2
   

Bush Advisor : President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:48 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon's being "demonized" for posting incomprehensible answers to questions.

No. Give an example or withdraw the allegation.


Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
A law against torturing children?

He's referring to a situation which is unchanged from the entirety of American history, so how does that make George Bush a demon?


I think that qualifies as incomprehensible.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:50 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon's being "demonized" for posting incomprehensible answers to questions.

No. Give an example or withdraw the allegation.


Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
A law against torturing children?

He's referring to a situation which is unchanged from the entirety of American history, so how does that make George Bush a demon?


I think that qualifies as incomprehensible.

Not for anyone possessing an IQ within a couple of standard deviations of normal.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:52 am
As soon as someone else steps forward and says they understand what you were trying to say, and can translate it, I'll withdraw the allegation. Until then, keep your thinly veiled insults to yourself.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:53 am
FreeDuck wrote:
As soon as someone else steps forward and says they understand what you were trying to say, and can translate it, I'll withdraw the allegation. Until then, keep your thinly veiled insults to yourself.

It wasn't veiled at all.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:54 am
In that case have a look at the TOS.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:57 am
FreeDuck wrote:
In that case have a look at the TOS.

If you feel that it was a violation, report it. You'll probably succeed since I'm a conservative and the TOS here are simply a tool for giving liberals a boost.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:58 am
Snore.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:59 am
No, Brandon, you didn't "just say" that . . . you specifically said that there are fundatmentalist Islamic (your capitalization, not mine) societies who wish to destroy western culture. You do not define western culture. You do not define fundamentalist islamic societies. In short, you rant without knowing what the hell you're talking about.

After the collapse of the communist regime in Afghanistan and the withdrawl of the Soviet Union's army, the nation descended into civil war. The Taliban, a student group with a "fundamentalist" agenda had seized the majority of the heavy, armored, self-propelled artillery, and most of the amored personnel carriers left from the former communist regime. On that basis, they were able to drive their opponents out of the Pathan regions, and to push the Uzbek minority paramilitary into the northeast portion of the country. Under their extremist regime, the climate was created in which al Qaeda thrived--after it had been driven from the Sudan by pressure from the Clinton administration. The eventual result was that al Qaeda planned and carried out the September 11th attacks from what they took to be the safe haven of Afghanistan. The majority of the world reacted to that event with horror, and the United States was widely supported, and abetted by military contingents from other nations, in the invasion of Afghanistan, and the deposition of the Taliban regime.

However--the only other Islamic state in existence is that in Iran. No one has made any credible charges that they were involved in September 11th, although the September 11th Commission report does clearly state that the hijacker/bombers passed through Iran with government knowledge and consent. However, the Shrub has not attacked them--although they have oil, they have nowhere near as much as Iraq (second largest proven reserves in the world), and, unlike Iraq, they have a competent military, and a nightmare terrain if we contemplated invasion.

Iraq had a secular state, and in fact oppressed, tortured and muredered Wahabbis, the very sect of which bin Laden and the leadership of al Qaeda are all members. By no stretch of the imagination can Iraq have been described as a "fundamentalist islamic society."

In open, free and fair elections, the people of Algeria elected a fundamentalist Muslim regime--the Army, far too fond of their western luxuries and contacts to want to give them up, perpetrated a coup d'etat, and have ruled that nation ever since.

Egypt, which rebelled agains their King, a western puppet, in 1952. The rebellion was lead by General Mohammed Nabuib, and his chief lieutenants were Gamal Abd al Nassar, Anwar Sadat and Hosne Mubarak. Naguib, however, was Sudanese, and although respected all his life, an allowed to live privately in luxury in Egypt, he was gently deposed by Nassar, who asserted that Egyptians must rule Egypt. Egypt is the most populous Arabic-speaking nation in the world. As would be expected, there is a strong Wahabbi element there, and it is the home of a radical shi'ite sect that goes back more than a thousand years, the Fatamids. Egypt would be a prime candidate for a fundamentalist islamic society, were it not for Nassar, Sadat and Mubarak keeping a lid on such activism, because they, just as was the case in the Young Officers movement which also arose in Syria and Iraq, are too fond of their western luxuries and contacts to give them up. The Naguib cabal has ruled Egypt for more than fifty years.

