there.

(Perhaps if the people who are upset over us torturing people would also have gotten upset when our guys were tortured, their views would actually matter now.)

I have no problem with Bush breaking the law to save American lives.

dlowan wrote:

No defence?


Mindless and amoral cretin you are.

Changing your name?

Of course, that is what Oralloy already means to anyone cleverer and more ethical than the dumbest US redneck cretin.


Faugh.

You disgust me.

You're being pretty childish. That is unusual for you.

Oh well.


If childish is expressing disgust at your irrationality, and immoral position, then I am happy to embrace childish. Of course, in mislabelling such a position, you continue the great tradition of debasement of language with weasel words.

Like:
We do not torture" meaning "we torture all right".

"We invaded to bring democracy" meaning "we invaded out of some misbegotten desire for revenge and because we felt like it while we ruthlesssly suppressed evidence from our own experts that the premise was a manipulated lie".


Quite soviet, actually...or Orwellian.

Interesting fantasy.

Not likely Obama will play along though.

Senator Whitehouse says that he intends to spend the next several years investigating
the lies and abuses of the Bush administration - even if Obama doesn't want to.

Oralloy wrote:

I should note the fact that there is more logic in my little toe than you'll ever possess.

Based on your argument here, you must be thinking with your toes.

Oralloy wrote:

Torture is illegal, but there is nothing illegal about us detaining captured enemy soldiers.

Detaining them wasn't the problem.

It was torturing them after they were detained that was the problem.

The courts have said as much.

I thought you just said you were arguing from logic.

Oralloy wrote:

As for "having it done to us", it has always been done to American soldiers, and no one ever does anything about it. Nothing new there.

(Perhaps if the people who are upset over us torturing people would also have gotten upset when our guys were tortured, their views would actually matter now.)

Please cite those times you think the people upset about us torturing weren't upset about our guys being tortured.

Your argument is BS oralloy.

It is nothing but a logical fallacy.

You make assumptions and then pretend your assumptions are true.

"Oralloy" wrote:

I have no problem with Bush breaking the law to save American lives.

There lies the problem. You think Bush is above the law.

You think the end justifies the means.

You seem to have no respect for the US or its constitution.

oralloy wrote:

You're being pretty childish. That is unusual for you.

Oh well.

If childish is expressing disgust at your irrationality, and immoral position, then I am happy to embrace childish.

Oralloy wrote:

Interesting fantasy.

Not likely Obama will play along though.

He doesn't have to. We have a House and Senate chock full of Dems who can get the ball rolling - and will.

Senator Whitehouse says that he intends to spend the next several years investigating the lies and abuses of the Bush administration - even if Obama doesn't want to.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/13/whitehouse-investigate-bush/

Face it - you can't ignore the law.

You can't ignore the law in the name of trying to 'save lives' or any other excuse.

Nobody is above the law;

and your former leaders are going to find this out the hard way.