sexual_chocolate Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Wake up friend……soon it will be you. come on man, they don't torture their own kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 congress has been just as responsible for this erosion as bush etal. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Yeah, but you'll still label calling Rush some bad names Stalinism. ...and why should it be up to our next president to put a stop to it? Why shouldn't Bush do it? Assuming this is actually going on as you claim, he should stop it. If he doesn't then I favor oversight on the matter - special investigation, whatever. But all I ever hear about in a serious context is the waterboarding claim. It seems there is evidence we actually do that, it is "sanctioned", and they have something there. The other examples cited don't seem to carry much weight as legitimate, otherwise they'd be what's referenced all the time, not waterboarding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 If he doesn't then I favor oversight on the matter - special investigation, whatever. Where would you start? Who would lead the oversight committee? Who would be the one to tell the President his “executive privilege” is bullshit? Don’t you get it? The current president is above the law. This is a monarchy…….self appointed. How do you have oversight on president who tells the committee to fuck off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Actually, psychological torture can do much more severe and longer lasting damage to an individual than many 'classic' forms of physical torture. The brain is an organ that can be damaged, just like any other, only the brain can be severely damaged by non-physically traumatic stimuli, unlike other organs. I don't want to get off track here, but I just want to mention that other organs can also suffer from non-physically traumatic stimuli. Mainly stress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 If he doesn't then I favor oversight on the matter - special investigation, whatever. Where would you start? Who would lead the oversight committee? Who would be the one to tell the President his “executive privilege” is bullshit? Don’t you get it? The current president is above the law. This is a monarchy…….self appointed. How do you have oversight on president who tells the committee to fuck off? If that's true, then let the next president take care of the issue, roll back these "abuses" - clearly and decisively as a part of their agenda. Somehow, I don't see this happening - I don't hear it coming from the Dems, that's for sure. So, I must conclude that this matter is more politically-motivated than fact-based, or that the Dems want to torture too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I learned a new word today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I learned a new word today. what word is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 hagiographic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 The real problem is they recently reauthorized rendition and foreign CIA prisons which, in theory, had been previously just been shutdown. The only real reason for this is to go back to 'outsourcing' torture to foreign governments because of all the renewed scrutiny at home. It's just farcical to say "the United States doesn't torture" when we pay others to do it for us. For god's sake, aren't these the same folks who got their panties in a bind over "I didn't have sex with that woman." How is one statement any different from the other beyond the fine line between pleasure and pain? One of the more conspicuously overlooked parts of this whole fiasco has been the CIA contracts with Syria - that's right, SYRIA - relative to rendition and torture. Just how is it that we hire a country we officially designate as 'supporting terrorism' and publically call 'evil' to torture our prisoners? I mean, how does that get rationalized in the minds of this administration given it's been at their direction. It's a glaring sign of the systemic hypocrisy of the administration's private actions in the face of their public positions and statements. And doesn't contracting with Evil make you just as evil? These folks are a mystery to me, but fonts of real conservative values they are not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I don't hear it coming from the Dems, that's for sure. Nor does anyone…….we are still waiting for them to grow spines……. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 All men are a mystery to me. I do not understand their actions and cannot understand their motivations. Most of this is beyond comprehension to a normal person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 The real problem is they recently reauthorized rendition and foreign CIA prisons which, in theory, had been previously just been shutdown. The only real reason for this is to go back to 'outsourcing' torture to foreign governments because of all the renewed scrutiny at home. So, we did this before, then. Nothing new - as in Bush didn't create it? And when were they "shut down"? 4 years in the Clinton presidency? Let's here the whole story, and quit pretending Bush is the worsest, evilist president ever, and has committed all these unprecedented acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Torture is a side show to war--just like rape and pillage. To pretend that "we" don't engage in torture is a blatent lie easily seen through by anyone who has ever read a history book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Torture is a side show to war--just like rape and pillage. To pretend that "we" don't engage in torture is a blatent lie easily seen through by anyone who has ever read a history book. No, Bush invented torture. Prior to this presidency it was never undertaken on this scale and severity. Like everything else he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 That means Clinton invented the blow job. Wonder why he's not more popular? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 It happening is one thing, and largley unavoidable given all stripes of men are sent to war - but that's not the same as our government officially embracing, sanctioning, and encouraging it's use. It's only a matter of time before someone nabs one of our troops and youtubes a video of them being subjected to exactly these techniques just to rub our faces in our own dirt, shit, and holes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 That means Clinton invented the blow job. Wonder why he's not more popular? Lewinsky invented it; that's enough to make anyone go flaccid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 It happening is one thing, and largley unavoidable given all stripes of men are sent to war - but that's not the same as our government officially embracing, sanctioning, and encouraging it's use. It's only a matter of time before someone nabs one of our troops and youtubes a video of them being subjected to exactly these techniques just to rub our faces in our own dirt, shit, and holes... You claimed the problem was torture by proxy, and that we reopened camps. That means we had these camps previously, and SANCTIONED the torture that took place there. Make up your mind already - is this new (sanctioned torture by proxy) or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noliquidity Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Nobels and nasty letters from Congress are irrelevant to this conversation. Torture on the otherhand is quite on topic. The issue is, however, do you believe the Constitution of the United States grants the President the right to "supersede the laws written by Congress"? If so, exactly what limits exist on Executive power once you breach that constitutional bulwark? I can find none and as a result believe the threat and spector of an imperial Executive is no fantasy, but rather an all-to-real constitutional malignancy just waiting for an opportunity. In fact, the operating styles of both this administration and Putin's seem to be converging. Scary business as far as I'm concerned. I realize the topic has shifted but what the hell. Please ignore grammar and spelling I think we need to ask ourselves why there has been such an extrordinary shift in the balance of powers within OUR government. Is it for political reasons, is it to prepare for a potential terrorist attack, is it to prepare for potential rapid shift in the climate and large numbers of Katrina like events, is it to prepare for a profound economic downturn caused by a combined property/debt/dollar meltdown? All of those senarios lead to chaos within a social system. Large systems rarely tolerate large changes rapidly. With the Patriot Act,domestic spying, erosion of of habeus corpus, repeal of the Posse Comitatus act,private security firms now contracting with FEMA,concentration of information dispersal controlled by a few large corps(and I'm talking about the mass outlets where everyday Joes get their news), etc.etc etc., we essential have a very efficient infrastructue put in place that can be triggered at will by the executive branch. The president only needs to declare an emergency. The definition of "emergency", by the way, was recently greatly broadened by executive order. I seriously doudt this will be reversed by the next administration and Congress. Hopefully I'm wrong. Joesph nailed it by pointing out that this isn't a patrisan issue. We are all in the same boat. Its OUR constitution. This isnt the first time its been eroded, and each time we've looked back as a country and asked "How did we let that happen?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 and quit pretending Bush is the worsest, evilist president ever, Who is pretending? I know I am not…..nor is his approval rating….. I suppose you can pretend that he is a good president…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 Look, leaders in our modern world are subjected to enormous stress on a daily basis while their finger is on the nuclear trigger - around our house we don't give a rat's ass who's giving the Executive blowjobs so long as someone is. We'd be all for an intern or seasoned professional being hired exclusively for this position. It could be a revered position on the Whitehouse staff; sort of how some great chef's stay on from president to president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 and quit pretending Bush is the worsest, evilist president ever, Who is pretending? I know I am not…..nor is his approval rating….. I suppose you can pretend that he is a good president…… pay attention, Boner, he is MEDIOCRE. Like you. Actually you're a few sigma's below the mean on any bell-curve. carry-on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 No, not Clinton. JH is referring to the short period of time when congress acted up and told Bushco not to torture, and the secret prisons thing got all the world in such a dither. At that time Bushco coughed up a bunch of guys that were previously disappeared and dumped them in Guantanamo. So at that time Bushco appeared to comply, but it has now come out that they have continued doing this stuff in secret (it's been in the news recently, in the last month). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 That means Clinton invented the blow job. Wonder why he's not more popular? Lewinsky invented it; that's enough to make anyone go flaccid What? You don’t like fat chicks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.