You don't know what the Hell you're talking about when it comes to these nations and the Muslim world in general. But that never stops you from posting utter bullshit because you are motivated by your partisan admiration for the Shrub, and will peddle any tripe to attempt to justify his self-serving, venal policies.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:01 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bush has never supported torture.

Up you consistently crack me, Brandon.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:05 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bush has never supported torture.

Up you consistently crack me, Brandon.

Give me just one citation or admit that you can't.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:06 am
Setanta wrote:
No, Brandon, you didn't "just say" that . . . you specifically said that there are fundatmentalist Islamic (your capitalization, not mine) societies who wish to destroy western culture. You do not define western culture. You do not define fundamentalist islamic societies.

I don't define "the" either. This is a widely known and understood truth in the public domain. Tell you what. I'll give an example. Al Qaeda is trying to either destroy the US or make it Islamic.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:34 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bush has never supported torture.

Up you consistently crack me, Brandon.

Give me just one citation or admit that you can't.

Just one?
    Q Let me ask one other question. Why does the President oppose Senator McCain's legislation to establish standards for interrogation of terrorists? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are already laws on the books, and so I think part of this, if you go back and look at the statement of administration policy that we put out, it would be unnecessary and duplicative. And it would limit the President's ability as Commander-in-Chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism. Q And will the President veto Senator McCain's legislation? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we put out the statement of administration policy, which stated our concerns about that and stated -- let me specifically refer you to it -- our views when it came to if those amendments were part of the final legislation. It said, if it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto, I believe.

White House press briefing, Oct. 5, 2005. And then there's this: Cheney Seeks Torture Exemption. And who can forget this memo from Alberto Gonzalez?:
    "The nature of [a "war" against terrorism] places a high premium on ...factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors ... and the need to try terrorists for war crimes... [t]his new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners...
But you only asked for one citation, so I'll stop here before I bore you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:44 am
Neither of those citations demonstrate Bush's willingness to support torture.

Apparently our definitions of torture differ and at no time has Bush condoned what I accept as the definition of torture. I have explained my definition previously and have no desire to do so again, so don't ask.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:44 am
Since when was your definition the standard?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:45 am
Is there a standard? It certainly is not the one the left uses.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:47 am
Everything is partisan to you. What standard are you willing to apply, the administrations new revised determination of what constitutes torture?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:52 am
Convention against Torture
This convention bans torture under all circumstances and establishes the UN Committee against Torture. In particular, it defines torture, requires states to take effective legal and other measures to prevent torture, declares that no state of emergency, other external threats, nor orders from a superior officer or authority may be invoked to justify torture. It forbids countries to return a refugee to his country if there is reason to believe he/she will be tortured, and requires host countries to consider the human rights record of the person's native country in making this decision.
The CAT requires states to make torture illegal and provide appropriate punishment for those who commit torture. It requires states to assert jurisdiction when torture is committed within their jurisdiction, either investigate and prosecute themselves, or upon proper request extradite suspects to face trial before another competent court. It also requires states to cooperate with any civil proceedings against accused torturers.

Each state is obliged to provide training to law enforcement and military on torture prevention, keep its interrogation methods under review, and promptly investigate any allegations that its officials have committed torture in the course of their official duties. It must ensure that individuals who allege that someone has committed torture against them are permitted to make and official complaint and have it investigated, and, if the complaint is proven, receive compensation, including full medical treatment and payments to survivors if the victim dies as a result of torture.. It forbids states to admit into evidence during a trial any confession or statement made during or as a result of torture. It also forbids activities which do not rise to the level of torture, but which constitute cruel or degrading treatment.
source
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:54 am
McG

Regardless of what you believe is the President's intention or regardless of whether you believe his words, do you grasp that the consequences of both Yoo's reasoning and of Bush's signing statement on the McCain bill DO grant the President the legal right to crush a kid's nuts?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:54 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Everything is partisan to you. What standard are you willing to apply, the administrations new revised determination of what constitutes torture?

They actually made a determination of what constitutes torture? Last I heard they were unwilling to discuss particular methods, which I took to mean "'torture' is always at least a little more severe than what we're currently doing."
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:59 am
This whole thing reminds me of the classic psych study:

A subject is instructed to press a button which will induce an electric shock in another subject. The are continually instructed to increase the strength of the shock. They continue to do so, even when screaming is heard from the other subject, just because an authority figure tells them to do so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/21/2019 at 02:45:23